Rational interpretation of Sam’s MDMA experience

 
kuzon
 
Avatar
 
 
kuzon
Total Posts:  5
Joined  26-02-2018
 
 
 
19 March 2018 03:34
 

How do you rationally explain dissolving the self so much that you want everyone to be happy? Why is this conclusion ‘correct’ as opposed to someone who comes to the conclusion that all beings should suffer or that the mailman wants to kill everyone?

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1886
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
19 March 2018 08:20
 

Could it be that when highly abstract notions are described in writing by someone, those notions remain for the most part hidden from the view of readers? Do you expect to fully appreciate and understand Harris’ personal take on “the self” by reading his words?

I ask this because it seems to me that Harris’ take on “the self” might be clarified by examining his particular brand of Buddhist philosophy. It’s also possible that Harris’ “self” is entirely unique to him.

Can such a thing be known except by guessing?

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1886
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
19 March 2018 12:35
 

The quick answer, of course, is that consensus rules in these kinds of matters, by fiat. Sometimes by Moto Guzzi.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7746
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
04 April 2018 20:21
 
kuzon - 19 March 2018 03:34 AM

How do you rationally explain dissolving the self so much that you want everyone to be happy? Why is this conclusion ‘correct’ as opposed to someone who comes to the conclusion that all beings should suffer or that the mailman wants to kill everyone?

Is this a question about objective morality?

 
 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  80
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
13 August 2018 16:02
 
kuzon - 19 March 2018 03:34 AM

How do you rationally explain dissolving the self so much that you want everyone to be happy? Why is this conclusion ‘correct’ as opposed to someone who comes to the conclusion that all beings should suffer or that the mailman wants to kill everyone?

that’s total nonsense. If it would be possible to totally “dissolve the self” then the remainder - what could be the remainder? -  would not want everyone to be happy.Why? Because wanting everybody to be happy presumes the self in everybody and this is only possilbe if one feels or perceives the self in one"self” which contradicts “dissolution of the self”.

 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  80
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
15 August 2018 02:52
 
Ground - 13 August 2018 04:02 PM
kuzon - 19 March 2018 03:34 AM

How do you rationally explain dissolving the self so much that you want everyone to be happy? Why is this conclusion ‘correct’ as opposed to someone who comes to the conclusion that all beings should suffer or that the mailman wants to kill everyone?

that’s total nonsense. If it would be possible to totally “dissolve the self” then the remainder - what could be the remainder? -  would not want everyone to be happy.Why? Because wanting everybody to be happy presumes the self in everybody and this is only possilbe if one feels or perceives the self in one"self” which contradicts “dissolution of the self”.

In a nutshell: there is no scientific empirical evidence for “the self”. So the only “self” that can dissolve is the idea “the self”. How do ideas dissolve? In the same way all other thoughts dissolve: when one stops thinking them.

 

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7746
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
15 August 2018 07:23
 
Ground - 15 August 2018 02:52 AM
Ground - 13 August 2018 04:02 PM
kuzon - 19 March 2018 03:34 AM

How do you rationally explain dissolving the self so much that you want everyone to be happy? Why is this conclusion ‘correct’ as opposed to someone who comes to the conclusion that all beings should suffer or that the mailman wants to kill everyone?

that’s total nonsense. If it would be possible to totally “dissolve the self” then the remainder - what could be the remainder? -  would not want everyone to be happy.Why? Because wanting everybody to be happy presumes the self in everybody and this is only possilbe if one feels or perceives the self in one"self” which contradicts “dissolution of the self”.

In a nutshell: there is no scientific empirical evidence for “the self”. So the only “self” that can dissolve is the idea “the self”. How do ideas dissolve? In the same way all other thoughts dissolve: when one stops thinking them.

We don’t understand consciousness very well. Therefore our vocabulary is weak and our descriptions are weak. It seems you’re trying to use a weak foundation to make some black and white claims?

 
 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  80
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
15 August 2018 14:15
 
icehorse - 15 August 2018 07:23 AM
Ground - 15 August 2018 02:52 AM
Ground - 13 August 2018 04:02 PM
kuzon - 19 March 2018 03:34 AM

How do you rationally explain dissolving the self so much that you want everyone to be happy? Why is this conclusion ‘correct’ as opposed to someone who comes to the conclusion that all beings should suffer or that the mailman wants to kill everyone?

that’s total nonsense. If it would be possible to totally “dissolve the self” then the remainder - what could be the remainder? -  would not want everyone to be happy.Why? Because wanting everybody to be happy presumes the self in everybody and this is only possilbe if one feels or perceives the self in one"self” which contradicts “dissolution of the self”.

In a nutshell: there is no scientific empirical evidence for “the self”. So the only “self” that can dissolve is the idea “the self”. How do ideas dissolve? In the same way all other thoughts dissolve: when one stops thinking them.

We don’t understand consciousness very well. Therefore our vocabulary is weak and our descriptions are weak. It seems you’re trying to use a weak foundation to make some black and white claims?

He? Seems you could not process my words appropriately. If you do not understand consciousness very well then that is your business which is completely off topic here since the topic has been “the self”.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15955
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
15 August 2018 14:42
 
Ground - 15 August 2018 02:15 PM
icehorse - 15 August 2018 07:23 AM
Ground - 15 August 2018 02:52 AM
Ground - 13 August 2018 04:02 PM
kuzon - 19 March 2018 03:34 AM

How do you rationally explain dissolving the self so much that you want everyone to be happy? Why is this conclusion ‘correct’ as opposed to someone who comes to the conclusion that all beings should suffer or that the mailman wants to kill everyone?

that’s total nonsense. If it would be possible to totally “dissolve the self” then the remainder - what could be the remainder? -  would not want everyone to be happy.Why? Because wanting everybody to be happy presumes the self in everybody and this is only possilbe if one feels or perceives the self in one"self” which contradicts “dissolution of the self”.

In a nutshell: there is no scientific empirical evidence for “the self”. So the only “self” that can dissolve is the idea “the self”. How do ideas dissolve? In the same way all other thoughts dissolve: when one stops thinking them.

We don’t understand consciousness very well. Therefore our vocabulary is weak and our descriptions are weak. It seems you’re trying to use a weak foundation to make some black and white claims?

He? Seems you could not process my words appropriately. If you do not understand consciousness very well then that is your business which is completely off topic here since the topic has been “the self”.

You can’t converse with this guy Ice, either you accept his claims or you are either wrong or just don’t get what he’s saying. That’s been his persona here, dogmatic claims without any real reasoned responses other than imputing your capacity to understand.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15955
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
15 August 2018 14:52
 
kuzon - 19 March 2018 03:34 AM

How do you rationally explain dissolving the self so much that you want everyone to be happy? Why is this conclusion ‘correct’ as opposed to someone who comes to the conclusion that all beings should suffer or that the mailman wants to kill everyone?

Set and setting. Back in the early 80s when it was still legal I experimented with the substance a total of four times. Also conversed with a clinical psychologist who was using it with great success in his practice. Based on that conversation and personal experience I developed a rational explanation of the biological effect of the drug which is that it cuts the connection between embodied experience and the cognitive awareness and feeling of the experience. So, in therapy, for example, a person could relive a traumatic experience without the corresponding physiological defenses kicking in (but they would show up the next day, the person would be quite stiff and sore). That gives a way to, in a sense, allow the physiological aspects of the defense (muscle tensions, visceral tensions, etc.) to be relaxed without a positive feedback from the actual memory of the experience itself acting to reinforce those defenses. So Harris’ experience with the drug, and the generally reported experiences of cosmic loving connection with others would, I suspect, be basically the experience of the persons internal desires without the normal physiological controls that we’ve all embodied as social defense mechanisms. Of course, this is only a theory.

 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  80
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
15 August 2018 15:00
 
burt - 15 August 2018 02:42 PM

You can’t converse with this guy Ice, either you accept his claims or you are either wrong or just don’t get what he’s saying. That’s been his persona here, dogmatic claims without any real reasoned responses other than imputing your capacity to understand.

*lol*
burt has trouble with empirical reality and is longing for an alternative reality that he expects to find in his beliefs. And he calls “dogmatism” if one suggests that he himself relies on empirical reality when eating food and is thus relying on sense impressions. Nevertheless burt rejects the reality that determines his life when writing in this forum. tough guy!
*lol*

Coming back to topic: burt ... tell me about your “self”. *lol*

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7746
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
15 August 2018 16:12
 
Ground - 15 August 2018 03:00 PM
burt - 15 August 2018 02:42 PM

You can’t converse with this guy Ice, either you accept his claims or you are either wrong or just don’t get what he’s saying. That’s been his persona here, dogmatic claims without any real reasoned responses other than imputing your capacity to understand.

*lol*
burt has trouble with empirical reality and is longing for an alternative reality that he expects to find in his beliefs. And he calls “dogmatism” if one suggests that he himself relies on empirical reality when eating food and is thus relying on sense impressions. Nevertheless burt rejects the reality that determines his life when writing in this forum. tough guy!
*lol*

Coming back to topic: burt ... tell me about your “self”. *lol*

Based only on evidence in this thread, my money’s on burt when it comes to actually having a dialog.

 
 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  80
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
16 August 2018 01:12
 
icehorse - 15 August 2018 04:12 PM

Based only on evidence in this thread, my money’s on burt when it comes to actually having a dialog.

Sure. If a believer wants to talk about his beliefs and harvest confirmation he necessarily can talk about them in the affirmative only with another believer.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7746
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
16 August 2018 07:38
 
Ground - 16 August 2018 01:12 AM
icehorse - 15 August 2018 04:12 PM

Based only on evidence in this thread, my money’s on burt when it comes to actually having a dialog.

Sure. If a believer wants to talk about his beliefs and harvest confirmation he necessarily can talk about them in the affirmative only with another believer.

This isn’t about that. This is about making a good faith attempt to have a dialog.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15955
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
16 August 2018 09:23
 
icehorse - 16 August 2018 07:38 AM
Ground - 16 August 2018 01:12 AM
icehorse - 15 August 2018 04:12 PM

Based only on evidence in this thread, my money’s on burt when it comes to actually having a dialog.

Sure. If a believer wants to talk about his beliefs and harvest confirmation he necessarily can talk about them in the affirmative only with another believer.

This isn’t about that. This is about making a good faith attempt to have a dialog.

When the pot calls the kettle black
There’s something that the dialogue doth lack.

 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  80
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
17 August 2018 00:48
 
icehorse - 16 August 2018 07:38 AM
Ground - 16 August 2018 01:12 AM
icehorse - 15 August 2018 04:12 PM

Based only on evidence in this thread, my money’s on burt when it comes to actually having a dialog.

Sure. If a believer wants to talk about his beliefs and harvest confirmation he necessarily can talk about them in the affirmative only with another believer.

This isn’t about that. This is about making a good faith attempt to have a dialog.

Dialog happens spontaneously. What is it? Dialog is an exchange of linguistic signs, visible forms or audible sounds, which is based on the processing of the signs by brains to synthesize meanings. The processing of linguistic signs by different brains may be compatible to a certain degree. The degree of compatibility may influence the duration or length of a dialog.
Also there may be rules applied to the use of linguistic signs in addition to the conventional linguistc rules laid down in the dictionaries and grammar of the conventional language used. If so then such rules will impose additional restraints on the possibility of a dialog if these rules are only implemented by one party. I for my part do apply a set of rules which I am subsuming as “rationality”. Outside of the linguistic system which specifies “rationality” and which makes use of linguistic expressions that express abstract philosophical thought and premises as to conventional language and its application, rationality restricts the use of linguistic expressions to scientifically and objectively established phenomena, i.e. to empirical reality. By definition a linguistic expressions that does not designate a phenomenon that is so empirically established necessarily is an expression of belief which always is speculative. Speculation and rationality are incompatible.
Having said that neither “a self” nor “consciousness” - the latter expression you brought in for what reason ever - designate empirically established phenomena and therefore are expressions of mere belief.

[ Edited: 17 August 2018 01:10 by Ground]