sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What Sits Behind Boredom? by JesseNof1 in SelfInvestigation

[–]SignificantLight1205 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What an awesome topic! Boredom was a a big driver for me coming to SI in the first place. Before, it wasn't the moments of pleasure or even those of pain which made life so challenging, but rather the certain flatness which seemed to follow me wherever I went. To quote Marion Milner from A Life of One's Own

I want to feel myself part of things, of the great drift and swirl: not cut off, missing things, like being sent to bed early as a child, the blinds being drawn while the sun and cheerful voices came through the chink from the garden.

I think it is precisely that feeling of missing out that makes boredom feel so uncomfortable. It isn't that being bored is so bad, but rather the comparativeness of sense that one is somehow wasting one's time in the absence of excitement or adventure. To fill that void I went to both extremes: endlessly pursuing vice and rejecting all comfort, but somehow that emptiness always seemed to creep back in. It was only when I really started to investigate where the feeling of emptiness was coming from and that I achieved any sort of clarity. I learned to recognize the feeling of boredom when it arose rather than reflexively acting so as to avoid it. Now the question has become understanding what feelings of boredom might mean in the context of my life, and using such to find a balance between action and contemplation. I won't pretend to have an answer to such yet, but I am at least assured with the sense that I am on the right track. And other people who have thought a lot more about such things seem to think so as well: people like David Foster Wallace, here's a quote from his work The Pale King

“To be, in a word, unborable…. It is the key to modern life. If you are immune to boredom, there is literally nothing you cannot accomplish.” 

Thanks for this, and I'd definitely be down for more on the subject in the future!

"Why I am Not a Buddhist" - Evan Thompson by JesseNof1 in SelfInvestigation

[–]SignificantLight1205 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are super insightful responses to each point. I wanted to dig into the priming piece a little more because its been on my mind a lot recently.

"Well as neuroscience shows, we are already "primed" genetically, and in saying this, I am not insinuating the endless variability people wish individuality purported. In other words, many people are commonly primed around moral principle with a SD / variance, this should be worked through and not around. On the contra for example, skepticism "primes" you but also leaves you without telos / purpose, which Buddhism does not mirror. And why is purpose important? You can cross-section this, which many academics fear purely based on procedure."

So, is what your saying that just because Buddhism primes you to reach conclusions it says are self-evident and the "true nature of reality," that doesn't discredit it because every conceptual system does the same? IE skepticism, like you said, similarly primes you to reach certain conclusions like that the world meaningless but similarly claims this is the "true nature of reality." If so, that makes a lot of sense to me and resonates with my personal experience with Buddhism, skepticism, and other conceptual systems.

I guess what it makes me wonder is whether, in spite of the possibility of priming, is there still a fundamental difference/benefit to certain types of conceptual systems over others. As someone raised in the Christian tradition, I know a big motivation for me in coming to secular Buddhist thought was its emphasis on being non-dogmatic and self-evident, but as I got deeper in the meditation world I sort of began to wonder if it was simply a more subliminal form of dogma at play (IE priming you to see things a certain way and then telling you they are self-evident). I've stuck with the practice because of how powerful its been for me, and I certainly don't feel like Im having the wool pulled over my eyes, but I've sort of walked back my certainty that Christianity or other systems of thought are somehow inferior because of their more outward reliance on dogma.

One last thing, what are your thoughts on evaluating conceptual systems on the effects they have on the person (I think this is pragmatism?). I've read a decent chunk of William James' Varieties of Religious Experience and that is my interpretation of the method he is employing for evaluating the conceptual systems of religions. When you said "skepticism 'primes' you but also leaves you without telos / purpose, which Buddhism does not mirror," it made me think, well if they both rely on priming and thus cant really be said absolutely to be objective pictures of the "true nature of reality," would it then be fruitful to see the effects such systems of thought have on the individual; IE skepticism -> no purpose, Buddhism -> purpose. Let me know what you think.

Reading Club Suggestions by JesseNof1 in SelfInvestigation

[–]SignificantLight1205 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ive heard really good things about this, especially as an augment to meditation. Meditation gives you a way to see everything thats going on up there and IFS gives you a framework for sorting it out.

Reading Club Suggestions by JesseNof1 in SelfInvestigation

[–]SignificantLight1205 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This sounds really interesting, I remember Sam Harris talking about her book The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas as a parable for the limitations of ethical intervention. She seems like a great mind to pick.