One might as well say that this rock does not exist (and I think that is a straightforward reading of the Perfection of Wisdom sutras). The rock is just a set of atoms that happens to be temporarily assembled together creating the illusion of a single thing. But having read Korzybski before the Buddhist scriptures, I just shrug “oh, yes, consciousness of abstraction”, and dismiss the emptiness doctrine as a deepity. You wouldn’t catch HPMoR!Harry reciting the Heart Sutra. Instead, he uses what is true in that idea to invent Partial Transfiguration.
I probably would have agreed with you 2 weeks ago, but I think there’s a bit more to it.
There’s a pretty drastic difference between a rock and a human mind. Rocks don’t appear to change just by looking at them. Thoughts do. For most purposes, your model of a rock can get away with focusing only on its contrast to its surroundings; of the concept of rockiness; like human intellects are predisposed to do.
Whether the rock is a consistent whole or not, as long as it differs from non-rocks in your perception, it’s still a rock. You, however, are inside your consciousness. You can’t really contrast anything from the workings of your mind, because it’s all you ever see. You can only contrast one aspect of your mind from another, which means that the model you have of yourself inside your mind as being more inside your mind than your model of other things inside your mind, is severely flawed.
I believe that this particular flaw is chiefly responsible for a good deal, if not all, of human suffering, as well as ambition. I don’t know if that belief can be used towards anything as categorically practical as transfiguration, but it certainly is useful for solving ontological and existential crises and improving happiness and peace of mind.
Also, really, the rock doesn’t exist, just the concept of one. Anyone who says that the image of a rock in your mind doesn’t describe the counterintuitive patters that correlate to it accurately enough for them to feel comfortable with is technically right. And it’s probably best not look expressly for flaws in ancient wisdom so as to discount the message. it’s outdated, it’s going to be wrong. What you should do instead is take the arguments presented, try to see the speakers point of view, and interpret the words in the most plausible way possible and look for serious challenges to your beliefs so that you actually get more out of it then just feeling superior to a bunch of dead guys.
There’s a pretty drastic difference between a rock and a human mind. Rocks don’t appear to change just by looking at them. Thoughts do.
Timescale and proximity.
You can’t really contrast anything from the workings of your mind, because it’s all you ever see.
I don’t see the difficulty. I contrast how I feel when I first wake up in the morning (half dead) and how I feel half an hour later (alive). I contrast myself before and after a glass of beer. When I drive a car, I notice if I am making errors of judgement. While I am sure I am not perfect at seeing my own flaws, to the extent that I do, it’s a routine sort of thing, not a revelation.
I believe that this particular flaw is chiefly responsible for a good deal, if not all, of human suffering, as well as ambition. I don’t know if that belief can be used towards anything as categorically practical as transfiguration, but it certainly is useful for solving ontological and existential crises and improving happiness and peace of mind.
So the Buddhists say, but I’ve done a fair amount of meditation and never noticed any connection between contemplating my interior life and the presence or absence of suffering. Neither has the experience thrown up so much as a speedbump, never mind a serious challenge to anything. Wow, maybe I’m naturally enlightened already! Except I wouldn’t say my life manifested any evidence of that.
I probably would have agreed with you 2 weeks ago, but I think there’s a bit more to it.
There’s a pretty drastic difference between a rock and a human mind. Rocks don’t appear to change just by looking at them. Thoughts do. For most purposes, your model of a rock can get away with focusing only on its contrast to its surroundings; of the concept of rockiness; like human intellects are predisposed to do.
Whether the rock is a consistent whole or not, as long as it differs from non-rocks in your perception, it’s still a rock. You, however, are inside your consciousness. You can’t really contrast anything from the workings of your mind, because it’s all you ever see. You can only contrast one aspect of your mind from another, which means that the model you have of yourself inside your mind as being more inside your mind than your model of other things inside your mind, is severely flawed.
I believe that this particular flaw is chiefly responsible for a good deal, if not all, of human suffering, as well as ambition. I don’t know if that belief can be used towards anything as categorically practical as transfiguration, but it certainly is useful for solving ontological and existential crises and improving happiness and peace of mind.
Also, really, the rock doesn’t exist, just the concept of one. Anyone who says that the image of a rock in your mind doesn’t describe the counterintuitive patters that correlate to it accurately enough for them to feel comfortable with is technically right. And it’s probably best not look expressly for flaws in ancient wisdom so as to discount the message. it’s outdated, it’s going to be wrong. What you should do instead is take the arguments presented, try to see the speakers point of view, and interpret the words in the most plausible way possible and look for serious challenges to your beliefs so that you actually get more out of it then just feeling superior to a bunch of dead guys.
Timescale and proximity.
I don’t see the difficulty. I contrast how I feel when I first wake up in the morning (half dead) and how I feel half an hour later (alive). I contrast myself before and after a glass of beer. When I drive a car, I notice if I am making errors of judgement. While I am sure I am not perfect at seeing my own flaws, to the extent that I do, it’s a routine sort of thing, not a revelation.
So the Buddhists say, but I’ve done a fair amount of meditation and never noticed any connection between contemplating my interior life and the presence or absence of suffering. Neither has the experience thrown up so much as a speedbump, never mind a serious challenge to anything. Wow, maybe I’m naturally enlightened already! Except I wouldn’t say my life manifested any evidence of that.