X-Message-Number: 22506
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:00:20 +0200
Subject: Re: Buddhism without all supernatural mumbo-jumbo
From: David Stodolsky <>

On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 11:12  PM, Tim Freeman wrote:

> Message #22488
> From: David Stodolsky <>
>
>> You can't set aside all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo [from Buddhism],
>> because that is what ultimately gives the system meaning.
>
> Let's specify what we're talking about here.  If you leave out the
> supernatural stuff from Buddhism, here's what's left:
>
> The Four Noble Truths:
>
>    1. Life (as typically lived) is suffering,
>    2. the cause of suffering is attachment,
>    3. there is a path by which one can become free from attachment and
>       therefore free from suffering, and
>    4. the path is the Eightfold Path.
>
> As far as I can tell, "attachment" is the same as what the rational
> emotive behavioral therapists (REBT's) call a "should", that is, a
> belief that something *must* be true.  In other words, The REBT's
> agree with Noble Truth #2.

REBTs say 'Shouldhood is shithood.' That is, 'should' implies a moral 
imperative, something that *ought* to be true, not something that 
*must* be true. Saying 'should' establishes a framework wherein a 
person can fail to meet a moral imperative, thus easily leading to 
failure and reduced self-esteem (=shithood).

Attachment is more related to emotional commitment, so the analogy 
doesn't really hold up upon closer (technical) examination.


>
> If the REBT's have customers, they must agree with Noble Truth #1.  If
> they honestly believe that they can help people, they must agree with
> Noble Truth #3.

Freedom from attachment isn't a goal of REBT. REBT is more related to 
habits of thought. REBTs often use Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT).


> Their path away from suffering is different from the
> Buddhist's, though.  Not that they are wrong; the assertion that one
> thing works doesn't contract the assertion that a different thing
> works.
>
> The Eightfold Path is:
>
>    1. Right understanding
>    2. Right thinking
>    3. Right speech
>    4. Right action
>    5. Right livelihood
>    6. Right effort
>    7. Right mindfulness
>    8. Right concentration
>
> There's substantial but not absurdly much detail under each of these
> points.
>
> The empirical claim from the Buddhists is: if you do those eight
> things, you'll suffer less.
>
> I think you're saying this is meaningless, unless you were talking
> about something else.  One might sensibly say this is useless or
> wrong, but it's not meaningless.

The point of doing these things is what becomes meaningless. For a 
cryonicist, doing these things makes no sense ultimately, because it 
doesn't avoid personal destruction.


>
>> Working together effectively requires shared meanings which value
>> joint work.
>
> Working together effectively requires other stuff too.  What I'm
> seeing when I'm talking to people about Alcor's instability is that
> the big missing thing is rational resolution of disagreements, and the
> disagreements aren't resolvable because everyone's so attached to
> whatever they're disagreeing about that they won't consider
> alternatives or follow a reasonable process.

Reasonable process would always be valued higher than personal opinion 
in a system of meanings which valued joint work.



>> The rejection of the group as a reality or its treatment as the
>> 'enemy' of the individual (by Libertarian philosophy) is a
>> methodological error which must be overcome to achieve a stable social
>> environment.
>
> I think the real problems are less abstract than that.  Rational
> dispute resolution is a simple process and it doesn't require taking a
> stand on whether the group is a reality.

If the individual is the only reality, then there is no reason why 
anyone should accept dispute resolution, which typically requires 
compromise, and accepting the possibility of error or defeat (vaguely 
speaking).


dss


David S. Stodolsky    SpamTo: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22506