[Grr Hick]

Ahh, A change in definitive word means a complete change in the question your asking? did someone just abandon their own statement? If this isn't so please feel free to show me where I went wrong. Even though it seems to me to not be a word at all?? Artifactual? If im mistaken please feel free to define it for me.. reference and all

Yes torture could be looked at as a natural thing.. We torture each other everyday unknowingly with things we say and do.. It is a part of learning for both the torturer and the tortured. Such as the lesson "Do not do onto others that which you would not have them do onto you"


But in my way of looking at it they are not comparable. Meditation is an enhancement of something naturaly a part of us, e.g. Awareness (along with several others). Torture also would be something natural, but we use it as a tool for something it was not invented for such as aquiring information. Thereby giving it an artifcial or seperate unintended purpose.

Meditations natural purpose is to enhance awareness, mindfulness, etc.

By trying to relate torture to meditation, I see you may be trying to discredit meditations use as a harmless tool for enhancing awareness by associating humans misuse of another practice. If this isn't so Im sorry to have perceived it that way..

May I ask what exactly are the negative things you see in meditation, If any?? I would just like to know for my own understanding of someone elses perceptions on the subject. Or if this sceptism is just a lack of understanding on the subject due to no experiences with controlled meditation.

It's almost like having never smoked crack and saying "I know what thats like! it's the best stuff ever!" :)

Anyways... back to fun class... :rolleyes: haha

[Scott Bakker]

One step at time.

To say that something is 'artifactual' is to say that it's the result of human culture. You agree that meditation is the result of human culture, don't you?

[Grr Hick]

Quite surely, anything beyond the earth, trees, rocks and nature is a creation of human culture I suppose.

Im still not quite sure of this word you use or where you got it...hmm Artifactual.... :confused:

As I said, meditation is the word that describes the practice of enhancing our awareness past the point of minimal awareness we have in our normal day to day lives..

I just don't know where your going with this.. and how come your leaving your old statements behind in the dust??

[Scott Bakker]

Unless we can agree on what meditation is, we have no way of debating it. If you listen carefully to the majority of debates you hear, you'll notice that although people are often using the same words, they actually mean quite different things. But since we're not even taught the basics of definition in argument in public school, people lose faith in the power of argument altogether - which is to say they lose faith in communication. Which I think suits the powers-that-be quite fine.

If you bear with me, GH, I think you'll see how much of a difference it can make.

So we both agree that meditation is a human artifact, as much as any other human practice.

Do you agree that it rewires the brain?

[Grr Hick]

Ahh... I think I see your ways... hmm.... your leaving behind the points I make.. and trying to get me to follow the path in this debate that is beneficial for steering me towards answers you want me to give?? am I right?? hmm....

How come you haven't argued any of the points of the last couple posts I made against your views of meditation being artificial means of rewiring your brain which you say changes who we are... In a sense you could argue that everything we are ever exposed to changes us as a person... So I think the point may be moot if your trying to discredit the usefulness of meditation... Just because your skeptical and haven't even given it a try doesn't mean it's a negative thing. I respect that you don't want to practice meditation because your happy with who you are.. that’s fine... But the way I look at it there’s always MORE.. you can always become more in so many ways if you just work towards thoughs goals...

Also you haven't answered any of the questions I have given you? As you said to me... You still haven't answered my questions, GH! If you are open to any alternative, why would you avoid my questions?My Question was..
May I ask what exactly are the negative things you see in meditation, If any??I would appreciate if you could answer the above question

And if I recall one of your first arguments was that meditation is an "artificial intervention" and since changing your argument to meditation being a "human artifact", the whole direction of your argument is lost.. seeing as I said
anything beyond the earth, trees, rocks and nature is a creation of human culture I suppose.This means your saying everything we have created is a human artifact....seeing you didn't argue against that point.. So where does this get you in terms of this discussion? Ya meditation is a part of human culture??? And? :confused:

I think this discussion is getting a little to lost in unimportant little arguments... Truthfully whether or not you ever talked me into agreeing that meditation rewires our brain, or is some artifactual... :rolleyes: human intervention... doesn't change that meditation is and does what it does... There is no way you could convince me that meditation is something negative, it is one thing I KNOW for myself... It also has a lot of scientific backing too. :)

I also have some further questions for you...

What are you gaining from keeping up this discussion?

Do you feel that meditation is unbeneficial to human existence? If so Why? If not, Why?

Do you feel that having not experienced meditation you may be missing a lot in terms of experiences, benefits and possible undesirable occurrences?

If you could answer these questions.. we could get to the basis of this argument... and I could see your exact position and not be constantly wondering where your trying to go with this...

I really don't want this to turn into a petty game of who can cut the other up the best... That doesn't get us anywhere now does it.. :D

But time for bed.. see ya!

[Scott Bakker]

I have to admit, that after almost a dozen posts asking the same question, I'm getting tired of all this. Really, why are you having such a difficult time with this?

So for the final time: Do you or do you not think that meditation is a man-made technique that substantially and perhaps irrevocably rewires the brain?

I'm not trying to steer you into any trap, GH, and I'm puzzled and disappointed that you think so. It's just a fact that you need to define what you're arguing about before you can effectively do so. This is the reason I've postponed answering your questions.

So for your question, "May I ask what exactly are the negative things you see in meditation, If any?"

My only response is, what do you mean by 'meditation?' Do you mean a man-made technique that substantially and perhaps irrevocably rewires the brain?

I think this discussion is getting a little to lost in unimportant little arguments... Truthfully whether or not you ever talked me into agreeing that meditation rewires our brain, or is some artifactual... human intervention... doesn't change that meditation is and does what it does... There is no way you could convince me that meditation is something negative, it is one thing I KNOW for myself... It also has a lot of scientific backing too.

Well, it's a FACT that defining terms is one of the most important elements of constructive debate. I don't know what else I can say on that point. Another, equally important element, is a willingness to keep an open mind. There's plenty of ways you could convince me that meditation is a positive thing. This is the primary reason I'm debating. It'll force me to learn something about meditation.

But since you openly admit there's no way you would ever change your conclusions, the question is really one of why you're debating.

How can you honestly debate things you don't think are debatable?

[Grr Hick]

If in saying that meditation is a man-made technique that substantially and perhaps irrevocably rewires the brain then we are also agreeing that every man-made technique and situation in life could perhaps substantially and irrevocably rewire the brain. (seeing things such as language are a part of human culture.) That is the only way my answer to your question would be yes.

Now i'd like for you to answer my quesitons to the best of your knowledge and using YOUR definition of meditation at this point.

Do you feel that meditation is unbeneficial to human existence? If so Why? If not, Why?

Do you feel that having not experienced meditation you may be missing a lot in terms of experiences, benefits and possible undesirable occurrences?

May I ask what exactly are the negative things you see in meditation, If any?

Your wondering what the reason for me continuing this discussion is?? It's to better myself.. as with everything I do in life.. If I feel it's something that could make me MORE.. then it's something I will do..

I want to understand what it is.. you see unfavorable about meditation... Beyond that your afraid it will calm and clarify your mind.. and with the knowledge that you haven't even tried meditating...

I would respect your views a lot more if I knew you'd tried it and then decided you didn't like it... even then I'd ask what it is you didn't like about it.. and I'd be happy to get an answer knowing you've gave it an honest experimental effort.

I can promise you now that if you gave meditation a try you wouldn't wake up the next day thinking your name was Bob.. :D

It's hard to debate a subject when only one debater actually has experience with the subject.

Please if you could answer my questions now then things could get back on a direct track... towards us TRYING to understand each others views, opinions and reasons behind thoughs opinions...

Lastly..
There is no way you could convince me that meditation is something negative To which you stated.
How can you honestly debate things you don't think are debatable? Is this to say that you're debating whether meditation is positive or negative?? Even without having any experience practicing meditation?? :p

[Scott Bakker]

If in saying that meditation is a man-made technique that substantially and perhaps irrevocably rewires the brain then we are also agreeing that every man-made technique and situation in life could perhaps substantially and irrevocably rewire the brain. (seeing things such as language are a part of human culture.) That is the only way my answer to your question would be yes.

I pretty much agree with you, (though language is a bad example - most theorists would put it into the nature category). But you do see how it opens up the question of meditation's value. This is a value neutral definition, which leaves the question of whether meditation is good or bad open. Traditional definitions 'define the goodness in' so to speak, and so end up begging the question.

Now I don't accept that meditation leads to 'higher' states of consciousness, though I do accept that meditation leads to different states of consciousness. I also accept that for the vast majority of practitioneers, these different states seem more positive. This promise of enjoying a different, more positive state of consciousness, I assume, is a big incentive for people to begin meditating.

For me, it's not. Far from it in fact. I'm actually quite happy with my present, conflicted state of consciousness. Not only am I certain that it's essential to my line of work, I've long nursed the hunch that the 'key,' if there is one, is to accept the good with the bad when it comes to day to day consciousness. Namely, to understand the negativity, not to eradicate or otherwise 'overcome' it.

Add to that the fact that meditation changes the wiring responsible for who we are in a thoroughgoing and systematic way, and I'm even more disinclined. It really does seem like a one way trip, and a time consuming one at that. I'd much rather wait for transcranial magnetic stimulation to enter it's maturity to experience versions of the 'altered states' you and other meditation enthusiasts speak of.

In other words, like I said in the very beginning (before I realized we had a definitional problem), 'If it ain't broken, why fix it?'

Does that cover your questions?

[Grr Hick]

Ahh very good!, now this is a more enjoyable way of discussing meditation. :)
For me, it's not. Far from it in fact. I'm actually quite happy with my present, conflicted state of consciousness. Not only am I certain that it's essential to my line of work, I've long nursed the hunch that the 'key,' if there is one, is to accept the good with the bad when it comes to day to day consciousness. Namely, to understand the negativity, not to eradicate or otherwise 'overcome' it.What I can say to this is that to understand negativity IS to eradicate it..in the way we see negativity as of now. Seeing you would be able to realize that negativity isn't actually negative.. it's just another side to the coin in terms of learning/life. Negative/positive is just the duality of what IS. Just like everything in life.. We make something out of everything and everything out of nothing. When everything just IS. I'm not sure if you can comphrehend the meaning of this?

Our perception of life splits things into this and that.. as to find a contrast between things. And I feel in doing so we confuse the very existence itself from it's true state of just BEING. I feel we spend to much time looking for answers to questions.. when really the questions are the answers themselves..So why are we looking for something we already have?

Thats why I feel awareness is key... which is the true reason for me meditating. I do feel that is it true that we must suffer through all these different "trials" of life to ultimately become MORE. I just feel meditating and resultingly becoming more aware speeds up the process of "spiritual evolution" of whatever other names you might choose to call it.
In other words, like I said in the very beginning (before I realized we had a definitional problem), 'If it ain't broken, why fix it?' What I can say to this is... Think of it in terms of a car.. it ain't broke but you sure as hell can mod it up.. make it faster...stronger...better. :D at least thats the way I think about myself. I can always become MORE in hundreds of ways... and thats what I plan to do! :).

But again the difference between you and I is that I feel and know for myself that meditation is a way to MOD myself up to a higher level of awareness and in turn understand more in life. And with you... you are happy being who you are. Which is fine. But isn't there MORE then fine??? :)

I still think though that before you can judge something you must experience and understand it. Not get your "understanding" of it through a third party. Cause who says what they say/think is right for you???

This is way more enjoyable Scott, im glad were down to more civilized discussion.. :)

I might have to get back to you on the part about higher states of conciousness. But I have to get back to work now.. see ya later!

[Scott Bakker]

What I can say to this is that to understand negativity IS to eradicate it..in the way we see negativity as of now. Seeing you would be able to realize that negativity isn't actually negative.. it's just another side to the coin in terms of learning/life. Negative/positive is just the duality of what IS. Just like everything in life.. We make something out of everything and everything out of nothing. When everything just IS. I'm not sure if you can comphrehend the meaning of this?

It's not that I have difficulty comprehending the meaning, it's just that I see nothing that recommends this over thousands of other grand metaphysical claims - and I've dedicated years of my life to studying them. We humans have a weakness for big pronouncements like these, but we really know squat.

Take for instance, the claim that 'negativity isn't actually negative.' Or 'positivity isn't really positive.' With claims like these, which purport to explain the 'truth' of these abstract categories, literally anything can be argued. You can interpret and reinterpret and reinterpret, and so on, endlessly. This is why every culture comes up with its own version of 'what's really going on,' and why philosopher after philosopher can come up with criticism after criticism and alternative after alternative with no end.

This is just a matter of fact description of the position these kinds of claims find themselves in, GH. Though entertaining them may be useful, believing them is unwarranted, and kind of embarrassing, once you realize so many others believe entirely incompatible claims with as much if not more fervour. What makes your interpretation right and everyone else's wrong? 'Feeling' that it to be true is meaningless, because everybody feels that their interpretations are true. Conviction is cheap as dirt. We're hardwired to believe flattering things.

Doubt is the hard thing, the special thing.

Our perception of life splits things into this and that.. as to find a contrast between things. And I feel in doing so we confuse the very existence itself from it's true state of just BEING. I feel we spend to much time looking for answers to questions.. when really the questions are the answers themselves..So why are we looking for something we already have?

This experience of breaking down self and other, subject and object, which is the cornerstone of several Eastern metaphysics, can actually be replicated using transcranial magnetic stimulation. The traditional assumption is that this is some kind of 'seeing through' an otherwise illusory veil of existence. But how do you know that it's not the opposite, that it's a kind of hallucination that has been rationalized as 'higher awareness,' given that the participants of any practice almost always rationalize their activity in flattering ways, be it yoga, confession, morning prayer, or female circumcision. Think of the claims Timothy Leary made regarding drug use. Cooking up flattering rationalizations is just what humans do. How can you be certain you're not doing the same?

How do you know you're not rewiring your brain for the sake of experiencing pleasant hallucinations? The fact that they can be induced by mucking with brain activity seems to suggest that's what they in fact are.

I still think though that before you can judge something you must experience and understand it. Not get your "understanding" of it through a third party. Cause who says what they say/think is right for you???

I know people who says the same thing about heroin.

The situation here is kind of like the 'transporter' on Star Trek. Everyone just assumes that the transporter is a great thing. And why not? when it can beam you all over the universe.

But when you pause to think about what it is a transporter is really doing... Dissassembling, translating you into information, then reassembling you. How do we know that every time someone is transported, he or she isn't in fact killed, then subsequently replaced by a copy so identical that it merely thinks that it's you? What if there's some kind of 'spark' that isn't transported?

As soon as you ask this question, the idea of stepping into a transporter just to 'see what it's like' is besides the point. In the absence of any overriding considerations, it just isn't rational to try to get first hand experience.

The same is kind of the case, here - though not nearly so dramatic. Consider Tibetan Buddhist monks: they have managed to rewire their brains to such an extent that their brain scans are obviously different from the brain scans of regular folk. And there's no going back. Now either they experience a more profound reality, or they experience a different reality, or they experience a continual hallucination.

I don't know the answer to this question, though my cynicism about flattering claims inclines me to the latter two. The thing is, nobody else knows the answer to this question either, least of all, those who claim to experience the 'higher reality,' since that is precisely what you would expect them to think if they were hallucinating. As with the transporter dilemma, there's no way to answer the question.

So in the absence of overriding considerations, the rational thing, it seems to me, is to not follow the path of Tibetan Buddhist monks.