In the movie the Matrix, a character faces a choice between continuing to be miserable in the domain of the real, or giving up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. What choice would you make?
I long ago felt I had taken ‘the red pill’. But I was really annoyed by the movie itself, because I found the presentation sacreligious, in a way. It was as if it was a parody or send-up of a profound idea, created by someone who really didn’t understand how profound it was. But then, it was only a movie.
[Actually on that note, I once read an insightful analysis of the way that movies like Matrix, Inception, and others of that genre evoke the sense in us of life being like a grand illusion or mirage in which we’re unwittingly trapped. It is a powerful meme with quasi-religious overtones; it’s rather like the gnostic understanding.]
The same could be asked about the dreaming dens in Inception. I'd rather stay in the Matrix/the dream. I care more about fulfilling experiences than about what's real. Truth for the sake of truth is pointless. It certainly can be useful for other ends, but in this context I don't think that's applicable.
If you are a Buddhist and you live in the matrix you will not cause any real beings to suffer, and will therefore not accumulate any bad karma. It's a no-brainer!
If you are a Buddhist and you live in the matrix you will not cause any real beings to suffer, and will therefore not accumulate any bad karma. It's a no-brainer!
Reply to Michael I don't understand why you claim not to understand the appeal of power. Both wealth and power are about having more options available to you to take advantage of. That's appealing to many people, even if you're not one of them, at least with regard to the latter.
I don't understand why you claim not to understand the appeal of power. Both wealth and power are about having more options available to you to take advantage of. That's appealing to many people, even if you're not one of them, at least with regard to the latter.
Maybe if you could be less ambiguous with what you mean by power? Are you in a position of authority, like a President? Because the problem with that is that there is a shitload of responsibility that distracts from living a leisurely life.
Maybe if you could be less ambiguous with what you mean by power? Are you in a position of authority, like a President? Because the problem with that is that there is a shitload of responsibility that distracts from living a leisurely life.
The options weren't that specific, but I suppose that that's a risk, and one which I hadn't considered. It's kind of off putting. But wouldn't similar risks apply on the basis of wealth alone? Are you a lottery winner or a criminal? If the latter, then your wealthy life might be short lived and replaced with a life behind bars.
Reply to frank Why "miserable"? Neo found real love and fought injustice, two of the best things anyone could ever find and the idea of that is so appealing to me. The delusion is misery, living an artificial existence.
Why "miserable"? Neo found real love and fought injustice, two of the best things anyone could ever find and the idea of that is so appealing to me. The delusion is misery, living an artificial existence.
100% red pill.
People are different. Cypher isn't Neo. And misery isn't what you dictate it to be.
Yes, but people and outcomes are variable to a much greater extent than the characters Cypher and Neo, and what happened to them in the film.
I agree, but the parallel here is about our state of mind, about the authenticity of our experiences. We can easily find a partner who we are indifferent to but they have a pleasing enough face to help tolerate having sex with, or we can find someone who we genuinely care about and fulfils our experience in life beyond that mere interaction. We can go to work in a dead end job as long as we make money to buy material bullshit and a nice meal until we grow old and die, or we can fight injustice and do something meaningful in our lives.
I care more about fulfilling experiences than about what's real.
I'd even argue that the deeper premise of the movie is that the real is unknowable. The taking of the pill occurred within the matrix and was just another illusion.
I'd even argue that the deeper premise of the premise is that the real is unknowable. The taking of the pill occurred within the matrix and was just another illusion.
You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision.
If your life is determined, how can you make the choice for one. And two:
The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature.
I'm saying how can you claim everything you know is false and then tell someone you have the magic pill to seeing reality? Wouldn't you necessarily question the reality of the magic pill? That being the case, just pick the ride you'd rather be on. You can't expect either to be more real or more authentic.
Reply to TimeLine No it's not. It's mind blowingly deep. There is no way out of the Descartes evil genius thought experiment if you admit there really is an evil genius.
No it's not. It's mind blowingly deep. There is no way out of the Descartes evil genius thought experiment if you admit there really is an evil genius.
Reply to Hanover You are just reinforcing the same doubt, but how that parallels with reality is nonsensical, however even if it were so, the question is about what you do given that possible reality, which is the point of the thread.
Reply to TimeLine I said what I'd do, which is to take the ride that seemed most fulfilling, but my decision wouldn't be based on one being more real than the other because the premise eliminates knowing that.
Reply to Hanover I understand that, hence what the schism of opinions are all about since either pill may take you on the ride that seems most fulfilling. One, however, actually is.
Well, I don't know if I'd call it misery. But I'd want real power and money, as opposed to dream power and money. And besides that there are other more important things which would be similar -- whatever we care about I'd want something real rather than a simulation of what is real. What is real matters to me.
Reply to frank I'm not exactly sure. I just know what I'd choose.
First I'd be curious. What in the heck are you talking about? Sure, I want to see what that's all about. And then I'd sort of feel like I was caged, just taking the premise of the film at face value, and I would want to remain free.
I'd take being King Solomon over Job in this instance. The real/dreamworld division doesn't seem to matter unless an awareness of it somehow reduces the quality of your existence in the dreamworld or elevates it in the real world, but that circumstance is mitigated against in the phrasing of at least half the dilemma. The choice is between being miserable (not being pretend-miserable but really happy because you are fulfilled and authentic) vs being wealthy and powerful (and maybe still miserable because it's just a dream? But at least you've got a shot at not being so, and even if you do end up being miserable because of your realization of the fake-dreaminess of your existence, it'll still just be fake dreamy-misery with the cherry of some hard cash on top to ease the nerves.)
That's taking the dilemma at literal face value though. If the real (serious) message regards the choice of giving up what is authentically important to you for money and power then no, because that would lead to emptiness, and it's better to be just miserable than to be miserable and empty.
There's a funny thing about the question "What does that mean to you?" There's a couple of senses of "mean" that come out, when I read it -- in one way you are asking me the simple linguistic meaning, or the meaning of the concept of freedom in a descriptive sense. In the other sense you are asking me what freedom means to me as in why is it meaningful or important to me. And maybe you are really asking both questions. If you meant anything besides that then you'll have to explicate a bit.
Freedom is a negative condition -- in the sense that you only lose it because you are being coerced. But there is nothing specific to the condition of freedom just by virtue that you could be doing any number of things while being free, and you could even being doing those same things while being unfree. Freedom isn't an action, but a mode of action. And in a simple sense it just means a lack of coercion. But what counts as coercion? That's where you'll have people disagree. I'd say that a fantasy-land of realistic feeling pleasures is coercion -- a coercion I'd take over fear and pain as tools of coercion, by all means, but coercion all the same.
What comes of freedom is up to the actor. That's the whole point. So it can't be specified, really. But there is something worthwhile in owning your own actions, rather than doing them because someone is enticing you to do them. From my perspective, at least, I'll take a world of pain where I am not being coerced over a world of pleasure where I am. Because the pain coming from the world is something you can contend with, you have the ability to act and learn how to deal with it. But in a world where you are the object to be controlled you have no such recourse. You're alienated even from yourself.
Plus, in a more practical manner, it's not like the world the Matrix created was all that great to begin with :D. Pain and suffering are just part of life. There's no eliminating that. But if you are free you can learn to be at peace with it.
So it can't be specified, really. But there is something worthwhile in owning your own actions, rather than doing them because someone is enticing you to do them.
This is the heavy-weight answer, I think. To be or not to be, right?
Is a dollar bill just a piece of paper or is its value based on our consensus, which is not abstract, it is the product of mutual agreement. A person, I think is in a some what a similar way constituted (or say instituted) by the consensus of associations we interact with.
Reply to Cavacava Money is a good example of a social construction. I have no idea how a person is constituted or instituted. That the idea of a person is logically tied to groups of such persons doesn't help us make the case that we're not abstract.
I did back down somewhat, I guess. We're partly abstract.
Reply to frank stay in the dream. Reality is real but a happy dream is better than the miserable truth. If its in context of being overly optimistic in a clearly piontless awful situation than I would choose truth to escape my hell.
Why would anyone consciously choose to limit themselves? Because within the boundaries of a known and predictable matrix it's relatively comfortable, right?
Reply to praxis You're associating freedom with reality as Moliere did. Assuming you have greater freedom outside a dream or matrix, what value do you find in that freedom? How are things different with that freedom vs without it.
BTW: think of the characters in your portraits. Do you ever think of them as real and alive? Bound by a reality you've created for them? I'm not asking if you're insane. I'm just asking if you're driven to imbue a sense of life to them.
Yeah, no doubt some monks do those kinds of things.
Anyway, I was half-joking with my response. The truth is I'm not sure what I'd do. It's a complex question. Does your being in the matrix benefit others beings; the machines for example, which in this scenario are sentient? Could you pursue philosophy there? Could you make others in the matrix happy or sad on account of your behavior?
Reply to Janus If you happen to smile at a person who's going through hell and barely hanging on, it could mean a lot. Would it matter if the context of the hell is all fictional?
You're associating freedom with reality as Moliere did. Assuming you have greater freedom outside a dream or matrix, what value do you find in that freedom?
The answer to this is in the story. The characters who woke up could do things that no sleeper could do. Neo could literally fly in the matrix.
Outside of the story and in our 'real' world, liberating ourselves from our rigid and habitual patterns can offer greater creativity, connection, reduce anxiety, and potentially bring bliss.
Do those in the matrix think about their lives and find themselves being in love or friendship? Is the matrix not just the same as, phenomenologically speaking, and thus indistinguishable from, our own lives?
Well, if we assume that this love or friendship is solipsistic in nature, given the realization that it's all a sham, then would you feel comfortable living in such a perfect prison?
Reply to Janus I imagine it's the same. Misery can be a product of attitude just as much as circumstances. The OP was aiming more at the value we attach to truth.
It wasn't explicit, but I think it actually was nested matrices. Neo made a bunch of robots fall down with his mind when he was supposed to be outside the matrix. In the second movie? I forget.
I always wondered what the point of the blue pill was. Isn't it just erasing memories? What about a person who took no pill at all? Wouldn't such a person have to learn to live in the matrix with knowledge he shouldn't have?
Personally, I'm interminably curious and would have liked to swallow both pills just to see what happens. But I'm a bit of a coward, too, so I'd probably have liked to say no thanks to both. With a choice forced upon me, I'd probably be sitting between both until they lose patience and I make a choice at random.
That sounds like a cop out, but this is a situation where people who care very much try to force a dichotomy on me that may not mean much to me. At that point, I certainly don't have enough information to make any sort of meaningful decision. Swallowing both pills is the wait-and-see-but-accelarate-the-process option.
If it were possible in the matrix scenario to know it is a simulation, should we not work from within (return to the Cave, Plato style) to enlighten others rather than exit to fight a war with the oppressors?
On the other hand in the premise of the actual movie one must be both 'out' and 'in' in order to effect any change.
Who knows such things? You can't doubt the process of doubting itself, so as long as your able to doubt or are willing to consider the possibility that it's a sham, then there's the chance that through that volition will arise an answer to those doubts. If it's all impossible then the whole issue becomes moot, but that's an epistempic gap that can only arise had you been omniscient or continually doubting.
Who knows such things? You can't doubt the process of doubting itself, so as long as your able to doubt or are willing to consider the possibility that it's a sham, then there's the chance that through that volition will arise an answer to those doubts.
Indeed, who knows such things? And that was the question. Perhaps we cannot question the process of doubt; but to doubt anything requires believing something else, and not merely believing that you are doubting, either.
How do any "answers" elevate themselves above the sea of doubt and belief? That is the question of all questions.
If it's all impossible then the whole issue becomes moot, but that's an epistempic gap that can only arise had you been omniscient or continually doubting.
Indeed, who knows such things? And that was the question.
I think it goes deeper than that, if you're willing to entertain some thoughts. Let's say you were omniscient. Wouldn't that create that paradox that you we're solipsistic at the same time, since there's nothing more to know?
Perhaps we cannot question the process of doubt; but to doubt anything requires believing something else, and not merely believing that you are doubting, either.
Yes, and that something else is always a gap in knowledge or a solution to the above solipsistic situation, the process of doubting itself, if you will.
Why would anyone consciously choose to limit themselves? Because within the boundaries of a known and predictable matrix it's relatively comfortable, right?
:ok:
Cowardice. The worst kind being those that actually admit to being a coward, that conscious decision to avoid responsibility and allow others to think on your behalf.
Well, the first question was as to how we could know, not about the possibly solipsistic implications of omniscience; a topic which seems, at least on the face of it, entirely unrelated.
The statement after that was about the intrinsic relationship between doubt and belief, and your response said nothing at all about belief.
The second question was about how we can be sure of any answers, and your response spoke only of the possibility of answers. Do you mean the possibility of answers of which we could be certain, and if so, how would that reconcile with the "as long as you can still doubt"? Because it seems that if answers were certain, then there would be no possibility of doubt, so I'm quite confused as to what you are wanting to say here.
It doesn't seem to me there is any moral imperative to be authentic. Authenticity would seem to be for some and not for others, and perhaps even only possible for some and not for others. So, authenticity and inauthenticity would just seem to be two possible modes of being for humans; and perhaps no human could ever be entirely one or the other.
Well, the first question was as to how we could know, not about the possibly solipsistic implications of omniscience; which seems entirely unrelated.
So, how can we know? Through doubting. I hope that's simple enough. Now, the point I was trying to make with the whole solipsism thing, might be better understood with some analogy. So, let's assume that you're dreaming. You inhabit a solipsistic world. So, analogously to the matrix world, there's no way for you to tell if your dream is reality or not, because you and the dream are the same thing.
Anyway, I won't get hung up on that, and if that doesn't make sense I'll just think over it some more and polish up the idea.
The statement after that was about the intrinsic relationship between doubt and belief, and your response said nothing at all about belief.
Well, belief has to be about something, if we don't live in a solipsistic world. If we inhabit a dream, for example, then there's no room for doubt because all your beliefs originate from yourself. I don't think that makes sense. What I'm getting at is that doubt can only exist if there is a lack in knowledge. In a dream everything is perfectly clear, there's no room for/to doubt the existence of the dream world itself because there is no room for doubt itself.
The second question was about how we can be sure of our answers, and your response spoke only of the possibility of answers. Do you mean the possibility of answers of which we could be certain, and if so how would that reconcile with the "as long as you can still doubt"? Because it seems that if answers were certain, then there would be no possibility of doubt, so I'm quite confused as to what you want to say here.
In a dream everything is perfectly clear, there's no room for/to doubt the existence of the dream world itself because there is no room for doubt itself.
I don't see why it would be impossible to experience doubt when dreaming.
I think the point is to question what certainty could possibly consist in. Is there any absolute certainty beyond deductive certainty? Is even deductive certainty absolute? On the other hand what could certainty be, phenomenologically speaking, beyond just a feeling; if I feel certain, then I am certain. Is to be certain necessarily the same thing as to be right?
In my own experience, the dreamworld of sex, drugs, and shoegaze is pretty miserable, and the glimpses of reality I've had have been nothing other than complete peace. Reality seems illusive and not inherently tied to "life", like the rose garden in the first stanza of Burnt Norton in T.S. Elliot's Four Quartets. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but whatever.
These two statements seem contradictory. So. I remain confused.
So, one of the strange things you might say is that epistemologically, the only certain belief that one can hold about knowledge, is that one can be certain only of one's own experiences/sensory data/mental representations. So, that's solipsism in a nutshell. I don't understand why many philosophers shun the idea. It really shows the limitations and truth of the representational theory of mind.
Anyway, if one knew everything there was to know about the world, there wouldn't be anything to doubt anymore, again presuming certainty and solipsism at the same time. So, as long as one's knowledge about the world is incomplete, then there's room for doubt. Therefore, if one were to perpetually live in a dream, then one would never come to realize it from within it due to the solipsistic nature of the dream.
I agree, but the parallel here is about our state of mind, about the authenticity of our experiences. We can easily find a partner who we are indifferent to but they have a pleasing enough face to help tolerate having sex with, or we can find someone who we genuinely care about and fulfils our experience in life beyond that mere interaction. We can go to work in a dead end job as long as we make money to buy material bullshit and a nice meal until we grow old and die, or we can fight injustice and do something meaningful in our lives.
You're making this too personal. The options, as set out in the opening post, are to continue to be miserable in the domain of the real, or to give up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. The options aren't as you set out above, and besides, one could have the experience of living your ideal life in the dreamworld, despite it not being the real thing. The real thing might be your priority, but it's clearly not everyone's priority, and that's okay. It's okay that there's a difference in how people answer this question. There's no real right or wrong here. You should recognise that your ideal life isn't necessarily the ideal life of others.
You're making this too personal. The options, as set out in the opening post, are to continue to be miserable in the domain of the real, or to give up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. The options aren't as you set out above, and besides, one could have the experience of living your ideal life in the dreamworld, despite it not being the real thing. The real thing might be your priority, but it's clearly not everyone's priority, and that's okay. It's okay that there's a difference in how people answer this question. There's no real right or wrong here. You should recognise that your ideal life isn't necessarily the ideal life of others.
That makes no sense, it is supposed to be personal. As mentioned already to Michael, the Architect at the end of the movie explains whether or not you will actually be happy considering that bad is as much a part of the human condition and necessary for the matrix to function productively, that what you are right now is just the same as what it will be in the matrix. You are not Cypher. You are Jessica from West Brompton who eats gluten free.
Going back to The Matrix - as I commented, when I saw the film I thought it was clever, but it annoyed me, because it was almost a parody of the idea of ‘consciousness-raising’. Recall back in the sixties [anyone old enough?] that ‘the red pill’ back then was [how to say] ‘derived from ergot’. The point was, that it was supposed to be a liberative experience because through it, you saw the ‘clear light’. You had a vision, or better, a realisation, that what nearly everyone takes for granted as being real, is actually cobbled-together opinions which everyone has learned from one another and that really ‘nobody knows nuthin’. You were liberated by seeing the truth of that, notwithstanding the probability that when you ‘came down’ you would immediately rejoin the ranks with the rest. [‘All those dayglo freaks who used to paint their face, they’ve joined the human race, some things will never change’ ~ Steely Dan, ‘Kid Charlemagne’].
Now, none of this really came across in The Matrix, even though that was the symbolic meaning [but then, it did have Kenau Reeves in it.] But, that was reason the ‘red pill blue pill’ scene was meaningful, [or perhaps, what it meant to me.]
But in the context of the secular world, the world of ‘the straights’ as the sixties types would say - there is no ‘higher truth’ to discover. The universe is essentially rocks, gas, stars and empty space, and we’re accidental tourists, ‘apes on a rock’, as one of our distinguished contributors put it recently.
It doesn't seem to me there is any moral imperative to be authentic. Authenticity would seem to be for some and not for others, and perhaps even only possible for some and not for others. So, authenticity and inauthenticity would just seem to be two possible modes of being for humans; and perhaps no human could ever be entirely one or the other.
The connection between moral judgement and motivation rests under the umbrella of our cognitive state and thus moral expression is dependent on rational thought. Authenticity is to imply a clarity or honesty of such normative judgements, because if our mental states are constructed and given to us, then there is no actual mental states, no rational thought and thus no morality. You are just a blind follower.
Depends. If you're young and totally naive, you bare your chest and run straight into the swords. After you've been righteously torn to shreds, a little comfort seems like a great idea.
one could have the experience of living your ideal life [a meaningful life] in the dreamworld, despite it not being the real thing
True. Thing is that no matter what world we live in it is still a construct of some kind. That being the case, what really matters? Does the pursuit of wealth and power matter? Is it fulfilling or lead to real happiness and bliss? If I recall, the character of Cypher, while in the midst of betraying his associates, claims that ignorance is bliss. I don't think that's true.
Now, none of this really came across in The Matrix, even though that was the symbolic meaning [but then, it did have Kenau Reeves in it.] But, that was reason the ‘red pill blue pill’ scene was meaningful, [or perhaps, what it meant to me.]
That makes no sense, it is supposed to be personal.
It might make more sense if you read what I say properly. I didn't deny that it's supposed to be personal, I said that you're making it too personal. There's a difference. It's personal for each of us, but you made it too personal with your talk of finding a partner, fighting injustice, and so on, as if that's what it's all about, rather than that being what it's all about for you, personally.
As mentioned already to Michael, the Architect at the end of the movie explains whether or not you will actually be happy considering that bad is as much a part of the human condition and necessary for the matrix to function productively, that what you are right now is just the same as what it will be in the matrix.
What? I don't remember that part, or at least not very well. But anyway, the choice under consideration, as set out in the opening post, is about two starkly different options. I wouldn't be the same either way. That makes no sense.
An ideal for who? And raising free-will is to open a can of worms. What is it? Does it exist? Is it even possible? Is it necessary or of any practical value? What if it's just an illusion? Would that even matter? I'm not convinced that it would even matter, so no, free-will, as opposed to the illusion of free-will, is not an ideal for me.
True. Thing is that no matter what world we live in it is still a construct of some kind. That being the case, what really matters? Does the pursuit of wealth and power matter? Is it fulfilling or lead to real happiness and bliss? If I recall, the character of Cypher, while in the midst of betraying his associates, claims that ignorance is bliss. I don't think that's true.
For who? Look, if wealth and power matter to me, or if that's what I find fulfilling, or if that'll lead to real happiness for me, and so on, for whatever reason, then it makes sense for me to pursue wealth and power, unless something else matters to me even more than that, or would be even more fulfilling, and so on. Similarly, if being miserable is something which matters to me, in that I know I would rather avoid it, then it makes sense to avoid the option in which it's a given, as per the opening post, that I'll be miserable, unless, once again, there's something which matters to me even more than that. If a miserable reality outside of the matrix is your proposal, as it must be, being the only other option on the table, then, I say to you that I have considered it, but ultimately rejected it as less desirable.
That doesn't make me a coward, contrary to what has been suggested by [url=https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/181537]Her Nobleness[/URL]. It makes me a rational hedonist.
That doesn't make me a coward, contrary to what has been suggested by Her Nobleness. It makes me a rational hedonist.
A rational hedonist who, if we're going along with psychedelics metaphor, denies themselves the rapture of transcendence. Does that make sense? Perhaps ignorance is being ignorant of what's possible rather it being bliss.
In the story, Neo could fly in the matrix. He even transcended death in the matrix. Flying and no fear of death would not appeal to a rational hedonist? It should, so we might conclude that the reluctance is based on fear (of the unknown or whatever) and attraction to the relative comfort of the known and predictable.
In the story, Neo could fly in the matrix. He even transcended death in the matrix. Flying and no fear of death would not appeal to a rational hedonist? It should, so we might conclude that the reluctance is based on fear (of the unknown or whatever) and attraction to the relative comfort of the known and predictable.
But that's neither continuing to be miserable in the domain of the real nor giving up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. That's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it option outside of those presented, which means you're breaking the rules.
But that's neither continuing to be miserable in the domain of the real nor giving up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld.
Being miserable in the domain of the real is a narrative of the matrix. An advantage of transcending the matrix is not being a slave to such narratives.
That's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it option outside of those presented, which means you're breaking the rules.
Breaking the rules, yes, that's the method, and if you know the story (it's a trilogy), it was by breaking up the rules that the war ended. No more miserable war because some dared to break the rules.
I didn't grow up in the sixties but, coincidentally, I just finished reading How to Change Your Mind: What The New Science Of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, And Transcendence and when I read this topic yesterday I immediately made the association. I didn't get it before I guess.
It's interesting that psychedelics have made a comeback, but you have to be careful what you say.
In my case, the point was to discover an alternative way of seeing. Of course when you're a teen, then with the absence of emotional maturity and impulsiveness, that easily can and does morph into plain old habituation or empty thrill-seeking, but I like to think that it was really the quest for enlightenment all along. (It seemed obvious to me, at that time, that this 'enlightenment' business was real and important, and typical of the stupidity of 'straight society' that they didn't get it. You can't underestimate the significance of the arrival of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band in the middle of all this, specifically the final song.)
The upshot was, there were a few episodes, or times, when I really did break through to a sense of intrinsic amazement at how things actually are - close to the realisation of such-ness (see here for Alduous Huxley's famous depiction in Doors of Perception). But of course it was always impossible to sustain that awareness, and one always fell back. That was where my original interest in meditation and spirituality originated.
The religious impulse of the sixties must be rescued from the wreckage and redeemed. The exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism that my generation had to get haphazardly from contemporary literature and music should be formalized and standardized for basic education. What students need to negotiate their way through the New Age fog is scholarly knowledge of ancient and medieval history, from early pagan nature cults through the embattled consolidation of Christian theology. Teaching religion as culture rather than as morality also gives students the intellectual freedom to find the ethical principles at the heart of every religion.
Which is more or less what I've been working at ever since. Hence, my reaction to the 'red pill/blue pill' scene - it seemed to me commercial exploitation of something with real meaning. Close to blasphemy, in fact.
I don't see how it follows that if "our mental states are constructed and given to us, then there is no actual mental states, no rational thought and thus no morality". For sure, to the extent that we simply follow received opinion without question, you might say we are nothing but "blind followers". However, normative moral rules are also given to us. If the purpose of moral rules is to produce good, well-socialized people, does it matter whether that is achieved by blindly following the rules to a tee, or mindfully following them to a tee? If so, who does it matter to: the society or the individual, or both? And if it does matter, then why does it matter?
Is there a difference between intelligently, but completely obediently (that is, without question), interpreting and following the rules, and intelligently, but perhaps compassionately and wisely, bending the rules as particular situations seem to demand? Or is any bending of the rules a selfish act, as Kant would have it? How would you ever measure such differences? I really don't think the picture is as simplistic as you seem to be wanting to paint it.
It's interesting that psychedelics have made a comeback, but you have to be careful what you say.
Could be the powers that be are desperate enough to allow psychedelic research to continue, with the ineffectiveness of current treatments for anxiety disorders, depression, addiction, etc. I was amazed at how much research was done in the fifties and sixties before the whole thing was shut down or went underground. Indeed I don't know why Pollan calls it the "New Science of Psychedelics." From what's mentioned in the book it doesn't look like anything new has been discovered.
There's a recent study mentioned in Pollan's book about researcher exploring the spiritual aspect of psychedelics rather than purely health-related. Scientists concerning themselves with spirituality. Promising!
In a world of pretended and supposed equals, truth as a concept does not really have much meaning. Any armchair philosopher who is worth his/her bacon can pose a rational argument do depose all or most alternate rational arguments.
In the old days (whenever they were) there were authorities, individuals and or institutions who had the final say, there were hierarchies, there were bishops, Lords, and doctors of divinity.
Nowadays there are no experts... everyone with a smartphone is an expert, many or most seek to establish or refresh their sense of significance by debunking someone else's truth. Freud was wrong, Marx was wrong, Nietzsche was wrong, Descartes was wrong.
One can make good bread from the wrongs, and there is little interest in thought that seeks agreement, or that which tips the cap to the Master... in doing so we assert that the Master was or is greater than the self. It is far more gratifying to point to the supposed weakness of other truths than bow to their strengths.
The world is waiting upon a truth that might replace the fancies, parables and celestial myths. Philosophy is not yet up to this task, perhaps because she/we are consumed with a promotion of the self through the destruction of the Master.
I think the truth about the pills is that the choice is not a real one. The notion of choice itself, that we posses the power and or freedom of choice is perhaps the greatest illusion of all. We are not so important as to have a choice, regardless of what we might like to think.
Keep the pills both of them are phony.
In time there will emerge a synthesis of thought. A great work of philosophy that will unite the disparate truth of the Masters into one enduring truth. This might only emerge when the age of self and the 'delusions' inherent to the importance of self come to an end.
We will have our truth only when we are ready for it.
In time there will emerge a synthesis of thought. A great work of philosophy that will unite the disparate truth of the Masters into one enduring truth. This might only emerge when the age of self and the 'delusions' inherent to the importance of self come to an end.
You seem to promote the virtues of both pills in the same breath. That a Masterwork matrix will someday be developed, representing the blue pill. And the dissolution of self, represented by the red pill.
I might have the colors mixed up. I don't remember exactly which is which.
There's a recent study mentioned in Pollan's book about researcher exploring the spiritual aspect of psychedelics rather than purely health-related. Scientists concerning themselves with spirituality. Promising!
There's a recent study mentioned in Pollan's book about researcher exploring the spiritual aspect of psychedelics rather than purely health-related. Scientists concerning themselves with spirituality. Promising!
— praxis
It's deja vue all over again :lol:
Not like Timothy Leary, if that's what you're thinking. But yeah, the history seems to show that after the ego is temporarily dissolved via psychedelics it tends to inflate to Godlike proportions. One of the reasons I prefer to approach it the old-fashioned way and earn it on the cushion. Not that the psychedelic approach is particularly new. It may date back thousands of years, but it was practiced within a tradition.
Not like Timothy Leary, if that's what you're thinking.
Leary was a rascal, but Ram Dass is a different matter.
But, what was distinctive and culturally significant about the psychedelic movement (or is that 'moment'), was the idea of 'awakening to reality' (notwithstanding that many will say it was the opposite of what actually was going on). But you wouldn't hear that kind of talk in a 'religious' setting. That is why I think the movement (and indeed Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism generally), were much more gnostic in their attitude; and why they're only marginally connected with 'religion' in the usual or mainstream sense. But unfortunately, the mainstream dialogue around this question is so inextricably bound up with ideas about religion that this becomes yet another source of misunderstanding. Whereas, the whole idea behind The Matrix was essentially gnostic, right down to the characters names. (It's just that it was so darn ham-fisted.)
What about chaos? I always felt that the desire to alter ones mind and hallucinate meant dissolving the percieved order/chain of progression of events/"reason"/boundaries in the universe...
I don't know. I might be professing my own ignorance about Buddhist thought; but, it seems to me that it is all about perfect control through sheer awareness. Drugs and the resulting induced psychotic states seem like an anathema to this goal of Buddhist philosophy.
To put it in scientific or pragmatic terms, Buddhists and psychedelic mystics both share at least one particular goal, which is to deactivate the neural 'default mode network'. Among other things, this network appears to be primarily responsible for our sense of self, including our personal narratives and conditioned responses. Also, when this network is subdued, the divide between the conscious and sub-conscious becomes somewhat blurred. The overall effect is "depatterning" or entropic and leaves the mind very susceptible to suggestion. This is the basic reason that unguided psychedelic trips are ill-advised, and why the same is true for Buddhist meditation practices. Although it would require a great deal of effort in the latter case to equal the power of psychedelics. It's practically effortless to eat some mushrooms, for instance.
It seems kind of counterintuitive but this depatterning can help to treat many psychological disorders because many of these disorders are essentially caused by too much order. In both anxiety disorders and depression, sufferers are locked into 'patterns' of rumination and conditioned responses. Breaking up these patterns, and taking careful advantage of the suggestibility of these states, seems to be an effective treatment.
I might be professing my own ignorance about Buddhist thought; but, it seems to me that it is all about perfect control through sheer awareness.
I've had the thought that organized religion or organized society in general, is at least somewhat at odds with 'depatterning'. Nixon said that Timothy Leary was the most dangerous man in America. He wasn't, but unfortunately for him, he was treated as such for the rest of his life.
Drugs and the resulting induced psychotic states seem like an anathema to this goal of Buddhist philosophy.
That's a good thing to believe and I wouldn't want to say anything to encourage illicit drug use. (I should add that at the time that I had such experiences the agents were still legal - looong time ago.) My comments were made in the context of the discussion of the symbolism of The Matrix and the connection between 'altered states' and hallucinogens.
The overall effect is "depatterning" or entropic and leaves the mind very susceptible to suggestion.
Generally agree, but it's rather a deflationary way of putting it. The way I understood it at the time, was that the meaning of the such experiences was in seeing through cultural conditioning - hence 'the Red Pill' analogy. As I understood it back then, most people ('straights') were acting out a program that they had been conditioned into. Being 'cool' was about seeing through that; to be 'hip' was to have inside knowledge, to see 'how it really is' as distinct from how you were told it was. So it was more a matter of seeing through the power of suggestion.
And don't forget, at least SOME of the hippies really did go on to 'put a dent in the Universe', as one of the most famous was to put it:
" Although it would require a great deal of effort in the latter case to equal the power of psychedelics. It's practically effortless to eat some mushrooms, for instance."
YES! A cow can graze, only a disciplined mind can meditate.
"It seems kind of counterintuitive but this depatterning can help to treat many psychological disorders because many of these disorders are essentially caused by too much order. In both anxiety disorders and depression, sufferers are locked into 'patterns' of rumination and conditioned responses. Breaking up these patterns, and taking careful advantage of the suggestibility of these states, seems to be an effective treatment."
That is a very profound and insightful comment. Have you considered expanding it into a paper? Very little progress has been made in treating these mind states and you have hit on something essential to a more meaningful understanding of the notion of therapy.
"You seem to promote the virtues of both pills in the same breath. That a Masterwork matrix will someday be developed, representing the blue pill. And the dissolution of self, represented by the red pill."
What I am suggesting is that formal Philosophical solution to the dilema of the pills, lies outside of the simplistic notion of the self serving consumption of either pill. The pills represent two states, I am suggesting that Philosophy points to the existence of a third higher order state, that has yet to be formally described, within the context of a synthesis of established Philosophical principles.
I am suggesting that Philosophy points to the existence of a third higher order state, that has yet to be formally described,
And which, we are continually assured, only His Excellency Professor de Brun has any comprehension of, whilst us hoi polloi writhe about in various stages of delusion.
I've had the thought that organized religion or organized society in general, is at least somewhat at odds with 'depatterning'. Nixon said that Timothy Leary was the most dangerous man in America. He wasn't, but unfortunately for him, he was treated as such for the rest of his life.
I feel as though, "organized" is being used here ambiguously or pejoratively. I wonder what does Buddhism think about the chaos, disorder, and irrationality present in the world, and how to remedy it? Through more order?
I am flattered by the compliment. However: compliments, platitudes (or otherwise) do tend to expose a supremacy of personal ego above, thought that is validated by logic. This does seem to be a bit of tempting a cul de sac, and on occasion a pathology that ultimately deposes an initially 'sound' Philosophy.
The question is one of pills the 'delusion pill' or the 'misery pill', my point is that we may not really have a choice between pills but we may have a third option which is to take both or neither (essentially the same thing), and when we do so, we might move beyond the 'hoi polloi and various stages of delusion'.
The important thing here is not to dispel the 'devil' of the the choice, but rather as Zizek asserts, to make the devil work for us.
In the movie the Matrix, a character faces a choice between continuing to be miserable in the domain of the real, or giving up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld.
This makes me think of a solipsistic god who is forever alone. To have such a big mind and no one to bounce ideas off might be unexciting, even perhaps limiting to that god. That’s the metaphor I think of when I read this, a god who is alone and limited to himself in reality, while in a dream he can (seemingly)affect others and enjoy a (seemingly) shared reality with ‘others’ like himself. To a solipsistic god, “ignorance” might just be bliss. Also, it might not.
That is a very profound and insightful comment. Have you considered expanding it into a paper? Very little progress has been made in treating these mind states and you have hit on something essential to a more meaningful understanding of the notion of therapy.
I mentioned earlier in the discussion that I just finished reading a book that explores the topic. The subject is fascinating and I highly recommend: How to Change Your Mind
I feel as though, "organized" is being used here ambiguously or pejoratively. I wonder what does Buddhism think about the chaos, disorder, and irrationality present in the world, and how to remedy it? Through more order?
@wayfarer could address this better.
Too much order, or rather a hyperactive default mode network (See), can lead to host of psychological issues and causes a lot of suffering in the world. Ultimately the Buddhist position claims that the remedy is to abandon or transcend it all, but more practically that there's a 'middle way', not too much order or too much chaos.
It really shows the limitations and truth of the representational theory of mind.
I think we are coming from quite different assumptions: I am no fan of representational theories of mind. In any case It's not clear whether you want to say that the limitations or the truth of the representational theory of mind (is there only one?) is shown.
(I should add that at the time that I had such experiences the agents were still legal - looong time ago.)
What year were you taking hallucinogens? They were illegal in Australia (and most of the rest of the world from the information I can find) shortly after they were made illegal in the US in 1967. I'm not sure of the exact date, but they were certainly well and truly illegal when I first began taking LSD in 1970 at the age of 17.
I wonder what does Buddhism think about the chaos, disorder, and irrationality present in the world, and how to remedy it? Through more order?
Buddhism obviously doesn’t condone intoxicant use, which is against the precepts. But recall that Buddhism began as one of the ‘forest-dwelling’ religions. The symbolic meaning of ‘the forest’ is renunciation of social mores and structures. It doesn’t mean relapsing into atavism, as Buddhism obviously places huge emphasis on demeanour and behaviour - the Vinaya [monastic] Code comprises more than two hundred and fifty rules, and monastic Buddhism is [as you say] highly disciplined. But renunciation means not conforming to ‘the ways of the world’ - the demands of profession, caste, family, and social structure. Buddhists are sometimes described as ‘going against the current’.
I recall one of Freud’s essays ‘Civilization and its Discontents’ - the Buddha dealt with such discontents by stepping out of the civil order, into an order of a different kind [although one which I think Freud himself had no inkling of, being wedded to scientific materialism]. So the parallel with The Matrix, is that from the perspective of the Buddha, the domain which us ‘worldlings’ [‘puthujjana’] belong to, is an illusory world, from his perspective [which is incidentally a perspective we hardly have an inkling of ourselves.] That is why the traditional iconography of the ‘bhavachakra’ [the Wheel of Life] depicts the Buddha [and bodhisattvas] as altogether outside the ‘six realms’, floating ‘outside the circle’ [although some also depict him within each of the six realms as well, in miniature, signifiying ‘transcendent yet immanent’ - something I learned on DharmaWheel].
So you don't remember what year you first took hallucinogens? I could never forget my first experience, including when it occurred and how old I was. If for you it was, say, 1968, you would have been fifteen, no? That would be very young to start messing with a still-developing mind! Even 17 was probably a little too young, I would say. I couldn't find clear information as to when Australia declared those drugs illegal, but apparently it was "very soon" after the US did so in 1967 (or 1966 according to another source). I would guess that they were illegal by 1968 at the latest.
Reply to Janus As you might be able to glean from my comments, I am loathe to say anything on a public forum which could be construed as advice or encouragement to consume banned substances. But in my case, at least for some of the time, they weren’t illegal, and I haven’t done that again since around that time.
We are all adults here. All I'm asking is how old you were when you first took them. Since you have several times on these forums declared that you were born in 1953 (as was I) we already know that in the "late sixties, you could have been no older that 16. Answering the question would in no way be construed as encouragement for anyone else to indulge in hallucinogens. It might even provide a cautionary tale. :wink:
Reply to Janus Must have been late 60's or possibly 1970-72, I have the idea that that last time was around 1975-6. After that, I decided that 'the only way out is through'.
I've been working towards a transcendent experience, with increasing diligence of late, with meditation and other natural means (not that substances in something like mushrooms are unnatural). I wouldn't go out of my way to try psychedelics, but if the opportunity presented itself... I'd probably try it.
But in my case, at least for some of the time, they weren’t illegal,
From the information I have about the legal status of psychotropics in Australia, I can only conclude that you must have started in late '67 or early '68 at the latest, if they were indeed still legal, then. Given that you would have been 14, 15 or at the most 16 at the time; I think the more likely explanation is that you started later than that, and are mistaken about the legality of the drugs you were taking at that time.
Anyway, it's not a problem. I have no problem admitting that I have taken, and perhaps even will in the future take, "illegal substances". I don't believe governments have any business telling us what drugs we may and may not consume; when the legal drugs alcohol and nicotine, arguably cause by far the greatest social harms.
I took hallucinogens intensively (about once or twice a week) 1970-1971 and into early 1972. Suddenly I just stopped; I knew it was enough. I took them a few isolated times over the years until I experimented with them again (not very intensively, though; only about once every couple months) from 2002 through 2005. A few times since then, MDMA only.
If you are going to experience hallucinogens then you should be very physically and emotionally healthy, abstain from alcohol and other stimulants, do it in the presence of a 'minder' who is not themselves partaking, be very confident of the sources of what you are taking, choose the right setting with people you are very familiar and comfortable with, and so on. In other words the experience should be treated with great respect, diligent preparation, physical and mental/emotional, and even a sense of reverence.
The importance of "set and setting," a competent guide, intention, etc., is all covered in Pollan's book, in rather extensive detail. There seems to be a lot of variables to carefully consider, not the least of which whatever may be lurking in the subconscious that may come to the surface.
Another important piece of advice is to be open and receptive to whatever happens. If a door presents itself, go through it. If something terrifying appears, go towards it.
Reply to Janus Well, it was pretty early for me. OK, maybe it wasn't still legal but it was around the late sixties - early 70's. As I said from the outset it was about breaking through to a different perspective. (Actually one of the better books I read on it, around the late eighties, was Storming Heaven by Jay Stevens.)
I think a natural alternative to break out or through your sense of conditioned normality is through 'the ordeal'. Intensive meditation retreats are ordeals through which break-out experiences occur. I did one 10-day Vipassana retreat in 2007. That was an ordeal. It's amazing that so many people are willing to turn up and undergo it. Nobody says that it's an ordeal, but it is. I think that is behind the idea of 'askesis', which is training for those kinds of experiences (not 'harsh asceticism'.)
I have to constantly work not to fall back into middle-aged, middle-class torpor. Coming to think of it, much harder than I'm currently working. :sad:
I couldn't handle the experience. In some ways it was an inverted experience for me. Namely, that stability and sanity became more important for me. I became more drawn towards order and conformity...
I have to constantly work not to fall back into middle-aged, middle-class torpor. Coming to think of it, much harder than I'm currently working. :sad:
I think we all face that situation, especially as we grow older. I'm somewhat lucky, I guess, as I've always been self-employed in landscaping; very physical work. Lately, as I am working less, I am walking and going to the gym more. It all starts with the body, I tend to think (well, it's really the bodymind).
Reply to Janus I have struck up a relationship with a bona-fide Zen teacher on DharmaWheel - hoping one day to participate in a sesshin [intensive retreat] at his centre in Wisconsin - as it happens, only ninety minutes from where my son has settled.
I saw a really nice looking belt in a shop once and when I looked at the label it read: "Genuine Leatherlon". I guess it was made from a material that had somewhat leatherlike qualities.
Genuine sagelon, anyone? That's all you'll be gettin' in the matrix, anyhow...
Reply to praxis I drove out there with my younger son last September and met him. He was very friendly and welcoming. Hoping to go back. Possibly this year, if the chips fall right.
Well, no matter how "seasoned" he is, he better have someone watching!
Back in the day, we always had someone on acid to mind us while we were straight, because while a tripper might leap of the roof thinking he can fly, only straights start wars.
And that's it really, most of us are so fucked up that a bit of brain scrambling is actually an improvement. But for myself, I discovered a long time ago now that if you take the acid test, you fail. So I now maintain my lunacy unassisted.
But for myself, I discovered a long time ago now that if you take the acid test, you fail.
Yeah, well, I think we are all different as much as we are similar, I usually found that after an initial bout with terror, I usually came through...but then I always inevitably (and you might say, unfortunately) came down as well, but I'm interested to know what that failure looks like for you.
I'm interested to know what that failure looks like for you.
Well without getting too woo about it, one can benefit from escaping from one's habits of mind, but there's no point in making a habit of it. I think it is usually the loss of the habitual that is terrifying - the uptight are always controlling their anxiety with ritual that they identify with. But the odd thing about such drugs is that the loss of control is also largely an illusion, you're far more capable and in control on acid than alcohol, in terms of driving for instance though the sensation is the opposite. Also sex... I wonder what the consent issues are these days?
It might make more sense if you read what I say properly. I didn't deny that it's supposed to be personal, I said that you're making it too personal. There's a difference. It's personal for each of us, but you made it too personal with your talk of finding a partner, fighting injustice, and so on, as if that's what it's all about, rather than that being what it's all about for you, personally.
What I was attempting to convey is that we form meaning through love and our virtues - such as righteousness - and it is a natural part of the human condition to desire happiness. Cypher did not experience love and so turned to hedonism as a last resort, but I doubt he would have wanted to return back to the Matrix if the love was reciprocated, clearly by his determination that he forgets everything. Finding real love and being able to be charitable and fight injustice enables meaning that we create and gives us purpose, so it is not being too personal here. It is really a part of our human nature. The difference is Cypher chose something false or unreal whereas Neo didn't. It is just about the authenticity of our motives.
Well without getting too woo about it, one can benefit from escaping from one's habits of mind, but there's no point in making a habit of it. I think it is usually the loss of the habitual that is terrifying - the uptight are always controlling their anxiety with ritual that they identify with. But the odd thing about such drugs is that the loss of control is also largely an illusion, you're far more capable and in control on acid than alcohol, in terms of driving for instance though the sensation is the opposite. Also sex... I wonder what the consent issues are these days?
How would you go about "getting too woo about it"?
I agree you can benefit from losing mental habits, but I can't see how you could make a habit out of it. I have to say I found hallucinogens to be the least habit-forming drugs I ever encountered.
I'd say you're right that we (the uptight) control our anxieties through establishing rituals and routines, physical, mental and emotional; that pretty much summarizes the human condition. This constitutes the familiar for us, and it is the loss of the familiar that can be terrifying. It can also be exhilarating, even enlightening.
It's funny you mention driving while on acid. That was one of my favourite activities when i was young and stupid. You are certainly right that one's control is generally much greater when tripping than it is when pissed. Similarly for amphetamines, I would say; obviously a lot of professional drivers use them. Some amphetamines (mescaline, MDMA) do have very similar effects to the tryptamines (LSD, DMT and psilocybin) The dangers with any of them come when the hallucinations get out of control!
And sex! Yeah, now that is incredible when tripping (with the right person, of course). I'm not sure what you are alluding to with "consent issues", though.
From what I understand, psychedelics leave a person more susceptible to suggest, a conditional that a sexual predator could take advantage of. Allegedly, the underground community of ‘guides’ has an code of ethics that excludes sexual contact.
From what I understand, psychedelics leave a person more susceptible to suggest, a conditional that a sexual predator could take advantage of.
I guess that might be true for some, it certainly hasn't been my experience; I seem, if anything, to be more sure of my feelings towards others when I am entheogenerated! (Oh, look, a neologism!)
I seem, if anything, to be more sure of my feelings towards others when I am entheogenerated!
Trippers typically report stronger or renewed meaning for things that might ordinarily seem trite or banal. This phenomenon might only add weight to calculated manipulation while in a state of high suggestibility.
It's possible I guess, I don't know. Certainly what ordinarily might appear banal may be imbued with (sometimes profound and novel) meaning. My own and other's masks always seemed (sometimes painfully) revealed to me when in the experience, and so I would consequently be wary of, and resistant to, even my own thoughts, let alone the suggestions of others. Not saying my experience is universal, or even typical, though.
According to my experience. you come through the 'hell' stage when you can allow all thoughts to drop away, and see things with perfect clarity. What it is that you see seems to be impossible to verbalize; so perhaps it is really a powerful affect rather than consisting in any kind of discursive or rational thought. I would say that in that state I am anything but suggestible, though, since I am not listening to any thoughts at all; in that heightened state all discursive kinds of thoughts seem so terribly banal.
That is not to say that others cannot say things that seem profoundly right, though; but I don't believe I could be hoodwinked into doing anything that didn't seem profoundly right in the moment. I am quite confident that if someone was a sexual predator, that would be transparently obvious to a heightened consciousness. Maybe someone could be manipulated while they were in the fear stage, I guess; but in my own case I would not trust anyone, least of all myself, when in that state.
Allegedly, the underground community of ‘guides’ has an code of ethics that excludes sexual contact.
Never trip with sexual predators, never trip with anyone who imagines they are part of an underground community of guides (that's the woo, right there), and never trip whilst paranoid. A trusted friend is who you need - accept no substitutes.
I agree with most of what you say here. my only question concerns what you say about "underground guides"; is imagining you could be a guide on account of your extensive experience different in this connection than in any other sphere of life? Is it any more "woo", for example, than imagining you are a psychotherapist, or imagining simply that you can offer advice based on experience, as you presumably have? The "underground" part might sound woolike to the skeptical mind, but we are talking about illegal activities.
Reply to frank Maybe choice 1 is the dreamworld. While I am technically asleep in my bed I usually have no perceptual thought arising informing the "dreamer" I am dreaming.
Isn't this also the case in so called "real life"?
Reply to Janus Had an experience with ‘edibles’ yesterday. My, it’s been a long time. Anyway, was engaged in the most mundane of activities, assisting someone moving house. I was listening to iTunes, standing in the vacant lounge-room of the new premisses, holding a carton, when it kicked in. Very subtle. But just then, this absolutely superb composition started in iTunes - something I’ve had for a long time, never heard or noticed it before. And I just went into a really superb inner space. This music evoked in me an intuition of the most exquisite woman, indescribably beautiful and elegant. And also of being in a place of complete harmony and beauty, refinement and ease. Like an intuition of another, completely different kind of life. I was just for a moment, feeling that presence. I feel it was the intuition of Sophia. At that moment - this is what it has all been about, all along.
Of course, what goes up, must come down. Today, life just goes on, there’s a ton of stuff needs doing. But for a moment there...
//ps - icons of the goddess, Prajñ?p?ramit?, the Oriental counterpart of Sophia.
Comments (178)
[Actually on that note, I once read an insightful analysis of the way that movies like Matrix, Inception, and others of that genre evoke the sense in us of life being like a grand illusion or mirage in which we’re unwittingly trapped. It is a powerful meme with quasi-religious overtones; it’s rather like the gnostic understanding.]
Yes. The world has recently embraced Nietzsche as the greatest thinker of all time (metaphorically speaking).
Don't be ridiculous. Truth is alive and well. It's the definition of truth that's been deflated.
Me too.
Grace requires adversity.
Wealth and power in the dreamworld.
I don't understand the appeal of power.
Yath?bh?ta?
Phenomenal/Reality getting closer.
I don't believe there is a hidden reality, I think that what's phenomenal is reality and everything else is an abstraction from that.
Maybe if you could be less ambiguous with what you mean by power? Are you in a position of authority, like a President? Because the problem with that is that there is a shitload of responsibility that distracts from living a leisurely life.
The options weren't that specific, but I suppose that that's a risk, and one which I hadn't considered. It's kind of off putting. But wouldn't similar risks apply on the basis of wealth alone? Are you a lottery winner or a criminal? If the latter, then your wealthy life might be short lived and replaced with a life behind bars.
100% red pill.
True, but so would the monks who stay in the monastery.
People are different. Cypher isn't Neo. And misery isn't what you dictate it to be.
Cypher didn't get the girl.
Yes, but people and outcomes are variable to a much greater extent than the characters of Cypher and Neo, and what happened to them in the film.
I agree, but the parallel here is about our state of mind, about the authenticity of our experiences. We can easily find a partner who we are indifferent to but they have a pleasing enough face to help tolerate having sex with, or we can find someone who we genuinely care about and fulfils our experience in life beyond that mere interaction. We can go to work in a dead end job as long as we make money to buy material bullshit and a nice meal until we grow old and die, or we can fight injustice and do something meaningful in our lives.
Lottery winner, obviously. Or inheritance. Or a savvy investment that I've cashed in.
I'd even argue that the deeper premise of the movie is that the real is unknowable. The taking of the pill occurred within the matrix and was just another illusion.
It put you in the Matrix; it didn't take you out.
If your life is determined, how can you make the choice for one. And two:
What makes you think you will have a happy life?
It leads to solipsism, though.
Abstractions aren't hidden. They're in plain view everywhere. Aren't you yourself an abstraction?
Monks are always feeding the poor and taking in stray schnauzers. Hermits become useless to society.
Well, I don't know if I'd call it misery. But I'd want real power and money, as opposed to dream power and money. And besides that there are other more important things which would be similar -- whatever we care about I'd want something real rather than a simulation of what is real. What is real matters to me.
First I'd be curious. What in the heck are you talking about? Sure, I want to see what that's all about. And then I'd sort of feel like I was caged, just taking the premise of the film at face value, and I would want to remain free.
That's taking the dilemma at literal face value though. If the real (serious) message regards the choice of giving up what is authentically important to you for money and power then no, because that would lead to emptiness, and it's better to be just miserable than to be miserable and empty.
No, I would say that I'am a particular social construction, not an abstraction.
If you prick Cavacava, does he not bleed?
Asking the easy questions today? :D
There's a funny thing about the question "What does that mean to you?" There's a couple of senses of "mean" that come out, when I read it -- in one way you are asking me the simple linguistic meaning, or the meaning of the concept of freedom in a descriptive sense. In the other sense you are asking me what freedom means to me as in why is it meaningful or important to me. And maybe you are really asking both questions. If you meant anything besides that then you'll have to explicate a bit.
Freedom is a negative condition -- in the sense that you only lose it because you are being coerced. But there is nothing specific to the condition of freedom just by virtue that you could be doing any number of things while being free, and you could even being doing those same things while being unfree. Freedom isn't an action, but a mode of action. And in a simple sense it just means a lack of coercion. But what counts as coercion? That's where you'll have people disagree. I'd say that a fantasy-land of realistic feeling pleasures is coercion -- a coercion I'd take over fear and pain as tools of coercion, by all means, but coercion all the same.
What comes of freedom is up to the actor. That's the whole point. So it can't be specified, really. But there is something worthwhile in owning your own actions, rather than doing them because someone is enticing you to do them. From my perspective, at least, I'll take a world of pain where I am not being coerced over a world of pleasure where I am. Because the pain coming from the world is something you can contend with, you have the ability to act and learn how to deal with it. But in a world where you are the object to be controlled you have no such recourse. You're alienated even from yourself.
Plus, in a more practical manner, it's not like the world the Matrix created was all that great to begin with :D. Pain and suffering are just part of life. There's no eliminating that. But if you are free you can learn to be at peace with it.
You're a person. You're at least part abstraction.
His body probably would. Is he nothing but a body? What is the difference between Cavacava and a hammer?
This is the heavy-weight answer, I think. To be or not to be, right?
Unless you're some kind of dualist, he's both.
Quoting frank
Hammer has better raps.
Hammer has better raps than you too. :)
Is a dollar bill just a piece of paper or is its value based on our consensus, which is not abstract, it is the product of mutual agreement. A person, I think is in a some what a similar way constituted (or say instituted) by the consensus of associations we interact with.
And they hurt :rofl:
Oh, yes. :point:
I did back down somewhat, I guess. We're partly abstract.
This is backward. Misery is encoded into the matrix. One of the agents even points this out explicitly at one point in the movie.
Indeed, machines lack the ability to describe a free world.
Cypher chose the known, predictable, and limited world of the matrix, out of the mere comfort of familiarity and habit, I guess.
Oh...
(That puts a different perspective on it. I remember next to nothing about the movie.)
BTW: think of the characters in your portraits. Do you ever think of them as real and alive? Bound by a reality you've created for them? I'm not asking if you're insane. I'm just asking if you're driven to imbue a sense of life to them.
Yeah, no doubt some monks do those kinds of things.
Anyway, I was half-joking with my response. The truth is I'm not sure what I'd do. It's a complex question. Does your being in the matrix benefit others beings; the machines for example, which in this scenario are sentient? Could you pursue philosophy there? Could you make others in the matrix happy or sad on account of your behavior?
*just wallows*
?
The answer to this is in the story. The characters who woke up could do things that no sleeper could do. Neo could literally fly in the matrix.
Outside of the story and in our 'real' world, liberating ourselves from our rigid and habitual patterns can offer greater creativity, connection, reduce anxiety, and potentially bring bliss.
Do those in the matrix think about their lives and find themselves being in love or friendship? Is the matrix not just the same as, phenomenologically speaking, and thus indistinguishable from, our own lives?
Well, if we assume that this love or friendship is solipsistic in nature, given the realization that it's all a sham, then would you feel comfortable living in such a perfect prison?
It wasn't explicit, but I think it actually was nested matrices. Neo made a bunch of robots fall down with his mind when he was supposed to be outside the matrix. In the second movie? I forget.
I guess the question is: how do we come to realize it is all a sham? And how do we know that realization is sound?
Personally, I'm interminably curious and would have liked to swallow both pills just to see what happens. But I'm a bit of a coward, too, so I'd probably have liked to say no thanks to both. With a choice forced upon me, I'd probably be sitting between both until they lose patience and I make a choice at random.
That sounds like a cop out, but this is a situation where people who care very much try to force a dichotomy on me that may not mean much to me. At that point, I certainly don't have enough information to make any sort of meaningful decision. Swallowing both pills is the wait-and-see-but-accelarate-the-process option.
If it were possible in the matrix scenario to know it is a simulation, should we not work from within (return to the Cave, Plato style) to enlighten others rather than exit to fight a war with the oppressors?
On the other hand in the premise of the actual movie one must be both 'out' and 'in' in order to effect any change.
Who knows such things? You can't doubt the process of doubting itself, so as long as your able to doubt or are willing to consider the possibility that it's a sham, then there's the chance that through that volition will arise an answer to those doubts. If it's all impossible then the whole issue becomes moot, but that's an epistempic gap that can only arise had you been omniscient or continually doubting.
Indeed, who knows such things? And that was the question. Perhaps we cannot question the process of doubt; but to doubt anything requires believing something else, and not merely believing that you are doubting, either.
How do any "answers" elevate themselves above the sea of doubt and belief? That is the question of all questions.
What does this mean?
I think it goes deeper than that, if you're willing to entertain some thoughts. Let's say you were omniscient. Wouldn't that create that paradox that you we're solipsistic at the same time, since there's nothing more to know?
Quoting Janus
Yes, and that something else is always a gap in knowledge or a solution to the above solipsistic situation, the process of doubting itself, if you will.
Quoting Janus
Well, as long as you can doubt, then there's the chance of an answer.
Quoting Janus
I hope I clarified it with the above...
Well, not really...I am not seeing how any of your responses are actually related to the questions...might just be me, I guess...
Hmm, let me know what's confusing you about what I said or how it doesn't relate to the questions? I'll try and be more clear.
:ok:
Cowardice. The worst kind being those that actually admit to being a coward, that conscious decision to avoid responsibility and allow others to think on your behalf.
Well, the first question was as to how we could know, not about the possibly solipsistic implications of omniscience; a topic which seems, at least on the face of it, entirely unrelated.
The statement after that was about the intrinsic relationship between doubt and belief, and your response said nothing at all about belief.
The second question was about how we can be sure of any answers, and your response spoke only of the possibility of answers. Do you mean the possibility of answers of which we could be certain, and if so, how would that reconcile with the "as long as you can still doubt"? Because it seems that if answers were certain, then there would be no possibility of doubt, so I'm quite confused as to what you are wanting to say here.
It doesn't seem to me there is any moral imperative to be authentic. Authenticity would seem to be for some and not for others, and perhaps even only possible for some and not for others. So, authenticity and inauthenticity would just seem to be two possible modes of being for humans; and perhaps no human could ever be entirely one or the other.
So, how can we know? Through doubting. I hope that's simple enough. Now, the point I was trying to make with the whole solipsism thing, might be better understood with some analogy. So, let's assume that you're dreaming. You inhabit a solipsistic world. So, analogously to the matrix world, there's no way for you to tell if your dream is reality or not, because you and the dream are the same thing.
Anyway, I won't get hung up on that, and if that doesn't make sense I'll just think over it some more and polish up the idea.
Quoting Janus
Well, belief has to be about something, if we don't live in a solipsistic world. If we inhabit a dream, for example, then there's no room for doubt because all your beliefs originate from yourself. I don't think that makes sense. What I'm getting at is that doubt can only exist if there is a lack in knowledge. In a dream everything is perfectly clear, there's no room for/to doubt the existence of the dream world itself because there is no room for doubt itself.
Quoting Janus
Are you talking about certainty?
Quoting Posty McPostface
These two statements seem contradictory. So. I remain confused.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I don't see why it would be impossible to experience doubt when dreaming.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I think so, but now I'm not certain. :wink:
I think the point is to question what certainty could possibly consist in. Is there any absolute certainty beyond deductive certainty? Is even deductive certainty absolute? On the other hand what could certainty be, phenomenologically speaking, beyond just a feeling; if I feel certain, then I am certain. Is to be certain necessarily the same thing as to be right?
In my own experience, the dreamworld of sex, drugs, and shoegaze is pretty miserable, and the glimpses of reality I've had have been nothing other than complete peace. Reality seems illusive and not inherently tied to "life", like the rose garden in the first stanza of Burnt Norton in T.S. Elliot's Four Quartets. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but whatever.
But also, isn't comfort ultimately miserable?
Yeah, when it turns into discomfort.
So, one of the strange things you might say is that epistemologically, the only certain belief that one can hold about knowledge, is that one can be certain only of one's own experiences/sensory data/mental representations. So, that's solipsism in a nutshell. I don't understand why many philosophers shun the idea. It really shows the limitations and truth of the representational theory of mind.
Anyway, if one knew everything there was to know about the world, there wouldn't be anything to doubt anymore, again presuming certainty and solipsism at the same time. So, as long as one's knowledge about the world is incomplete, then there's room for doubt. Therefore, if one were to perpetually live in a dream, then one would never come to realize it from within it due to the solipsistic nature of the dream.
You're making this too personal. The options, as set out in the opening post, are to continue to be miserable in the domain of the real, or to give up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. The options aren't as you set out above, and besides, one could have the experience of living your ideal life in the dreamworld, despite it not being the real thing. The real thing might be your priority, but it's clearly not everyone's priority, and that's okay. It's okay that there's a difference in how people answer this question. There's no real right or wrong here. You should recognise that your ideal life isn't necessarily the ideal life of others.
Well, if we get to choose, then I wouldn't be the president, I'd be in some other position of power which better suits my desire.
That makes no sense, it is supposed to be personal. As mentioned already to Michael, the Architect at the end of the movie explains whether or not you will actually be happy considering that bad is as much a part of the human condition and necessary for the matrix to function productively, that what you are right now is just the same as what it will be in the matrix. You are not Cypher. You are Jessica from West Brompton who eats gluten free.
Is free-will an ideal?
Now, none of this really came across in The Matrix, even though that was the symbolic meaning [but then, it did have Kenau Reeves in it.] But, that was reason the ‘red pill blue pill’ scene was meaningful, [or perhaps, what it meant to me.]
But in the context of the secular world, the world of ‘the straights’ as the sixties types would say - there is no ‘higher truth’ to discover. The universe is essentially rocks, gas, stars and empty space, and we’re accidental tourists, ‘apes on a rock’, as one of our distinguished contributors put it recently.
Nothing to see here folks - move right along.
Right off the bat, I don't remember Morpheus telling Neo that he was going to be a success.
The connection between moral judgement and motivation rests under the umbrella of our cognitive state and thus moral expression is dependent on rational thought. Authenticity is to imply a clarity or honesty of such normative judgements, because if our mental states are constructed and given to us, then there is no actual mental states, no rational thought and thus no morality. You are just a blind follower.
It's the journey, not the destination.
Unless it's the destination.
Depends. If you're young and totally naive, you bare your chest and run straight into the swords. After you've been righteously torn to shreds, a little comfort seems like a great idea.
True. Thing is that no matter what world we live in it is still a construct of some kind. That being the case, what really matters? Does the pursuit of wealth and power matter? Is it fulfilling or lead to real happiness and bliss? If I recall, the character of Cypher, while in the midst of betraying his associates, claims that ignorance is bliss. I don't think that's true.
I didn't grow up in the sixties but, coincidentally, I just finished reading How to Change Your Mind: What The New Science Of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, And Transcendence and when I read this topic yesterday I immediately made the association. I didn't get it before I guess.
It might make more sense if you read what I say properly. I didn't deny that it's supposed to be personal, I said that you're making it too personal. There's a difference. It's personal for each of us, but you made it too personal with your talk of finding a partner, fighting injustice, and so on, as if that's what it's all about, rather than that being what it's all about for you, personally.
Quoting TimeLine
What? I don't remember that part, or at least not very well. But anyway, the choice under consideration, as set out in the opening post, is about two starkly different options. I wouldn't be the same either way. That makes no sense.
Quoting TimeLine
What? I'm who? What are you talking about?
Quoting TimeLine
An ideal for who? And raising free-will is to open a can of worms. What is it? Does it exist? Is it even possible? Is it necessary or of any practical value? What if it's just an illusion? Would that even matter? I'm not convinced that it would even matter, so no, free-will, as opposed to the illusion of free-will, is not an ideal for me.
For who? Look, if wealth and power matter to me, or if that's what I find fulfilling, or if that'll lead to real happiness for me, and so on, for whatever reason, then it makes sense for me to pursue wealth and power, unless something else matters to me even more than that, or would be even more fulfilling, and so on. Similarly, if being miserable is something which matters to me, in that I know I would rather avoid it, then it makes sense to avoid the option in which it's a given, as per the opening post, that I'll be miserable, unless, once again, there's something which matters to me even more than that. If a miserable reality outside of the matrix is your proposal, as it must be, being the only other option on the table, then, I say to you that I have considered it, but ultimately rejected it as less desirable.
That doesn't make me a coward, contrary to what has been suggested by [url=https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/181537]Her Nobleness[/URL]. It makes me a rational hedonist.
A rational hedonist who, if we're going along with psychedelics metaphor, denies themselves the rapture of transcendence. Does that make sense? Perhaps ignorance is being ignorant of what's possible rather it being bliss.
I wasn't following the metaphor, but no, you're not making sense. It would be the misery of transcendence. It wouldn't be a rapture.
In the story, Neo could fly in the matrix. He even transcended death in the matrix. Flying and no fear of death would not appeal to a rational hedonist? It should, so we might conclude that the reluctance is based on fear (of the unknown or whatever) and attraction to the relative comfort of the known and predictable.
But that's neither continuing to be miserable in the domain of the real nor giving up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. That's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it option outside of those presented, which means you're breaking the rules.
Being miserable in the domain of the real is a narrative of the matrix. An advantage of transcending the matrix is not being a slave to such narratives.
Quoting Sapientia
Breaking the rules, yes, that's the method, and if you know the story (it's a trilogy), it was by breaking up the rules that the war ended. No more miserable war because some dared to break the rules.
It's interesting that psychedelics have made a comeback, but you have to be careful what you say.
In my case, the point was to discover an alternative way of seeing. Of course when you're a teen, then with the absence of emotional maturity and impulsiveness, that easily can and does morph into plain old habituation or empty thrill-seeking, but I like to think that it was really the quest for enlightenment all along. (It seemed obvious to me, at that time, that this 'enlightenment' business was real and important, and typical of the stupidity of 'straight society' that they didn't get it. You can't underestimate the significance of the arrival of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band in the middle of all this, specifically the final song.)
The upshot was, there were a few episodes, or times, when I really did break through to a sense of intrinsic amazement at how things actually are - close to the realisation of such-ness (see here for Alduous Huxley's famous depiction in Doors of Perception). But of course it was always impossible to sustain that awareness, and one always fell back. That was where my original interest in meditation and spirituality originated.
A couple of references:
The Paisley Gate, Erik Davis
Cults and Cosmic Consciousness, Camille Paglia. A long essay, but well worth reading, concluding:
Which is more or less what I've been working at ever since. Hence, my reaction to the 'red pill/blue pill' scene - it seemed to me commercial exploitation of something with real meaning. Close to blasphemy, in fact.
I don't see how it follows that if "our mental states are constructed and given to us, then there is no actual mental states, no rational thought and thus no morality". For sure, to the extent that we simply follow received opinion without question, you might say we are nothing but "blind followers". However, normative moral rules are also given to us. If the purpose of moral rules is to produce good, well-socialized people, does it matter whether that is achieved by blindly following the rules to a tee, or mindfully following them to a tee? If so, who does it matter to: the society or the individual, or both? And if it does matter, then why does it matter?
Is there a difference between intelligently, but completely obediently (that is, without question), interpreting and following the rules, and intelligently, but perhaps compassionately and wisely, bending the rules as particular situations seem to demand? Or is any bending of the rules a selfish act, as Kant would have it? How would you ever measure such differences? I really don't think the picture is as simplistic as you seem to be wanting to paint it.
Could be the powers that be are desperate enough to allow psychedelic research to continue, with the ineffectiveness of current treatments for anxiety disorders, depression, addiction, etc. I was amazed at how much research was done in the fifties and sixties before the whole thing was shut down or went underground. Indeed I don't know why Pollan calls it the "New Science of Psychedelics." From what's mentioned in the book it doesn't look like anything new has been discovered.
There's a recent study mentioned in Pollan's book about researcher exploring the spiritual aspect of psychedelics rather than purely health-related. Scientists concerning themselves with spirituality. Promising!
In the old days (whenever they were) there were authorities, individuals and or institutions who had the final say, there were hierarchies, there were bishops, Lords, and doctors of divinity.
Nowadays there are no experts... everyone with a smartphone is an expert, many or most seek to establish or refresh their sense of significance by debunking someone else's truth. Freud was wrong, Marx was wrong, Nietzsche was wrong, Descartes was wrong.
One can make good bread from the wrongs, and there is little interest in thought that seeks agreement, or that which tips the cap to the Master... in doing so we assert that the Master was or is greater than the self. It is far more gratifying to point to the supposed weakness of other truths than bow to their strengths.
The world is waiting upon a truth that might replace the fancies, parables and celestial myths. Philosophy is not yet up to this task, perhaps because she/we are consumed with a promotion of the self through the destruction of the Master.
I think the truth about the pills is that the choice is not a real one. The notion of choice itself, that we posses the power and or freedom of choice is perhaps the greatest illusion of all. We are not so important as to have a choice, regardless of what we might like to think.
Keep the pills both of them are phony.
In time there will emerge a synthesis of thought. A great work of philosophy that will unite the disparate truth of the Masters into one enduring truth. This might only emerge when the age of self and the 'delusions' inherent to the importance of self come to an end.
We will have our truth only when we are ready for it.
M
You seem to promote the virtues of both pills in the same breath. That a Masterwork matrix will someday be developed, representing the blue pill. And the dissolution of self, represented by the red pill.
I might have the colors mixed up. I don't remember exactly which is which.
It's deja vue all over again :lol:
Quoting Posty McPostface
My guess would be, nothing.
So, it's dichotomies all the way down. One cancels the other and so on?
I hope you aren't a pharmacist.
Not like Timothy Leary, if that's what you're thinking. But yeah, the history seems to show that after the ego is temporarily dissolved via psychedelics it tends to inflate to Godlike proportions. One of the reasons I prefer to approach it the old-fashioned way and earn it on the cushion. Not that the psychedelic approach is particularly new. It may date back thousands of years, but it was practiced within a tradition.
Leary was a rascal, but Ram Dass is a different matter.
But, what was distinctive and culturally significant about the psychedelic movement (or is that 'moment'), was the idea of 'awakening to reality' (notwithstanding that many will say it was the opposite of what actually was going on). But you wouldn't hear that kind of talk in a 'religious' setting. That is why I think the movement (and indeed Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism generally), were much more gnostic in their attitude; and why they're only marginally connected with 'religion' in the usual or mainstream sense. But unfortunately, the mainstream dialogue around this question is so inextricably bound up with ideas about religion that this becomes yet another source of misunderstanding. Whereas, the whole idea behind The Matrix was essentially gnostic, right down to the characters names. (It's just that it was so darn ham-fisted.)
Quoting Akanthinos
Your wish is granted. :-)
Just some random rambling.
It seems kind of counterintuitive but this depatterning can help to treat many psychological disorders because many of these disorders are essentially caused by too much order. In both anxiety disorders and depression, sufferers are locked into 'patterns' of rumination and conditioned responses. Breaking up these patterns, and taking careful advantage of the suggestibility of these states, seems to be an effective treatment.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I've had the thought that organized religion or organized society in general, is at least somewhat at odds with 'depatterning'. Nixon said that Timothy Leary was the most dangerous man in America. He wasn't, but unfortunately for him, he was treated as such for the rest of his life.
That's a good thing to believe and I wouldn't want to say anything to encourage illicit drug use. (I should add that at the time that I had such experiences the agents were still legal - looong time ago.) My comments were made in the context of the discussion of the symbolism of The Matrix and the connection between 'altered states' and hallucinogens.
Quoting praxis
Generally agree, but it's rather a deflationary way of putting it. The way I understood it at the time, was that the meaning of the such experiences was in seeing through cultural conditioning - hence 'the Red Pill' analogy. As I understood it back then, most people ('straights') were acting out a program that they had been conditioned into. Being 'cool' was about seeing through that; to be 'hip' was to have inside knowledge, to see 'how it really is' as distinct from how you were told it was. So it was more a matter of seeing through the power of suggestion.
And don't forget, at least SOME of the hippies really did go on to 'put a dent in the Universe', as one of the most famous was to put it:
I think taking both pills is the same as taking no pill's you have just preserved the 'evil' that is contained in the notion of taking.
M
" Although it would require a great deal of effort in the latter case to equal the power of psychedelics. It's practically effortless to eat some mushrooms, for instance."
YES! A cow can graze, only a disciplined mind can meditate.
"It seems kind of counterintuitive but this depatterning can help to treat many psychological disorders because many of these disorders are essentially caused by too much order. In both anxiety disorders and depression, sufferers are locked into 'patterns' of rumination and conditioned responses. Breaking up these patterns, and taking careful advantage of the suggestibility of these states, seems to be an effective treatment."
That is a very profound and insightful comment. Have you considered expanding it into a paper? Very little progress has been made in treating these mind states and you have hit on something essential to a more meaningful understanding of the notion of therapy.
M
"You seem to promote the virtues of both pills in the same breath. That a Masterwork matrix will someday be developed, representing the blue pill. And the dissolution of self, represented by the red pill."
What I am suggesting is that formal Philosophical solution to the dilema of the pills, lies outside of the simplistic notion of the self serving consumption of either pill. The pills represent two states, I am suggesting that Philosophy points to the existence of a third higher order state, that has yet to be formally described, within the context of a synthesis of established Philosophical principles.
M
And which, we are continually assured, only His Excellency Professor de Brun has any comprehension of, whilst us hoi polloi writhe about in various stages of delusion.
W
I feel as though, "organized" is being used here ambiguously or pejoratively. I wonder what does Buddhism think about the chaos, disorder, and irrationality present in the world, and how to remedy it? Through more order?
Thank you Wayfarer
I am flattered by the compliment. However: compliments, platitudes (or otherwise) do tend to expose a supremacy of personal ego above, thought that is validated by logic. This does seem to be a bit of tempting a cul de sac, and on occasion a pathology that ultimately deposes an initially 'sound' Philosophy.
The question is one of pills the 'delusion pill' or the 'misery pill', my point is that we may not really have a choice between pills but we may have a third option which is to take both or neither (essentially the same thing), and when we do so, we might move beyond the 'hoi polloi and various stages of delusion'.
The important thing here is not to dispel the 'devil' of the the choice, but rather as Zizek asserts, to make the devil work for us.
M
This makes me think of a solipsistic god who is forever alone. To have such a big mind and no one to bounce ideas off might be unexciting, even perhaps limiting to that god. That’s the metaphor I think of when I read this, a god who is alone and limited to himself in reality, while in a dream he can (seemingly)affect others and enjoy a (seemingly) shared reality with ‘others’ like himself. To a solipsistic god, “ignorance” might just be bliss. Also, it might not.
I mentioned earlier in the discussion that I just finished reading a book that explores the topic. The subject is fascinating and I highly recommend: How to Change Your Mind
@wayfarer could address this better.
Too much order, or rather a hyperactive default mode network (See), can lead to host of psychological issues and causes a lot of suffering in the world. Ultimately the Buddhist position claims that the remedy is to abandon or transcend it all, but more practically that there's a 'middle way', not too much order or too much chaos.
I think we are coming from quite different assumptions: I am no fan of representational theories of mind. In any case It's not clear whether you want to say that the limitations or the truth of the representational theory of mind (is there only one?) is shown.
What year were you taking hallucinogens? They were illegal in Australia (and most of the rest of the world from the information I can find) shortly after they were made illegal in the US in 1967. I'm not sure of the exact date, but they were certainly well and truly illegal when I first began taking LSD in 1970 at the age of 17.
Buddhism obviously doesn’t condone intoxicant use, which is against the precepts. But recall that Buddhism began as one of the ‘forest-dwelling’ religions. The symbolic meaning of ‘the forest’ is renunciation of social mores and structures. It doesn’t mean relapsing into atavism, as Buddhism obviously places huge emphasis on demeanour and behaviour - the Vinaya [monastic] Code comprises more than two hundred and fifty rules, and monastic Buddhism is [as you say] highly disciplined. But renunciation means not conforming to ‘the ways of the world’ - the demands of profession, caste, family, and social structure. Buddhists are sometimes described as ‘going against the current’.
I recall one of Freud’s essays ‘Civilization and its Discontents’ - the Buddha dealt with such discontents by stepping out of the civil order, into an order of a different kind [although one which I think Freud himself had no inkling of, being wedded to scientific materialism]. So the parallel with The Matrix, is that from the perspective of the Buddha, the domain which us ‘worldlings’ [‘puthujjana’] belong to, is an illusory world, from his perspective [which is incidentally a perspective we hardly have an inkling of ourselves.] That is why the traditional iconography of the ‘bhavachakra’ [the Wheel of Life] depicts the Buddha [and bodhisattvas] as altogether outside the ‘six realms’, floating ‘outside the circle’ [although some also depict him within each of the six realms as well, in miniature, signifiying ‘transcendent yet immanent’ - something I learned on DharmaWheel].
Quoting praxis
The meaningful legacy for me was the commitment to the spiritual path.
So you don't remember what year you first took hallucinogens? I could never forget my first experience, including when it occurred and how old I was. If for you it was, say, 1968, you would have been fifteen, no? That would be very young to start messing with a still-developing mind! Even 17 was probably a little too young, I would say. I couldn't find clear information as to when Australia declared those drugs illegal, but apparently it was "very soon" after the US did so in 1967 (or 1966 according to another source). I would guess that they were illegal by 1968 at the latest.
Way too much to attempt to describe here!
We are all adults here. All I'm asking is how old you were when you first took them. Since you have several times on these forums declared that you were born in 1953 (as was I) we already know that in the "late sixties, you could have been no older that 16. Answering the question would in no way be construed as encouragement for anyone else to indulge in hallucinogens. It might even provide a cautionary tale. :wink:
From the information I have about the legal status of psychotropics in Australia, I can only conclude that you must have started in late '67 or early '68 at the latest, if they were indeed still legal, then. Given that you would have been 14, 15 or at the most 16 at the time; I think the more likely explanation is that you started later than that, and are mistaken about the legality of the drugs you were taking at that time.
Anyway, it's not a problem. I have no problem admitting that I have taken, and perhaps even will in the future take, "illegal substances". I don't believe governments have any business telling us what drugs we may and may not consume; when the legal drugs alcohol and nicotine, arguably cause by far the greatest social harms.
I took hallucinogens intensively (about once or twice a week) 1970-1971 and into early 1972. Suddenly I just stopped; I knew it was enough. I took them a few isolated times over the years until I experimented with them again (not very intensively, though; only about once every couple months) from 2002 through 2005. A few times since then, MDMA only.
If you are going to experience hallucinogens then you should be very physically and emotionally healthy, abstain from alcohol and other stimulants, do it in the presence of a 'minder' who is not themselves partaking, be very confident of the sources of what you are taking, choose the right setting with people you are very familiar and comfortable with, and so on. In other words the experience should be treated with great respect, diligent preparation, physical and mental/emotional, and even a sense of reverence.
The importance of "set and setting," a competent guide, intention, etc., is all covered in Pollan's book, in rather extensive detail. There seems to be a lot of variables to carefully consider, not the least of which whatever may be lurking in the subconscious that may come to the surface.
Another important piece of advice is to be open and receptive to whatever happens. If a door presents itself, go through it. If something terrifying appears, go towards it.
I think a natural alternative to break out or through your sense of conditioned normality is through 'the ordeal'. Intensive meditation retreats are ordeals through which break-out experiences occur. I did one 10-day Vipassana retreat in 2007. That was an ordeal. It's amazing that so many people are willing to turn up and undergo it. Nobody says that it's an ordeal, but it is. I think that is behind the idea of 'askesis', which is training for those kinds of experiences (not 'harsh asceticism'.)
I have to constantly work not to fall back into middle-aged, middle-class torpor. Coming to think of it, much harder than I'm currently working. :sad:
Easy to say! I never really knew what 'terrifying' meant until I experienced hallucinogens!
I'd love to try a Vipassana retreat one day! I have participated in less rigorous retreats and workshops.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think we all face that situation, especially as we grow older. I'm somewhat lucky, I guess, as I've always been self-employed in landscaping; very physical work. Lately, as I am working less, I am walking and going to the gym more. It all starts with the body, I tend to think (well, it's really the bodymind).
Sounds like a really good opportunity!
Well, no matter how "seasoned" he is, he better have someone watching!
Nah, man he's mentally bulletproof. Sagelike qualities.
That just made me laugh! :rofl:
I saw a really nice looking belt in a shop once and when I looked at the label it read: "Genuine Leatherlon". I guess it was made from a material that had somewhat leatherlike qualities.
Genuine sagelon, anyone? That's all you'll be gettin' in the matrix, anyhow...
Back in the day, we always had someone on acid to mind us while we were straight, because while a tripper might leap of the roof thinking he can fly, only straights start wars.
And that's it really, most of us are so fucked up that a bit of brain scrambling is actually an improvement. But for myself, I discovered a long time ago now that if you take the acid test, you fail. So I now maintain my lunacy unassisted.
Yeah, well, I think we are all different as much as we are similar, I usually found that after an initial bout with terror, I usually came through...but then I always inevitably (and you might say, unfortunately) came down as well, but I'm interested to know what that failure looks like for you.
Well without getting too woo about it, one can benefit from escaping from one's habits of mind, but there's no point in making a habit of it. I think it is usually the loss of the habitual that is terrifying - the uptight are always controlling their anxiety with ritual that they identify with. But the odd thing about such drugs is that the loss of control is also largely an illusion, you're far more capable and in control on acid than alcohol, in terms of driving for instance though the sensation is the opposite. Also sex... I wonder what the consent issues are these days?
What I was attempting to convey is that we form meaning through love and our virtues - such as righteousness - and it is a natural part of the human condition to desire happiness. Cypher did not experience love and so turned to hedonism as a last resort, but I doubt he would have wanted to return back to the Matrix if the love was reciprocated, clearly by his determination that he forgets everything. Finding real love and being able to be charitable and fight injustice enables meaning that we create and gives us purpose, so it is not being too personal here. It is really a part of our human nature. The difference is Cypher chose something false or unreal whereas Neo didn't. It is just about the authenticity of our motives.
How would you go about "getting too woo about it"?
I agree you can benefit from losing mental habits, but I can't see how you could make a habit out of it. I have to say I found hallucinogens to be the least habit-forming drugs I ever encountered.
I'd say you're right that we (the uptight) control our anxieties through establishing rituals and routines, physical, mental and emotional; that pretty much summarizes the human condition. This constitutes the familiar for us, and it is the loss of the familiar that can be terrifying. It can also be exhilarating, even enlightening.
It's funny you mention driving while on acid. That was one of my favourite activities when i was young and stupid. You are certainly right that one's control is generally much greater when tripping than it is when pissed. Similarly for amphetamines, I would say; obviously a lot of professional drivers use them. Some amphetamines (mescaline, MDMA) do have very similar effects to the tryptamines (LSD, DMT and psilocybin) The dangers with any of them come when the hallucinations get out of control!
And sex! Yeah, now that is incredible when tripping (with the right person, of course). I'm not sure what you are alluding to with "consent issues", though.
I guess that might be true for some, it certainly hasn't been my experience; I seem, if anything, to be more sure of my feelings towards others when I am entheogenerated! (Oh, look, a neologism!)
Trippers typically report stronger or renewed meaning for things that might ordinarily seem trite or banal. This phenomenon might only add weight to calculated manipulation while in a state of high suggestibility.
I probably sound paranoid. :scream:
Noooo, you're not allowed to be paranoid. :fear:
It's possible I guess, I don't know. Certainly what ordinarily might appear banal may be imbued with (sometimes profound and novel) meaning. My own and other's masks always seemed (sometimes painfully) revealed to me when in the experience, and so I would consequently be wary of, and resistant to, even my own thoughts, let alone the suggestions of others. Not saying my experience is universal, or even typical, though.
According to my experience. you come through the 'hell' stage when you can allow all thoughts to drop away, and see things with perfect clarity. What it is that you see seems to be impossible to verbalize; so perhaps it is really a powerful affect rather than consisting in any kind of discursive or rational thought. I would say that in that state I am anything but suggestible, though, since I am not listening to any thoughts at all; in that heightened state all discursive kinds of thoughts seem so terribly banal.
That is not to say that others cannot say things that seem profoundly right, though; but I don't believe I could be hoodwinked into doing anything that didn't seem profoundly right in the moment. I am quite confident that if someone was a sexual predator, that would be transparently obvious to a heightened consciousness. Maybe someone could be manipulated while they were in the fear stage, I guess; but in my own case I would not trust anyone, least of all myself, when in that state.
Never trip with sexual predators, never trip with anyone who imagines they are part of an underground community of guides (that's the woo, right there), and never trip whilst paranoid. A trusted friend is who you need - accept no substitutes.
Is that not a delusion onto itself?
*looks at the horse*
Technically no, the delusion being a separate self.
I agree with most of what you say here. my only question concerns what you say about "underground guides"; is imagining you could be a guide on account of your extensive experience different in this connection than in any other sphere of life? Is it any more "woo", for example, than imagining you are a psychotherapist, or imagining simply that you can offer advice based on experience, as you presumably have? The "underground" part might sound woolike to the skeptical mind, but we are talking about illegal activities.
I don't know what you mean. Explain?
Isn't this also the case in so called "real life"?
Of course, what goes up, must come down. Today, life just goes on, there’s a ton of stuff needs doing. But for a moment there...
//ps - icons of the goddess, Prajñ?p?ramit?, the Oriental counterpart of Sophia.
Yeah, I love those visionary moments. :cool: