Guest guest Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 Lewis, That is a superb post! I agree with hypothesis formation instead of hysteria. Maybe the word compulsive should be added. Compulsive hypothesis formation, or compulsive explanatory stories seems like an inextricable part of being human. Pete > Hi Kip, > > My starting point is found first in my own encounter and examination of > how I make stories. In the Buddhist scripture I find the most direct > expression of how language comes into play in the formation of stories > and consciousness and self is in Kaccayanagotta Sutta where it says: > > " 'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': > That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata > teaches the Dhamma via the middle: > > From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. " > > http://ladharma.org/ati/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-015.html > > > The appearance of ignorance allows the arising of fabrications, the > cessation of ignorance ends the arising of fabrications. The inability > of Buddhist interpretations to clearly explicate " ignorance " seems to > have stymied the enterprise of reversing the 12 steps of dependent > origination leading to dukkha. It is simply not understood well enough > to be elucidated, so that it is clearly fathomed, and thus possibility > of the cessation of fabrications becomes readily apparent to the > senses. > > In the Lacanian view, which is altogether complex with the real meat > hidden in a forest of very dense conceptual language, there is an > insight that steps very close to what " ignorance " is though without > spelling it out, that is the " hole. " The refusal or inability of Lacan > to do this is curious. This inability and its resultant expansion of > fabrications saddles the elegant aspects of the Lacanian story with > obsfuscating terminology. It seems quite simple and elegant when the > Lacanian story is opened, examined carefully, and revealed. > > The Advaita Vedanta story approaches the issue in an amazingly > convoluted manner by asserting ignorance while denying it, asserting > there is no " fundamental ignorance " all is consciousness while > asserting maya and a number of other pole balancing activities. All of > this leads to a number of rigourous paths to the Self or the new one > that says just realize the Self that you are without making effort. The > Self is a constructed terminus that amounts to a denuded > awareness/consciousness, which when attained is simply " eyes wide > open. " The key concept is Nirguna Brahman and practitioners refuse or > are unable to see what the story actually says of this. In that story, > " ignorance " is unknowingly sitting at back door of Nirguna Brahaman > (the Self being incorporated in it) and most practitioners seem to > just stand there never opening it because the dazzling Self occupies > their attention. Nirguna Brahman gets little attention, except by a > few. > > So the self, speakerbeing, and self (not Self) of Buddhism, Lacan and > Advaita Vedanta are the same and the stories of how they come into > being are the same in terms of " ignorance. " However, that ignorance is > never clearly elucidated in any of these, with Lacan coming the > closest. This remains a curiosity since the nature of the " ignorance " > seems obvious. > > Hysteria is the fabrication of unsatisfied desire objects or what I > prefer to call " hypotheses, " or tentative stories, explanations, > proposals, suppositions, assumptions, guesses,... used to go on in > life. Without them we do not do and create beyond reactive survival of > the body. Art poetry, literature, music, science, the humanities would > be nonexistent and/or stuck without " hysteria " or " hypotheses > formation, " the sense of what if....and then creating and doing upon > it. > > As defined, as a story, hysteria is not chronic craving. Chronic > craving arises due to other conditions, including hysteria. To confuse > them is error. > > Hysteria is not centered in a specturm or continuum of good or bad, > right or wrong, attachment and non-attachment, existence and > nonexistence. > > If hysteria or hypotheses formatiom is unrecognized as being done, it > leads to problems in living. When recoginized and done well it leads to > well-being. > > When " hypotheses " or " unsatisfied desire objects " are " hardened into > existence beyond their transitory creation, appearance and use " or > " hypostasis " in the Voegelin sense of the word, then craving for and > attachment to them can occur. Before hypostasis how can one crave or > attach. Hypotheses formation or hysteria is not chronic craving. > > This is one story. Since there is some inflexibility present regarding > the term hysteria and its changing connotative and denotative history, > I am dropping it in favor of " hypotheses formation " a more neutral > term. > > Lewis > Up Thread | Message Index | View Source | Unwrap Lines Message 11609 of 11614 < Previous Message | Next Message > Message # Search: Post Message 2005 Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Copyright/IP Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.