Nice IM finding your way of thinging very similar to mine. I tested one buddhist exactly on non attachement. I said: "If I take the rock and throw it trought a window of the car - I actually did NOTHING WRONG. I simpy moved rock from point A to B"
Buddhist said: "What? no ! You did wrong! you caused emotional and financial harm to owner of the car"
Buddhist wasnt able to leave ego and with it judgement.
hey! That was a great video! I love your simplicity of style! Hey, I really wanted to ask you on how you uploaded your speech onto youtube. I wrote a book recently, which tackles all the nonsense, bulls**t and hypocrisy of the world, and I really want to get my voice online. I appreciate what you did, and I thank you in advance for responding. God bless, Mattias.
@tikka56 - Hey Mattias. I did by it using an audio program to record the narration - Audacity is s decent free one - then I used a video maker program for the rest (PowerDirector - which is not free). If you have Windows you might have Windows Movie Maker already installed. It's not fantastic but it does the job. There are also lots of videos here at Youtube about making Youtube videos. Just try a few different search strings.
Ok, just goes to show you can't trust instinct. Hegel's "negation of the negation" isn't quite synonymous with Emptiness. It's more equatable to the idea of "co-dependent origination". Emptiness is really about the lack of inherent nature of all things, or of Reality, including that very lacking itself. Emptiness is more or less the final stage in the logical process to which "negation" is pointing. You might enjoy this vid and others at the same channel:
According to this and to other teachings, "emptiness of emptiness" is a stage reachedwhen we negate the concept of emptiness. My impression is that buddhism fetishizes this state of consciousness, whereas for Hegel the "negation of the negation" is the beginning of a new round in the dialectic between the universal and the particular.
Well, In Buddhist thought Emptiness indicates that the universal and the particular are actually identical. "Form is formlessness; formlessness is form". Or, ultimate and conventional reality are the same thing. As I say, it's been too long since I've read Hegel to be able to say how much this accords with is own thinking. I now he dealt with issues of duality and finite/infinite more directly than most in the western tradition.
Thanks. My understanding of both Hegel and the buddha are mostly secondhand.
I find that when I have cleared some cobwebs out of my mind - whether through reason or meditation- the direct perception of reality that is possible provides a richness of sensation. I have difficulty understanding why the buddha would call that emptyness.
People tend to mistakenly interpret "Emptiness" to mean something akin to "nothingness". This is totally wrong - and frankly, it would be pretty stupid. "Emptiness" means that things lack any ultimate or inherent or essential nature. What one experiences in direct perception, devoid of any conceptual overlays is the truth of what things are.
Allow me 2 share, plz. NON-ATTACHMENT Means not 2 attach 2 feelings (ego,love, hate, anger, jealousy, this belong 2 me, mine.. that U own. PPL. should not attach 2 Negative/ Positive feelings, becz things, in life are always changing. Tree turns dead, every thing change.U are rich, then U might be poor. Ur wife/hubby/girl friend/boyfriend/ is ur 2day, 2tomoro he/she might change the mind 2some1 else. So, Life "Not Permanent--Suffering---No self -Nothing is your(Peace, then Peace is also ???)"
You sure have mastered your ego and drive it all over the internet. What is the opposite of non-attachment? You, full of egotistical delusions, thinking YOU mastered the universe, yet are only a fluke of the universe.
You're a pathetic soul no better than any one and KNOW NOTHING. You LACK humility & wouldn't know TRANSCENDENCE or the METAPHYSICAL if it bit your ass. The world doesn't revolve around your anus. Do you have ANY orignal ideas, or do you just parrot obvious humanisim BS?
The opposite of non-attachment? I reckon that would most likely be attachment.
My views don't have anything to do with humanism. And I'm not sure there are original philosophical ideas. There are simply true ones we need to be reminded of.
I think that Elizabeth is onto something. I'm not sure that your definition of attachment is entirely adequate. You define it as "the ego's identification with - and relationship to - externals". I don't think, though, that identification per se adequately characterises what we usually think of as attachment. A person might identify as a postman because that's his current job, but he might not be "attached" to his identity as a postman: for him to change jobs (and identity) [continued...]
[...continued] might not entail the psychological problems that we usually associate with "breaking an attachment". I think that you should also include the notion of a psychological disposition towards the identification - you actually hint at this when you go on to say "In short, attachments are formed to bolster the ego". I haven't thought carefully enough about how I would characterise the psychological disposition of attachment, though, so I'll leave it there for now.
You have an attachment to making arguments about things you haven't thought carefully enough about. *Attachments* are formed via the ego. Simple logical identification - or even "association" as Elizabeth put it - doesn't have to involve the ego at all. It's just what consciousness does. I "associate", for example, with atheism, but for me it's just a tool to achieve things with; I'm not attached to the concept or label.
You're making the same mistake as Elizabeth. Identifying as a postman because you're a postman is not attachment - though it may be if the ego is involved in the identification. The problem you are both articulating isn't a problem at all.
Well we seem to agree (at least superficially) on what attachment is, our only disagreement is as to whether you adequately defined it in the video. You seem to think that the mere inclusion of the word "ego" covers it, whereas I still think that that's inadequate, and that you need to say something about the psychological disposition of the ego towards the identification. Probably our disagreement boils down to a disagreement over the nature/definition of the ego.
Yes, that's right. Attachment and ego aren't bad in any moral sense. They're just false. One need only give a damn about them if one is interested in eliminating falsity from one's existence. Non-attachment is really just the absence of bullshit. That doesn't make it sound especially romantic, but then, romance is bullshit too :)
Very interesting video, I think I'm in the process of becoming more non-attached, as the ego when burst is a very painfull experience which makes one reflect quite deeply.
From an evolutionary perspective, attachment evolved to solve the problem of independence. Those who move in groups are more likely to survive. Those who are not attached to others are more likely to die. The cognitive feelings of a bolstered ego are the physical "reward" we feel for our genetic behavioral suggestions.
Not that this has anything to do with the point of your video :)
It's always dangerous to speculate what evolution did or did not do. In psychological terms it's pretty much meaningless to do so given that it can only be speculative. Fun, maybe, but dangerous if people take it seriously.
It's true that speculation based on no evidence is dangerous. However, Attachment Theory is a holistically agreed on theory in sciences such as biology, evolutionary psychology, and many aspects of anthropology. I do not disagree with your video. I think that eastern philosophies are much more agreeable than most western beliefs. I just thought it would be helpful to clear up the reason humans develop attachments.
From the perspective of a largely unconscious, emotionally and egotistically functioning being, the benefits derived from forming attachments are pretty obvious. I have no beef with that. But attachment is a double edged sword and it tends to create as many problems as benefits. Our attachments could conceivably destroy the species. Every war that was ever fought was fought because of egotistical attachments.
Of course, my concern is for what is ultimately true. On that note, I don't put too much stock in evolutionary psychology. Its models may seem to make a lot of sense and indeed might actually be correct, but there's no way that I can see to verify this. I tend not to take too seriously that which I can't verify, however interesting it may be on the face of it.
There is no relationship between those two things. A person without an ego can "associate" with a thing or group or idea for the sake of its logical utility. That is not attachment. Attachment only occurs if its the ego doing the associating for is own sake.
shut up ! ego wanker ! you are attached to the results of this video ..... chant hare Krishna and be happy
shakeexon 1 week ago
Nice IM finding your way of thinging very similar to mine. I tested one buddhist exactly on non attachement. I said: "If I take the rock and throw it trought a window of the car - I actually did NOTHING WRONG. I simpy moved rock from point A to B"
Buddhist said: "What? no ! You did wrong! you caused emotional and financial harm to owner of the car"
Buddhist wasnt able to leave ego and with it judgement.
DanielTejnicky 2 months ago
hey! That was a great video! I love your simplicity of style! Hey, I really wanted to ask you on how you uploaded your speech onto youtube. I wrote a book recently, which tackles all the nonsense, bulls**t and hypocrisy of the world, and I really want to get my voice online. I appreciate what you did, and I thank you in advance for responding. God bless, Mattias.
tikka56 1 year ago
@tikka56 - Hey Mattias. I did by it using an audio program to record the narration - Audacity is s decent free one - then I used a video maker program for the rest (PowerDirector - which is not free). If you have Windows you might have Windows Movie Maker already installed. It's not fantastic but it does the job. There are also lots of videos here at Youtube about making Youtube videos. Just try a few different search strings.
MenoftheInfinite 1 year ago
Why do you keep calling them ego based delusions? What is with the word "delusion?"
geredgered 1 year ago
your videos are good, and I´m enjoying seeing them. Are u a buddhist? what are your ideas, your "worldview". Show them to me! =)
yupiie 2 years ago
I answer the question of whether I'm a Buddhist in this video:
watch?v=-pR4BvW1Vnw
As for my general worldview, I think it best that you just watch more of my videos! Doing so from the start would be a good idea.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Would you be able to relate the buddhist concept of "the emptyness of emptyness" with Hegel's "negation of the negation"?
pirbird14 2 years ago
It's been a while since I've read Hegel, but my instinct is to say "yes". However I'll get back on this to confirm that instinct.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Ok, just goes to show you can't trust instinct. Hegel's "negation of the negation" isn't quite synonymous with Emptiness. It's more equatable to the idea of "co-dependent origination". Emptiness is really about the lack of inherent nature of all things, or of Reality, including that very lacking itself. Emptiness is more or less the final stage in the logical process to which "negation" is pointing. You might enjoy this vid and others at the same channel:
watch?v=0AwlC1IdE-Q
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Thanks for the resource.
According to this and to other teachings, "emptiness of emptiness" is a stage reachedwhen we negate the concept of emptiness. My impression is that buddhism fetishizes this state of consciousness, whereas for Hegel the "negation of the negation" is the beginning of a new round in the dialectic between the universal and the particular.
pirbird14 2 years ago
Well, In Buddhist thought Emptiness indicates that the universal and the particular are actually identical. "Form is formlessness; formlessness is form". Or, ultimate and conventional reality are the same thing. As I say, it's been too long since I've read Hegel to be able to say how much this accords with is own thinking. I now he dealt with issues of duality and finite/infinite more directly than most in the western tradition.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments so far btw.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Thanks. My understanding of both Hegel and the buddha are mostly secondhand.
I find that when I have cleared some cobwebs out of my mind - whether through reason or meditation- the direct perception of reality that is possible provides a richness of sensation. I have difficulty understanding why the buddha would call that emptyness.
pirbird14 2 years ago
People tend to mistakenly interpret "Emptiness" to mean something akin to "nothingness". This is totally wrong - and frankly, it would be pretty stupid. "Emptiness" means that things lack any ultimate or inherent or essential nature. What one experiences in direct perception, devoid of any conceptual overlays is the truth of what things are.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
MenoftheInfinite...Menof theInfinite...MenoftheInfinite.... ( :
1laochild 2 years ago
Allow me 2 share, plz. NON-ATTACHMENT Means not 2 attach 2 feelings (ego,love, hate, anger, jealousy, this belong 2 me, mine.. that U own. PPL. should not attach 2 Negative/ Positive feelings, becz things, in life are always changing. Tree turns dead, every thing change.U are rich, then U might be poor. Ur wife/hubby/girl friend/boyfriend/ is ur 2day, 2tomoro he/she might change the mind 2some1 else. So, Life "Not Permanent--Suffering---No self -Nothing is your(Peace, then Peace is also ???)"
1laochild 2 years ago
You sure have mastered your ego and drive it all over the internet. What is the opposite of non-attachment? You, full of egotistical delusions, thinking YOU mastered the universe, yet are only a fluke of the universe.
You're a pathetic soul no better than any one and KNOW NOTHING. You LACK humility & wouldn't know TRANSCENDENCE or the METAPHYSICAL if it bit your ass. The world doesn't revolve around your anus. Do you have ANY orignal ideas, or do you just parrot obvious humanisim BS?
gmcjetpilot 2 years ago
The opposite of non-attachment? I reckon that would most likely be attachment.
My views don't have anything to do with humanism. And I'm not sure there are original philosophical ideas. There are simply true ones we need to be reminded of.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Another fantastic video!
kasuskasus 3 years ago
I think that Elizabeth is onto something. I'm not sure that your definition of attachment is entirely adequate. You define it as "the ego's identification with - and relationship to - externals". I don't think, though, that identification per se adequately characterises what we usually think of as attachment. A person might identify as a postman because that's his current job, but he might not be "attached" to his identity as a postman: for him to change jobs (and identity) [continued...]
lairdshaw 3 years ago
[...continued] might not entail the psychological problems that we usually associate with "breaking an attachment". I think that you should also include the notion of a psychological disposition towards the identification - you actually hint at this when you go on to say "In short, attachments are formed to bolster the ego". I haven't thought carefully enough about how I would characterise the psychological disposition of attachment, though, so I'll leave it there for now.
lairdshaw 3 years ago
You have an attachment to making arguments about things you haven't thought carefully enough about. *Attachments* are formed via the ego. Simple logical identification - or even "association" as Elizabeth put it - doesn't have to involve the ego at all. It's just what consciousness does. I "associate", for example, with atheism, but for me it's just a tool to achieve things with; I'm not attached to the concept or label.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
You're making the same mistake as Elizabeth. Identifying as a postman because you're a postman is not attachment - though it may be if the ego is involved in the identification. The problem you are both articulating isn't a problem at all.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Well we seem to agree (at least superficially) on what attachment is, our only disagreement is as to whether you adequately defined it in the video. You seem to think that the mere inclusion of the word "ego" covers it, whereas I still think that that's inadequate, and that you need to say something about the psychological disposition of the ego towards the identification. Probably our disagreement boils down to a disagreement over the nature/definition of the ego.
lairdshaw 3 years ago 2
What can I say? I'm a bastard.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Yes, that's right. Attachment and ego aren't bad in any moral sense. They're just false. One need only give a damn about them if one is interested in eliminating falsity from one's existence. Non-attachment is really just the absence of bullshit. That doesn't make it sound especially romantic, but then, romance is bullshit too :)
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Very interesting video, I think I'm in the process of becoming more non-attached, as the ego when burst is a very painfull experience which makes one reflect quite deeply.
nriab23 3 years ago
From an evolutionary perspective, attachment evolved to solve the problem of independence. Those who move in groups are more likely to survive. Those who are not attached to others are more likely to die. The cognitive feelings of a bolstered ego are the physical "reward" we feel for our genetic behavioral suggestions.
Not that this has anything to do with the point of your video :)
felixthecoach 3 years ago
It's always dangerous to speculate what evolution did or did not do. In psychological terms it's pretty much meaningless to do so given that it can only be speculative. Fun, maybe, but dangerous if people take it seriously.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
It's true that speculation based on no evidence is dangerous. However, Attachment Theory is a holistically agreed on theory in sciences such as biology, evolutionary psychology, and many aspects of anthropology. I do not disagree with your video. I think that eastern philosophies are much more agreeable than most western beliefs. I just thought it would be helpful to clear up the reason humans develop attachments.
felixthecoach 3 years ago
From the perspective of a largely unconscious, emotionally and egotistically functioning being, the benefits derived from forming attachments are pretty obvious. I have no beef with that. But attachment is a double edged sword and it tends to create as many problems as benefits. Our attachments could conceivably destroy the species. Every war that was ever fought was fought because of egotistical attachments.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Of course, my concern is for what is ultimately true. On that note, I don't put too much stock in evolutionary psychology. Its models may seem to make a lot of sense and indeed might actually be correct, but there's no way that I can see to verify this. I tend not to take too seriously that which I can't verify, however interesting it may be on the face of it.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
You seem to be confusing attachment with association. Associating with a group for practical purposes does not constitute attachment.
ElizabethIsabelle 3 years ago
There is no relationship between those two things. A person without an ego can "associate" with a thing or group or idea for the sake of its logical utility. That is not attachment. Attachment only occurs if its the ego doing the associating for is own sake.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
What can I say, I needed an image for that bit.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago