The self

Modern neuroscience provides evidence that aligns with the Eastern view, revealing that the left hemisphere of the brain constantly creates narratives to interpret reality, leading to a mistaken identification with these self-narratives.
 
wil said:
"Modern neuroscience provides evidence that aligns with the Eastern view, revealing that the left hemisphere of the brain constantly creates narratives to interpret reality, leading to a mistaken identification with these self-narratives."

Life after death of no self...hmmm
Click to expand...
 
wil said:
Modern neuroscience provides evidence that aligns with the Eastern view, revealing that the left hemisphere of the brain constantly creates narratives to interpret reality, leading to a mistaken identification with these self-narratives.
Click to expand...
Who creates the narratives? ;)
 
If there is no self ... is no-one responsible for one's actions ...

This is not a trick question – Buddhism has a profound doctrine of no-self, but equally a profound doctrine of morality and virtue. It's just questions framed by the article, which is an interesting kick-off point, but far from the last word on the matter.

And the idea of 'no self' is alive and well in the Christian Tradition. Our Lord's famous words to St Catherine of Sienna: "I am He Who Is, you are she who is not", and the thrust of Meister Eckhart's speculative mysticism covers a lot of complementary terrain.

The philosophical point I once heard raised was, if we are just a bundle of states, qualities, impressions, etc ... to what do they adhere? What is there for them to bundle to ... or have I got that wrong?
 
As I understand it, without the Left Brain, we could not function at all. The Right receives all impressions without filter, as it were, the left makes sense and order ... quite possibly wrong, but there you have it.

The question then, say a given person is a saint, or a bodhisattva – someone in union with It, then presumably that somehow changes the narrative? But run the same neurological tests on the Buddha, will this distinction show up?
 
wil said:
I'd guess the meat suit which houses the left hemisphere.
Click to expand...
I dunno ... s'why I aksed!

wil said:
So if the narrative is wrong...is that what we are discussing all of our wrong narratives?
Click to expand...
I'd say 'wrong' is too hard a term. Subjective, more like ... and not always wrong, not always right, and sometimes both, somewhere along the sliding scale of an accurate reflection of the Real, as it were.

wil said:
Or just mine is wrong as usual as @Thinking required surmised?
Click to expand...
LOL.
 
juantoo3 said:
"Self-narratives" should be self-evident...
Click to expand...
Clearly that's where self-reflection kicks in ...

I can't remember who it was who offered the analogy of the human mind being like a monkey at the typewriter?

It was a Buddhist commentary on meditation. The comment was, everybody knows how to think, or rather everybody thinks they know how to think ... but have they actually studied thinking? Have they trained the mind to think ...
 
Thomas said:
Clearly that's where self-reflection kicks in ...

I can't remember who it was who offered the analogy of the human mind being like a monkey at the typewriter?

It was a Buddhist commentary on meditation. The comment was, everybody knows how to think, or rather everybody thinks they know how to think ... but have they actually studied thinking? Have they trained the mind to think ...
Click to expand...
And as well...trained the mind to "not think."
 
wil said:
Modern neuroscience provides evidence that aligns with the Eastern view, revealing that the left hemisphere of the brain constantly creates narratives to interpret reality, leading to a mistaken identification with these self-narratives.
Click to expand...
Who funded that research?
 
wil said:
I'd guess the meat suit which houses the left hemisphere.
So if the narrative is wrong...is that what we are discussing all of our wrong narratives?
Click to expand...
Thomas hit the nail on the head with "subjective" narratives.

Or just mine is wrong as usual...?
Click to expand...
Yes...but that's an entirely different subject altogether. We still luv ya anyway... ;)
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
If there is no self ... is no-one responsible for one's actions ...
Click to expand...
If the self is illusory, what does that render that self's actions?

Who is "one" in your question?

Thomas said:
The philosophical point I once heard raised was, if we are just a bundle of states, qualities, impressions, etc ... to what do they adhere? What is there for them to bundle to ... or have I got that wrong?
Click to expand...
What would render these any less illusory than the physical self?
 
Thomas said:
The question then, say a given person is a saint, or a bodhisattva – someone in union with It, then presumably that somehow changes the narrative?
Click to expand...
From the perspective of those you mention, there is nothing to be in union with. Tat tvam asi. Verily, one is "It."

And the perspective on the narrative is changed as a result of no longer identifying the self as the body/mind complex.

Thomas said:
But run the same neurological tests on the Buddha, will this distinction show up?
Click to expand...
I'm confident that nothing would show up if one was to run these test since there has been no brain activity for about 2500 years. ;)

But if the Buddha were alive today, I'm confident that the test would reveal different results.
 
SalixIncendium said:
If the self is illusory, what does that render that self's actions?
Who is "one" in your question?
Click to expand...
Good points ... behind this line of thought was the Buddhist theory, which involves karma, so where does the burden lie?

SalixIncendium said:
What would render these any less illusory than the physical self?
Click to expand...
Too deep for me ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top