"Dzogchen" covers a multitude of evils and any contemporary use of it requires extensive reworking. Also it was always a hyper-advanced practice and on the whole I think trying to explain it popularly now is pointless... so I've mostly written about tantra instead.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
Tantra would also require drastic reworking to make it useful now, but it's more understandable than Dzogchen, and we do have examples of successful popular deployments.https://vividness.live/2019/04/24/reinventing-buddhist-tantra-annotated-table-of-contents/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
Vajrayana generally aims for "empty form" which is intensely meaningful. Whatever defects it has, nihilism is not one...https://buddhism-for-vampires.com/drinking-the-sun …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
David, can you point me to something of yours discussing nihilism? Based on some of your usages, I suspect that our understanding of that term may differ significantly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @non_buddhism @SpeakingSubject and
Overview here. It's the introduction to a chapter that's only about 20% written but you can probably get the gist. I think my usage is pretty much in line with the Western philosophical tradition's, and not far from the Madhyamaka conception either.https://meaningness.com/nihilism
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
Thanks. It’s too much to get into here. But real quick. Of course there are numerous philosophical takes on nihilism. Mine is that it does not entail a denial or loss of meaning: it entails a refusal to posit ultimate grounds for ones (unavoidable) construal of meaning.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @non_buddhism @SpeakingSubject and
Oh, well, in that case I’m a committed nihilist :) But generally that’s “anti-foundationalism” rather than “nihilism” in Western philosophical terminology, isn’t it? Very different positions, although eternalists want to conflate them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
I’ll have to give it more thought. But at what point would anti-foundationalism find itself in swirling in the void of nihil? Are you familiar with Ray Brassier’s “Nihil Unbound”?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @non_buddhism @SpeakingSubject and
Yes; I wrote about it here. I think it’s silly :)https://buddhism-for-vampires.com/lovecraft-harman-nihilism …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
You mention it at the very end, which is different from “writing about it,” right? Did you actually read the book? I am not getting my nihilism from Brassier, but I appreciate his attempt to liberate it from the likes of Nietzsche and Critchley. Maybe I’ll write more on SNB.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You are right, I mentioned it only in passing there. I have read it twice, although I probably skimmed much of it both times. I found it tedious, over-wrought, self-involved, and obviously wrong. It’s possible I missed the point, and look forward to your elucidation.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
Thanks for your engagement. I have to stop now. (Bushmills is calling.) I think I will incorporate a nihilism postulate into our trash theory. So more at the blog.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.