Comments on Meaningness

The whole book, for printing

David Chapman — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:36:36 +0000

Hi,

Yes, surprisingly, the software I'm using has that as a built-in feature.

http://meaningness.com/book/export/html/2

Not beautiful, but maybe functional.

I really want to get back to working on this! I'm distracted by other projects, unfortunately.

David

Can we have the whole book

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:31:36 +0000

Can we have the whole book (so far) in one page somewhere, for printing and such?

Chapman said "Monothesism"

Marvin Minsky — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:02:57 +0000

Now, there's a really dangerous idea.

Tolle and monism

Ariel — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:36:37 +0000

I think the reason so many people find Tolle's books appealing is that he addresses a problem characterisic of our modern age: that of the incessant stream of patterns of conditioned thinking leading to anxiety and worry. His books help one cope with these types of thinking. Being so popular and commanding a pretty wide range or admirers, I am sure that people find different things in his teachings, but fundamentally, he mainly address these sort of mental overthinking problems that people are prone to and gives concrete advice on how to overcome them.

So I don't think you need to look too far, if you are trying to understand Tolle's appeal.

I'm guilty too, probably

David Chapman — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:02:44 +0000

Hi, Jonathan,

Thanks for your comment and interest!

One of the main things I'm trying to do here is to point out an alternative to both eternalism (in which I include most or all God ideas) and nihilism (which includes scientistic materialism). Rejection of either one does not obligate you to embrace the other—nor to adopt some confused agnosticism in-between.

I think you may have obliquely tagged me as a Satanist, which I find rather delightful. I demur, but it's not utterly inaccurate.

Perhaps I can return the compliment. I sometimes rant to the effect that Neoplatonism is the root of all evil. This is somewhat exaggerated, but I am hostile to eternalist monism, which Neoplatonism is an instance of. Along with, as you note, some trends in Mahayana: Yogacara and atman-brahman interpretations of Tathagatagarbha.

Best wishes,

David

probably guilty as charged

Jonathan — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 21:24:17 +0000

I spend, or waste, a lot of time arguing on a philosophy forum, and am probably one of the 'Green' types - pro-spirituality, and anti-materialist. I am enrolled in Buddhist studies at a university, and practice meditation. There is a lot of food for thought on this and your other blogs (and Glen Wallis' blogs too.) Nevertheless I am wary about deconstructing my belief system too forensically. I am not atheist, and can't imagine being one even though what I believe about 'God' would probably make me an atheist in the eyes of many of those who talk about 'God'. But nevertheless, I understand life in a generally neo-platonist and mahayana Buddhist type of way.

Part of this is that there is actually something that corresponds with 'the devil'. It might not be a literal reality, in the same way 'God' isn't a 'bearded sky father', but, as myth, conveys an idea: namely that there is a strong force whose aim it is to throw one off the track, confuse the issue, muddy the waters, re-define the terms, and so on. Just as there is a kind of gravity pulling one towards enlightenment, this is like a counter-force that acts to prevent it. The far enemy of spiritual enlightenment is scientific materialism and physicalism, but the near enemy may be schools of enlightenment, or forms of religious and philosophical discourse which appear to be supportive of the idea.

Don't know what category to put this site in at the moment. I am wary about talking myself right out of any commitment to actual sadhana, which I think is what it takes to actually grow spiritually. Talking is much easier than doing.

Winnicott and false self

David Chapman — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 17:42:00 +0000

Joshua, thank you very much for this! It's a brilliant paper.

Funny: I read it ages ago when I was studying psychodynamic personality theory in graduate school, and had forgotten it until you pointed it out. At the time, I thought Winnicott's work—I remember this and his "transitional objects" paper, particularly—was the best in the whole psychoanalytic school. Quite apart from its intellectual interest, I found it useful in understanding and debugging my own psyche.

There's lots I'd like to say about this now, but I have little time...

In terms of what I eventually hope to write here, what I'd suggest is that Winnicott captured what is right in the true self / false self idea, which goes back to the German Romantics.

Winnicott points out that there is a spectrum of degrees of splitting between the true and false self. In a healthy person, the "false self" is simply the ability to be polite and sociable and to not have to vomit your emotions on everyone else all the time. This is good. Also, it represents (as he says) an "aspect" of functioning, rather than a separate "self". It is only when the true and false selves are made into distinct subjects that it becomes pathological.

The Romantics recognized, correctly, that modern civilization forces everyone into false-self organization to some degree, and that this can be bad. Unfortunately, the Romantic approach is to reject the false self and idolize the true self. This actually deepens the split between them, and strengthens the illusion that they exist as distinct persons, rather than as modes of functioning.

Near the end of the series I'm writing now on my Wordpress blog, I will suggest that this true self / false self thing is a specifically modern phenomenon. It's a symptom of there being a complex but unitary and inflexible social/cultural organization that individuals have to comply with. (This is parallel to the inflexible demands of Winnicott's "not good-enough mother.")

Since the modern period ended, around 1980, there is no longer a unitary culture. This means that the unitary false self is much less likely to be a problem. We can choose to live within a copacetic subculture, or swim in a kaleidoscopic stream of culture-fragments.

That gives rise to new, non-modern psychological/spiritual problems, which I am only starting to articulate. The experience is of fragmentation (or even atomization) and distraction and trivialization, rather than the existential alienation that comes with a false/true split.

I hope to be able to say more about this, and how to deal with it, in this book. (And, before then, briefly at the end of the "Buddhist Consensus" series on Wordpress.)

Cheers,

David

True Self

Anonymous — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:16:23 +0000

Hi David,

Read this one:

http://danbhai.com/rnpsa/winnicott_ego_distortion.pdf

Classic stuff!

Joshua Jonathan

No Beer tonight

Sabio — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 22:01:32 +0000

I'm in Pennsylvania. E-mail me through my contact page on my website -- so we can spare this thread.

@ Sabio Hey. Sorry about

Noah — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:13:50 +0000

@ Sabio

Hey. Sorry about the long response-time. Not intentional.

I live in Wisconsin.

Where are you?

:-)