"When Buddhist modernists say that Buddhism isn’t a religion and try to use science to justify Buddhism, that’s an instance of misunderstanding what religion is and what science is." @evantthompsonhttps://buff.ly/38Xyr2o
Agreed. Important to say, however, that "neurophenomenology" originally meant a particular approach within neuroscience to the study of consciousness--the idea was to make neuroscience better by adding phenomenology
-
-
1/?: I was being tongue in cheek of course, knowing fully well that neurophenomenology is better construed as phenoneurology. However, there's a larger point connecting phenomenology to Buddhism that suggests a critique of your book ("suggests" because I haven't read the book)
-
Fair. I actually criticize the idea that Buddhism is phenomenology, or that it's easy to connect the two, in my book -- my views on this have changed over the years.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
3/? The brain as the ultimate ground of explanation is such a strong cultural force that advocating an alternative - whether Phenomenology or Buddhism - is dangerous to the alternative since it runs the risk of being assimilated, turned 180 degrees and spit out
-
4/? (the last one) - which suggests that neoliberal reason, i.e., naturalized capitalism, combined with brainism is the default framework for engaging with the human and not so human world in academia and elite western society.
End of conversation
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.