[Polymath20]

One of the passages from the work of Epicurus that survived spoke of enjoying simple foods for their own sake. A grape is not fancy, but it is a grape. If you expect it to be nothing more than a grape then you can enjoy it.

Similarly, some lessons from Buddhism emphasize the importance of expectations - and how unhealthy or unrealistic expectations cause unhappiness. One such story was the man and wife who were walking on a beach. The first time, the wife almost stepped on a broken shell - and the man carried his wife over the shell. The second time, years later, the man simply pointed and warned his wife. The third time, the man said "Woman why don't you learn where the damn shell is!" [or something to that effect]. One lesson from the story was to illustrate the man's expectations versus reality. He expected the woman to understand, learn, and remember - even though he never voiced those expectations until the end.

In pop culture, many Easterners criticize the West for having such a different philosophy - but am I the only person who sees them as the same?

[davai]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In pop culture, many Easterners criticize the West for having such a different philosophy - but am I the only person who sees them as the same?

They're not the same, but there are some similarities. The big difference you've missed is that Eastern cultures are generally polyphasic in that they value altered states of consciousness more than the monophasic West does, which is dominated by rational thought from the ordinary waking state. This seems to be the underlying difference between the two cultures. I haven't read Epicurus, so feel free to prove me wrong.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by davai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

They're not the same, but there are some similarities. The big difference you've missed is that Eastern cultures are generally polyphasic in that they value altered states of consciousness more than the monophasic West does, which is dominated by rational thought from the ordinary waking state. This seems to be the underlying difference between the two cultures. I haven't read Epicurus, so feel free to prove me wrong.

I disagree with the idea that the West ignores "polyphasic" consciousness. For instance, Socrates' Cave idea where he viewed the world as merely an illusion of consciousness and reality could be something far different.

Also, while some sects of Buddhism focus on ideas of consciousness, Buddha himself mostly spoke about plain, everyday experiences. Meditation and prayer and transcendence is not inextricably linked to Buddhism or all Eastern philosophy. Even Confucius spoke of how to be happy with your mundane existence. Animism and Taoism, while they engage the spiritual realm, they almost seem to just hold the idea of spirits as a sort of backdrop of reality, and not necessarily a separate state of being.

Though you do have an astute point as it was the Greek form of philosophy which gave rise to modern science. To me, it just seems that East, West, is irrelevant. Just different ways of looking at the same thing.

[zibber]

I've always gotten the sense that out of the classical philosophers, Pyrrho the skeptic was closest to Buddha.

[davai]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I disagree with the idea that the West ignores "polyphasic" consciousness. For instance, Socrates' Cave idea where he viewed the world as merely an illusion of consciousness and reality could be something far different.

A good point, but what separates Socrates and Buddhism is that Buddhism treats this subject as a science and with Socrates/Plato it's more of a philosophy about what could be. I've read various things about Socrates having attained some sort of mastery of consciousness and the Academy of Athens working with esoteric pursuits but i wonder that if this was true why it wasn't written about in more detail? As a tool for developing consciousness one would be much better off with learning Buddhism than Socrates.

	Also, while some sects of Buddhism focus on ideas of consciousness, Buddha himself mostly spoke about plain, everyday experiences. Meditation and prayer and transcendence is not inextricably linked to Buddhism or all Eastern philosophy. Even Confucius spoke of how to be happy with your mundane existence.

I can't speak about Confucianism but i'm pretty sure meditation and transcendence is inextricably linked to Buddhism, Hinduism and Sufism. Maybe others.

[zibber]

To add, both the Stoics and Pyrrhonics/Epicureans achieved some kind of "enlightenment" (apatheia & ataraxia). I get the sense Pyrrho was kind of the golden mean between Stoics and Epicureans, though. But I base this on vague recollections.

(Fuck it, maybe I'll use my free time and dig up some old texts to sink my teeth in.)

Ultimately, if you want to be a good Buddhist or skeptic, this kind of scholasticism should mainly serve to figure out what works for you.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by davai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A good point, but what separates Socrates and Buddhism is that Buddhism treats this subject as a science and with Socrates/Plato it's more of a philosophy about what could be. I've read various things about Socrates having attained some sort of mastery of consciousness and the Academy of Athens working with esoteric pursuits but i wonder that if this was true why it wasn't written about in more detail? As a tool for developing consciousness one would be much better off with learning Buddhism than Socrates. I can't speak about Confucianism but i'm pretty sure meditation and transcendence is inextricably linked to Buddhism, Hinduism and Sufism. Maybe others.

What you say about science reminds me - even two separate people, working on the same subject, if it's science they will arrive at the same conclusion. If it's faith, the conclusions can be different.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What you say about science reminds me - even two separate people, working on the same subject, if it's science they will arrive at the same conclusion. If it's faith, the conclusions can be different.

Anyone two people whom have been to The Void have agreed on it's 'nothingness'. That's not faith, assuming that's what you were rolling around in your head.

[Huruma]

Some have argued that Mo Tzu is the first known utilitarian thinker as he argued that love should be universal and impartial and 'well being' should be the aim of all actions.


I know almost nothing about the Buddha and little about Epicurus. I agree with Epicurus that the 'good life' is defined solely by how pleasurable it is but he was an egoist who argued that pursuing one's own pleasure should be the *direct* objective of one's own life whereas I think the inherent value of pleasure stands regardless of the identity of the being who experiences it, so maximizing everyone's pleasure should be a *direct* concern (Epicurus agreed that people should be pro-social and kind but on egoistic grounds, which also works since peace of mind is usually linked to social harmony and empathy for others), although I don't believe 'self-less' behavior is possible I'd still make a distinction between the 'selfishness' that doesn't feel connected to the emotional welfare of others and the 'selfishness' that does. I don't consider myself to be a good person or a utilitarian so I don't promote this but that's what I think makes sense.

Epicurus also defined pleasure as the absence of pain (?) which I disagree with.


I was writing this in a hurry.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyone two people whom have been to The Void have agreed on it's 'nothingness'. That's not faith, assuming that's what you were rolling around in your head.

What is The Void?

[davai]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is The Void?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is a good enough place to start.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What you say about science reminds me - even two separate people, working on the same subject, if it's science they will arrive at the same conclusion. If it's faith, the conclusions can be different.

Two entirely different people. With entirely identical paradigms. Using the exact same methods & idiom.

Fascinating.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Two entirely different people. With entirely identical paradigms. Using the exact same methods & idiom. Fascinating.

It doesn't matter what language you speak when you both observe an amoeba.

[emrah]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It doesn't matter what language you speak when you both observe an amoeba.

You missed zibber's point. Facts might be the same. But, science is not merely a collection of facts. Science thrives on abstractions: concepts, assumptions, theorems, models, etc.

How come two isolated scientific effort, although the facts are the same, will converge to a single paradigm? It's quite improbable.

[Polymath20]

	How come two isolated scientific effort, although the facts are the same, will converge to a single paradigm? It's quite improbable.

Because you're observing the same facts. In the same world. On the same planet.

[emrah]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because you're observing the same facts. In the same world. On the same planet.

... by different minds, using different methodologies and abstractions.

I rest my case.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by emrah To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... by different minds, using different methodologies and abstractions. I rest my case.

The process of critical evaluation will arrive at the same conclusions if you are evaluating the same facts, irregardless of what frame of mind you start in.

Example:

Who said "If you do not desire any more than you already have then you will be happy?"

Confucius, Buddha, or Epicurus?

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because you're observing the same facts. In the same world. On the same planet.

I don't know whether to recommend Foucault or go back to basics and start you off with Kuhn, who is like.. philosophy of science 101.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't know whether to recommend Foucault or go back to basics and start you off with Kuhn, who is like.. philosophy of science 101.

To answer the question that you ignored they all essentially said the same thing. Same conclusions.

I rest my case.

[emrah]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To answer the question that you ignored they all essentially said the same thing. Same conclusions. I rest my case.

Their efforts were not isolated from each other. This is not the case for your case.

---------- Post added 01-10-2012 at 05:24 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The process of critical evaluation will arrive at the same conclusions if you are evaluating the same facts, irregardless of what frame of mind you start in. Example: Who said "If you do not desire any more than you already have then you will be happy?" Confucius, Buddha, or Epicurus?

Socrates, I suppose
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


But, that's a simple observation, not a scientific paradigm.

[Polymath20]

	But, that's a simple observation, not a scientific paradigm.

Uh, yeah. I wasn't the one harping on "scientific paradigms" I was talking about observations...

And that was my only point from the beginning. Regardless of east or west, philosophers have made the same observations.