Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Baztek

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Glossary findings
« on: August 17, 2017, 06:44:04 pm »
I'm surprised no one's mentioned some speculating the Ark's horns are supposed to be half of Ajokli's crown. That shit is crazy

2
General Earwa / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Nascenti of Zaudunyanicon
« on: August 17, 2017, 06:39:49 pm »
Wait, wait, so the Fanim are among the most wrong? Tbh I considered them the one safe harbor in the ocean of crackpottery, and now I just don't know what to think anymore.

3
General Earwa / Re: Prince of Nothing film
« on: August 17, 2017, 06:31:52 pm »
Yeah I think the magic would be a big selling point, something hypnotically beautiful in its destructive power. I couldn't care less about diversity but I'd be stoked for a more or less brown cast that can deliver the goods.

4
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 11, 2017, 08:03:27 pm »
Morality as such, however, is universal.

5
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 11, 2017, 07:25:41 pm »
Rewiring someone to take an almost transcendent pleasure in what was once soul-killing monotony amounts to a lobotomy. There's no way the intensity/degree of consciousness would be maintained just as it is, except now you go into ecstatic fits burger flippin'. The mind is a dynamic system, it isn't switches and dials on a board.

But I guess that's kind of your point.

6
No, my question is: why wasn't Achamian's immediate reaction "let's go look at Kellhus with the Judging Eye like right fucking now then" instead of the slog to ishual. It just really, really stands out

7
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 11, 2017, 01:47:34 pm »
In This Moment, I am Euphoric, Not Because of Any Phony Absolute's Blessing, But Because, I Am Enlightened By My Own Tekne

8
Only after Ishual turned out to be a waste of time iirc

9
So speaking of shit that makes no sense... why didn't Achamian get the idea to see Kellhus with the Judging Eye the instant he learned of its existence?

10
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 11, 2017, 03:06:55 am »
You sound remarkably something like a techno-Buddhist.

11
How did Kellhus find an out? How did he make a beeline for Oblivion when he didn't even see his death coming? I swear I'm gonna abduct Bakker and make him spill everything one fucking day. You guys are all right, don't go to Bakker's favorite coffee shop tommorow.

12
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Conditioned ground
« on: August 10, 2017, 10:42:46 pm »
Really interesting speculations in this thread. I really wish we got some descriptions of Paradise.

13
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 10, 2017, 08:15:32 pm »
You have the right attitude. I like learning about what science has to say about the natural world, it's a fantastic supplement to a more holistic sense of reality, just forests and trees and all that. My main point is: if the nullity of the self threatens to send you careening into the abyss of sranc-tier hedonism, sounds like a you problem my brah.

14
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 10, 2017, 01:33:34 am »
There's really nothing new science is telling us that a intuition, arduous study, and introspection hasn't already revealed.
Here's my problem with your argument: Science confirms Buddha's insight (that there's no self-moving soul) -> extrapolation -> "There's really nothing new science is telling us that a intuition, arduous study, and introspection hasn't already revealed."
Buddha may even have been somewhat blind to his own insight, given his religion's seemingly need for a soft version of free will. This is the essence. Science reveals those blindnesses.

You think I'm implying science needed to confirm these insights so Buddhists can breathe a little easier. If anything science just peeked under the hood to get a better look at why the engine keeps catching when the Buddha et al diagnosed it as a transmission problem millennia ago. Like okay the analogy isn't perfect because Buddhism still proposes a solution that is more of an inner science than an objective one but you get the idea.

 
Science can't contradict these philosophical concepts because human scientific knowledge of these areas is still extremely rudimentary.
My point wasn't that it fundamentally can't (that question is open, but it's a fair bit more advanced than what I had in mind). I was talking precisely about science being somewhere at the start of a long road to quite possibly gaining those much needed new perspectives on philosophical issues. Not to mention relevant information obtained through the scientific method is valuable even if it doesn't further philosophical understanding.

I think people who think science can, say, explain subjectivity qua subjectivity don't really understand the problem. Try to imagine in your mind some hypothetical solution to consciousness, some diagram, formula, description, etc. that once and for all, explains, say, how/why the experience of my watching film x is the way it is or whatever in such a way that is immediately accessible to concrete intuition.

Something like, "the lighting in the scene affects you in the register of melancholy because tensor fields in your neurons resonate according to this particular frequency in a way orthogonal to the synaptic gap", like some bullshit like that, and you'll see how completely absurd it is to try to propose a thoroughly mechanical explanation of how any particular conscious experience isn't already what it is, but really [tortured physical explanation provided by physicalist who just twisted himself into a pretzel trying to get it out]

15
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 09, 2017, 10:27:56 pm »
Reincarnation as understood by Deepak Chopra and co. (a continuity of self is maintained across multiple incarnations etc.) is illogical and not the Buddhist understanding of reincarnation, where the accent is not on the continuity of the self but the principle of craving which undergirds the self's phenomenal manifestation. As in, kill yourself and the impersonal thirst for being that you essentially are - and which your ego is simply an accretion around - will keep dragging you back in until it is finally extinguished.

I don't blame you guys for having these notions of these concepts since popularizers are pretty pleb-tier themselves but I promise you guys Alan Watts aren't the end-all be-all of Eastern thought.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10