2. We tend to be a narrative people because the narrative of our lives defines the context in which we experience things as well as the facts of any particular situation. There is my history which affects how I deal with people generally, my history with you, and the history of how men in America interacted with each other over the past however many years. All of these things, whether we like it or not, tend to guide both our interpretation of reality and the way we approach such interactions.
3. I am unsure of whether to cry foul regarding your observations on subjectivity/objectivity because I am unsure of whether you are talking about subject and object ala say art or subjectivity and objectivity as it would regard say journalism.
If you mean the former then in a way you answer your own question. Subject and object are inseparable in the mind of the spectator as demonstrated by the Buddhist writer getting stoned off his ass. Because our perceptions of reality are fickle and subject to our extremely limited abilities of sense (You'll see what I mean after you try observing molecules or dodging cancer causing microwave rays for yourself) there is little point in attempting to alter them.
Instead, in so far as Buddhism is perhaps overly concerned with feelings, the Monk is bemused because, in his opinion, changing one's perception of reality, (Or, as more nihilistic Buddhists assert, the circumstances that compose reality itself) is inferior to changing how you feel about reality.
I suppose it's a perfectly valid way of approaching life, but it isn't for me, yo.
I guess, looking back, that I wrote this too fast. I just wrote it in about 10 minutes before I left town. "Escapist," was the wrong word there. "Returnist," would have been a better word (to coin). Trying to come back to the world in an enjoyable way, rather than trying to get away from it.
Concepts are important for interpreting the world, of course. I'm just wondering about unnecessary ones. I think this was originally written in response to some thoughts about people's religious views and personal identities that can lead to foolish perspectives on life. You're right about culture and narrative though in that sense.
Well, I meant (in terms of subjectivity and objectivity) that there is an unnecessary binary belief that things are either coming from me or from the world and that the two are separate and distinct, rather than the same (or connected). I'm not sure what you mean by art or journalism in this case. For instance, the word in Sanskrit for birth and death is birth-and-death. We have two separate concepts and ideas that are different, whereas thinking in other places at other times has been of more similarity and sameness and connection.
How is Buddhism overly concerned with feelings? Your response to that little koan baffles me. I don't understand.
2. We tend to be a narrative people because the narrative of our lives defines the context in which we experience things as well as the facts of any particular situation. There is my history which affects how I deal with people generally, my history with you, and the history of how men in America interacted with each other over the past however many years. All of these things, whether we like it or not, tend to guide both our interpretation of reality and the way we approach such interactions.
3. I am unsure of whether to cry foul regarding your observations on subjectivity/objectivity because I am unsure of whether you are talking about subject and object ala say art or subjectivity and objectivity as it would regard say journalism.
If you mean the former then in a way you answer your own question. Subject and object are inseparable in the mind of the spectator as demonstrated by the Buddhist writer getting stoned off his ass. Because our perceptions of reality are fickle and subject to our extremely limited abilities of sense (You'll see what I mean after you try observing molecules or dodging cancer causing microwave rays for yourself) there is little point in attempting to alter them.
Instead, in so far as Buddhism is perhaps overly concerned with feelings, the Monk is bemused because, in his opinion, changing one's perception of reality, (Or, as more nihilistic Buddhists assert, the circumstances that compose reality itself) is inferior to changing how you feel about reality.
I suppose it's a perfectly valid way of approaching life, but it isn't for me, yo.
Reply
Concepts are important for interpreting the world, of course. I'm just wondering about unnecessary ones. I think this was originally written in response to some thoughts about people's religious views and personal identities that can lead to foolish perspectives on life. You're right about culture and narrative though in that sense.
Well, I meant (in terms of subjectivity and objectivity) that there is an unnecessary binary belief that things are either coming from me or from the world and that the two are separate and distinct, rather than the same (or connected). I'm not sure what you mean by art or journalism in this case. For instance, the word in Sanskrit for birth and death is birth-and-death. We have two separate concepts and ideas that are different, whereas thinking in other places at other times has been of more similarity and sameness and connection.
How is Buddhism overly concerned with feelings? Your response to that little koan baffles me. I don't understand.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment