In teaching, I’m always making this crucial distinction: “...cognitive science doesn’t show that the self is an illusion, despite what a few cognitive scientists say. Rather, it indicates that the self is a construction.” — Why I Am Not a Buddhist by Evan Thompson
Without more detail, this seems like an unsubstantial quibble. If illusion (as commonly used) means "not as it seems", I don't see a meaningful distinction in saying it's a construction.
-
-
The quibble is with the other common use of the word illusion to mean "nonexistent."
-
I see. The notion of "relative" and "ultimate" levels is prominent in the teachings on "not-self". And cognitive science theorizes that the default mode network generates our felt sense of self. So I'm wondering what he is taking issue with here. I'll check out the book.
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.