husmmoor said:

Icelander said:

husmmoor said:

Icelander said:

Came to the same basic conclusions. 

Discuss.

---

Some emphasis on the basic flight from reality of mankind is shared, but I thought Becker's conclusion was that some type of ultimately illusive ideal is necessary in one way or the other, which would be one important point of divergence.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about. I've read all his books and some several times.  Can you explain?

---

I read Denial of Death in the library so I don't have it. Found this quote from here http://www.randallwatters.com/becker.htm which explains pretty well, p188-189, my emphasis

Quote:

Some people are more sensitive to the lie of cultural life, to the illusions of the causa-sui project that others are so thoughtlessly and trustingly caught up in. The neurotic is having trouble with the balance of cultural illusion and natural reality; the possible horrible truth about himself and the world is seeping into his consciousness. The average man is at least secure that the cultural game is the truth, the unshakable, durable truth. He can earn his immortality in and under the dominant immortality ideology, period. It is all so simple and clear-cut. But now the neurotic:

Rank calls this a paradoxical but deep insight into the essence of neurosis, and he sums it up in the words we have used as an epigraph to this chapter. In fact, it is this and more: it absolutely shakes the foundations of our conceptualization of normality and health. It makes them entirely a relative value problem. The neu­rotic opts out of life because he is having trouble maintaining his illusions, about it, which proves nothing less than that life is possible only with illusions.

And so, the question for the science of mental health must be­come an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that re­flects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?25 We will see the import of this at the close of this chapter, but right now we must remind ourselves that when we talk about the need for illusion we are not being cynical. True, there is a great deal of falseness and self-deception in the cultural causa-sui project, but there is also the necessity of this project. Man needs a "second" world, a world of humanly created meaning, a new reality that he can live, dramatize, nourish himself in. "Illusion" means creative play at its highest level. Cultural illusion is a necessary ideology of self-justification, a heroic dimension that is life itself to the symbolic animal. To lose the security of heroic cultural illusion is to die—that is what "deculturation" of primitives means and what it does. It kills them or reduces them to the animal level of chronic fighting and fornication. Life becomes possible only in a continual alcoholic stupor. Many of the older American Indians were relieved when the Big Chiefs in Ottawa and Washington took control and prevented them from warring and feuding. It was a relief from the constant anxiety of death for their loved ones, if not for themselves. But they also knew, with a heavy heart, that this eclipse of their traditional hero-systems at the same time left them as good as dead.

---

---

Icelander said:

hTx said:

Icelander said:

redgreenvines said:

I don't think Buddha came to conclusions: He understood mind, and tried to help people by teaching how to understand mind, and to see it directly & personally.
All of the problems that people struggle with are either economic, health, or mental, and economic and health issues often are worsened by a mind that is stuck in bad habits.

For the simple minded multitude a Buddhist religion exists as layers and traditions reciting suttras but it all boils down to the heart suttra which boils down to "form is emptiness and emptiness is form".

---

He certainly did come to conclusion imo.  He concluded the cause and cure of suffering.  He found the same cause as Becker did. The big difference I see in them is Becker thought there was no way one could completely erase suffering while the Buddha claimed to have accomplished it.

---

IMO

Buddha took it one step further with his realization of impermanence and probably realized that death too, is impermanent. Thus creating the concept of reincarnation.

---

Or Becker took it a step further and showed how belief in reincarnation is based in death/impermanence anxiety.

---

Icelander said:

Came to the same basic conclusions. 

Discuss.

---

Icelander said:

The Buddha's basic message imo is that our suffering comes from not comprehending and so not accepting  impermanence. 

---

redgreenvines said:

I don't think Buddha came to conclusions: He understood mind, and tried to help people by teaching how to understand mind, and to see it directly & personally.
All of the problems that people struggle with are either economic, health, or mental, and economic and health issues often are worsened by a mind that is stuck in bad habits.

---

Kickle said:

impermanence isn't the base of ignorance/suffering in Buddhism as far as I can tell
but ignorance of impermanence sure seems to be a source of suffering, just not exclusive

---

Very nice dialogue we have here. I would tend to agree that the message doesn't need to be clarified beyond "our suffering comes from not comprehending." Stopping there allows a much broader application, and you can file "not accepting impermanence" in it.

Icelander said:

hTx said:

Icelander said:

redgreenvines said:

I don't think Buddha came to conclusions: He understood mind, and tried to help people by teaching how to understand mind, and to see it directly & personally.
All of the problems that people struggle with are either economic, health, or mental, and economic and health issues often are worsened by a mind that is stuck in bad habits.

For the simple minded multitude a Buddhist religion exists as layers and traditions reciting suttras but it all boils down to the heart suttra which boils down to "form is emptiness and emptiness is form".

---

He certainly did come to conclusion imo.  He concluded the cause and cure of suffering.  He found the same cause as Becker did. The big difference I see in them is Becker thought there was no way one could completely erase suffering while the Buddha claimed to have accomplished it.

---

IMO

Buddha took it one step further with his realization of impermanence and probably realized that death too, is impermanent. Thus creating the concept of reincarnation.

---

Or Becker took it a step further and showed how belief in reincarnation is based in death/impermanence anxiety.

---

viktor said:

What would the belief that the physical body generates consciousness be based on?

---

White Beard said:

viktor said:

What would the belief that the physical body generates consciousness be based on?

---

Modern neuroscience.
Also, an experiment we're all familiar with. when you take a drug, your consciousness changes. The fact that a physical material is shifting our consciousness in such dramatic ways leads me to suspect that consciousness is an emergent property from a physical brain.

---

Quote:

And if impermanence is a universal truth, what does that mean about the supposed permanent state of death?

---

viktor said:

White Beard said:

viktor said:

What would the belief that the physical body generates consciousness be based on?

---

Modern neuroscience.
Also, an experiment we're all familiar with. when you take a drug, your consciousness changes. The fact that a physical material is shifting our consciousness in such dramatic ways leads me to suspect that consciousness is an emergent property from a physical brain.

---

Lol

Our consciousness doesn't change when you take a drug, only the sensations do.

Unless you or I have a different definition of consciousness?

I'm talking about that which perceives. Not what it perceived. That is, not tables, computers, keyboards, emotions, thoughts etc.

---

Icelander said:

Reincarnation is more scary then eternal oblivion imo. Also, I could argue that believing there is eternal nothing after death is also impermanence anxiety, cause it's still clinging to a permanent state of nothing.


could be.  Becker believed we could not escape all of our anxiety.

---

White Beard said:

viktor said:

What would the belief that the physical body generates consciousness be based on?

---

Modern neuroscience.
Also, an experiment we're all familiar with. when you take a drug, your consciousness changes. The fact that a physical material is shifting our consciousness in such dramatic ways leads me to suspect that consciousness is an emergent property from a physical brain.

---

Modern neuroscience says no such thing. and the observer hasn't stopped observing, it is still consciousness...Overall a horrible conclusion from an awesome experiment.
Would you like an example of consciousness shifting consciousness in a dramatic way?
See meditation. Pranayama. Yoga..Tantra...etc. Gurdjieff, Alan Watts, Buddha...
Take a psychedelic, have a bad trip, meditate and shift yourself into a good trip...

all many examples that leave your drug argument, well, a fail.
Consciousness chose to take the drug, so by that logic, consciousness shifted its own consciousness in a dramatic way with the use of a tool and/or drug. 
Your argument is like saying you are not a conscious being because you used a telescope to look at the stars. This obviously makes no sense at all.

and what about the non-physical aspects of said physical material?

Here is something non-physical that more-than-likely exists. See it?

It is the Higgs-field, so you probably did (assuming it exists), you just never knew it was there.

White Beard said:

Also, I could argue that believing there is eternal nothing after death is also impermanence anxiety, cause it's still clinging to a permanent state of nothing.

---

dude... do you know.. I'm in my kitchen making kale chips, when the profundity of what you just said hits me. Like wow. Call me stupid, but I never thought of it that way.

hTx said:

White Beard said:

viktor said:

What would the belief that the physical body generates consciousness be based on?

---

Modern neuroscience.
Also, an experiment we're all familiar with. when you take a drug, your consciousness changes. The fact that a physical material is shifting our consciousness in such dramatic ways leads me to suspect that consciousness is an emergent property from a physical brain.

---

Modern neuroscience says no such thing. and the observer hasn't stopped observing, it is still consciousness...Overall a horrible conclusion from an awesome experiment.
Would you like an example of consciousness shifting consciousness in a dramatic way?
See meditation. Pranayama. Yoga..Tantra...etc. Gurdjieff, Alan Watts, Buddha...
Take a psychedelic, have a bad trip, meditate and shift yourself into a good trip...

all many examples that leave your drug argument, well, a fail.
Consciousness chose to take the drug, so by that logic, consciousness shifted its own consciousness in a dramatic way with the use of a tool and/or drug. 
Your argument is like saying you are not a conscious being because you used a telescope to look at the stars. This obviously makes no sense at all.

and what about the non-physical aspects of said physical material?

Here is something non-physical that more-than-likely exists. See it?

It is the Higgs-field, so you probably did (assuming it exists), you just never knew it was there.

---

Penelope_Tree said:

White Beard said:

Also, I could argue that believing there is eternal nothing after death is also impermanence anxiety, cause it's still clinging to a permanent state of nothing.

---

dude... do you know.. I'm in my kitchen making kale chips, when the profundity of what you just said hits me. Like wow. Call me stupid, but I never thought of it that way.

---

White Beard said:

If you take away all the sensations, there is no consciousness left.

---