tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post1938141926740815630..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Paul Tillich and The "Personal" God: Was Tillich's Ground of Being an Impersonal Force? Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-28276816998142674262016-05-31T21:13:06.726-07:002016-05-31T21:13:06.726-07:00Maybe, maybe not. The concept of Buddha mind has a...<br />Maybe, maybe not. The concept of Buddha mind has a somewhat tortured history in Buddhist thought. The super-short version here is that it could express an ontological claim about the basic character of reality, in which case the claim above may be true, or it could express a claim about what it is to view things the way a Buddha would, which could very plausibly be taken as a blanket rejection of all ontological claims. This is where Buddhist philosophy opens itself up to possible criticisms of bait-and-switch: does Buddhism have an ontology but then turn around and deny having an ontology?<br /><br /><b>so Buddhism is open to this same kinds of problems of all theology. big ea..</b><br /><br />But I digress. My main point was really that it might be important to consider what "thinking" is and whether or not functionalist characterizations of it are defensible. I lean that way, but as with most philosophical questions, I prefer to try to keep an open mind. <br /><br /><b>ok. I have said for some time that God doesn't need ratiocetenation. I really don't think of God as sub-vocalizing and having to calculate stuff.<br /><br />I think that thinking includes more than calculating o talking to yourself. It includes awareness of sel, consciousness of reality and higher states of consciousness. I think. At least that's what I tell myself, when I'm ratiocenenating,...</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-24455725536061788972016-05-31T09:19:49.999-07:002016-05-31T09:19:49.999-07:00"He said Buddha mind is what I've been ta..."He said Buddha mind is what I've been talking about with being itself. "<br /><br />Maybe, maybe not. The concept of Buddha mind has a somewhat tortured history in Buddhist thought. The super-short version here is that it could express an ontological claim about the basic character of reality, in which case the claim above may be true, or it could express a claim about what it is to view things the way a Buddha would, which could very plausibly be taken as a blanket rejection of all ontological claims. This is where Buddhist philosophy opens itself up to possible criticisms of bait-and-switch: does Buddhism have an ontology but then turn around and deny having an ontology?<br /><br />But I digress. My main point was really that it might be important to consider what "thinking" is and whether or not functionalist characterizations of it are defensible. I lean that way, but as with most philosophical questions, I prefer to try to keep an open mind.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-57172249660640202292016-05-29T09:06:05.792-07:002016-05-29T09:06:05.792-07:00see my blog piece on The super essential Godhesd a...see my blog piece on <a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-super-essential-godhead.html" rel="nofollow"><b>The super essential Godhesd</b></a> about platonic Christianity and their concept of God as universal mind. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-30339466146337319852016-05-29T09:00:56.213-07:002016-05-29T09:00:56.213-07:00don't forget the monkey mind. also the money m...don't forget the monkey mind. also the money mind, that's what Trump has.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-25930676813123103962016-05-29T08:44:27.581-07:002016-05-29T08:44:27.581-07:00I appreciate your explanation. I should realized. ...I appreciate your explanation. I should realized. I know something about zen although I would never pretended to know that much. I had a couple of classes in seminary on eastern religion. They were taught by a guy who lived in Japan for 30 years and studied zen with Buddhist monks over there. I used to drink coffee with him. I think you are making the mistake of thinking of terms like "mind" and personal in to literal a way.<br /><br />The Buddhist have a concept called "Buddha mind." Kate in his life Tillich went to Japan and studied Buddhism. He said Buddha mind is what I've been talking about with being itself. Tillich did not like the idea of personal God.<br /> That's my thing.<br /><br />Yet there are certain Key phrases in the article that probably need to be highlighted. I tried to get across the idea Just because God loves and knows and has intent doesn't means he's a man or a person in the conventional sense. It's a higher level of consciousness beyond our understanding.<br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-15878580293036892182016-05-27T04:55:14.771-07:002016-05-27T04:55:14.771-07:00"so it's the kind of thing study with zen..."so it's the kind of thing study with zen anecdotes. very convient"<br /><br />Almost everyone misses the point of the anecdote, thinking it points to some mysterious, a-rational abdication of rational thought (a very common mischaracterization of what buddhism and even Zen Buddhism is all about). The core of Buddhist philosophy is the principle that all things exist in thoroughgoing dependence upon conditions ("pratityasamutpada" in Sanskrit). Huike has made the mistake of thinking that the goal of Buddhism is to find a stable object called the "mind" -- a thing that exists in its own right. The mind is not a thing that realizes the dependent nature of all other things, but is rather itself a dependently existing phenomenon in its own right. It is a function that exists only when the conditions for instantiating the function are in place. Bodhidharma plays the role of a Chinese Socrates here, leading Huike to a realization that closely parallels David Hume's rejection of substantialist accounts of the self, as well.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13792831644309798392016-05-26T14:30:47.783-07:002016-05-26T14:30:47.783-07:00you would study it phenomenologically That you can...you would study it phenomenologically That you can't study it quantativelly is what the hard problem is telling us.<br /><br />"Only if mind is defined in such a way that it can only be studied introspectively. There is a reason psychology came to be described as "behavioral science" rather than "mental science".<br /><br /><b>so what if it is?</b><br /><br />I like the following anecdote from the Chinese Buddhist tradition:<br />Huike came to Bodhidharma and said, "I beg you to pacify my mind for me."<br />Bodhidharma said, "Bring me your mind and I will pacify it."<br />Huike said, "Whenever I look for my mind, I cannot find it."<br />Bodhidharma replied, "There, I have pacified your mind."<br />At this, Huike attained great understanding.<br /><br /><br />so it's the kind of thing study with zen anecdotes. very convient<br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-3302961830149789292016-05-26T11:13:15.516-07:002016-05-26T11:13:15.516-07:00"functionalists don't study mind or consc..."functionalists don't study mind or consciousness they study brain function, no surprise they find it's all brain function."<br /><br />How would you study mind or consciousness otherwise? Even the most ardent introspectionists now acknowledge that mental states and consciousness are functionally sensitive to brain function. What is the best explanation for this?<br /><br />"The thing is even if they were fair about it they have only human minds to study."<br /><br />Only if mind is defined in such a way that it can only be studied introspectively. There is a reason psychology came to be described as "behavioral science" rather than "mental science".<br /><br />I like the following anecdote from the Chinese Buddhist tradition:<br />Huike came to Bodhidharma and said, "I beg you to pacify my mind for me."<br />Bodhidharma said, "Bring me your mind and I will pacify it."<br />Huike said, "Whenever I look for my mind, I cannot find it."<br />Bodhidharma replied, "There, I have pacified your mind."<br />At this, Huike attained great understanding.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-31889461624295724112016-05-26T09:26:54.840-07:002016-05-26T09:26:54.840-07:00reality itself could be this universal mind but I ...reality itself could be this universal mind but I don't know what a universal brain would be like or how it could produces reality, Presumably mind produces reality by thinking about it. Some have likened it unto the matrix I prefer the holodeck.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-86642209839896568872016-05-26T09:25:14.301-07:002016-05-26T09:25:14.301-07:00functionalists don't study mind or consciousne...functionalists don't study mind or consciousness they study brain function, no surprise they find it's all brain function. The thing is even if they were fair about it they have only human minds to study. So It may well e that human minds are produced by brains but that doesn't mean mind itself is brain.<br /><br />God is universal mind (see my post of a week or so ago about Rolt the translation of pseudo-Dionysius. We are thoughts in a universal mind. It doesn't necessarily have to be produced by a universal brain.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-33378111150865254962016-05-26T07:16:06.858-07:002016-05-26T07:16:06.858-07:00There was a time when such thinking would have bee...There was a time when such thinking would have been denounced as tainted by Spinozistic heresies.<br /><br />From my perspective, Spinoza made the same mistake as Descartes, in thinking that mind had to be a THING - a substance. There is a grammar that encourages this perspective. After all, minds DO things, don't they? Only substances are capable of actions, so minds must be substances. <br /><br />I lean toward a functionalist view, so I think mental properties are the result of certain things operating in certain kinds of ways. And I therefore lean toward a functionalist view of consciousness, as well. As far as I can see, nothing about such an analysis requires a paradigmatic person, though it is plausible that only certain kinds of things are capable of instantiating the right kinds of functions that are constitutive of consciousness.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.com