/lit/ - Literature

>>20566982
>Why?
Direct observation. If you deny that suffering is bad, light yourself on fire.
>By what metric?
Direct observation. You're an NPC if you lack direct perception of the inherent goodness of pleasure and the inherent badness of suffering.
>I think utilitarianism is literally evil.
Why?

>>20422433
Light yourself on fire so that you can suffer more

>>19892071
Cope. Light yourself on fire if you actually believe this.

>>19719288
>>19719468
>>19719340
Light yourself on fire then if you believe this.

>fire doesn't affect space

ok let me just walk into a bit of space that currently has a fire in it because that part of space isn't affected by the fire so by me walking in it i won't be affected by the fire either.

>>18837905
To understand life:
>'Enchiridion' by Epictetus
To understand yourself:
>'Meditations' by Marcus Aurelius
To understand the world:
>'Tao Te Ching' by Lao Tsu
To understand conflict:
>'Art of War' by Sun Tsu
To understand violence:
'Book of 5 rings' by Miyamoto Musashi
To understand peace:
>'Zen Mind, Beginners Mind' by Shunryu Suzuki
To understand love:
'The Teachings of Buddha'

>>18741538
if monks do it cross legged without a cushion i should aspire to the same

eventually i want to be able to do pic related.

Buddhist bros of /lit/ - i've read a fair deal of sutras and philosophy books. I feel i largely get Buddhism's core concepts on an intellectual basis

but I barely ever meditate - despite the buddha quite clearly saying that the teachings are worthless without practice.

I'm thinking of going on a meditation retreat. The obvious contender is Goenka's Vipassana retreats
Can anyone speak to this - is it bearable?
are there better, more buddhist programmes??

So does becoming Buddhist allow for self immolation without feeling pain? How does Buddhism do this

>the only people who can be trusted to have an objective view of the system are those who participate and benefit from it
>not you losers

How are boomers like this?

>>13442598
I honestly don't know! I know that, if we deny Strong AI .... and with the Bakker stuff, consciousness being an artifact of poor processing, etc. it stands to reason that we have to: we should expect that as processing power increases, the emergence of consciousness should be less and less likely by default... I really think machines are the next step down Gurdjieff's octave ladder, as we descend, density, determination, law can only agglutinate and there is nothing as programmed as a machine... and perhaps nothing as pure and free as plasma or a star, if we retrace our steps back up the ladder... So I diverge with Langan here, I don't think technology will necessarily maximize telic utility, on the contrary...

But again, that's my point, that indeterminacy is only viable within a certain "pagan" bandwidth, too much one way or the other and it's either Zizek's "flat stupidity of nature" reigning forever and ever, or the iPlanet we're currently creating, where everyone thinks in lockstep because time is icky and indeterminacy is bad.

But in trying to kick death out of the attic he's moved into the living room, ie, into life itself, the death-within-life, or death-as-life, a danger the Egyptians were especially attuned to: too much actuality is dessicating.

As for your question, I don't know fren, I just have to agree with Plato that there are "acts of intellection" that can't be derived from my physical substrate, because they're derived from the topological twist that subjectivity is: there are decisions, thoughts and acts that could only have been carried out if there was observer immanent to this body and immanent to its observation, as it were. Maybe that makes sense, maybe it doesn't.

I'm gonna have to read some Krishnamurti.