I wrote a short response to @danielmingram about the mechanisms of change in vipassana meditation. https://parletre.wordpress.com/2019/06/23/response-to-ingram-2/ … @evantthompson @Meaningness @non_buddhism @Sciamanoinglese @redpillchange @ronpurser @SamHarrisOrg @Failed_Buddhist @ordinarymind1
It's interesting. Our third chat, coming out tomorrow, touches on a variety of related topics, but ultimately, my sense of Vipassana is that it's done so well in the US because it simplifies so much & is therefore so compatible with the allure of American Pragmatism.
-
-
This is an interesting thought. Given
@evantthompson's comments, might we frame it like this: Vipassana interacts with the world in a particular way, as a prescribed religious ritual with a certain conceptual backdrop, and thus tend to generate certain forms of meaning-making. -
Yes, it also opens up and closes off certain possibilities of experience, and thought. It will, like all systems, fail to guarantee the generation of those meanings, which is often where things get interesting, or problematic.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I also wonder how
@evantthompson would view American Pragmatism in light of the work on embodied cognition. Given that meaning-making depends upon embodied/enactive activity, it would seem that investigation ought to depend upon multiple modes of interaction with its objects. -
Yes, multiple modes of interaction--experimental, phenomenological, mathematical modeling, etc. I tend to think of this in Phenomenological (Husserl, Merleau-Ponty) terms, not Pragmatist, but there are places where these traditions intersect (also where they diverge)
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.