I don't disagree with anything here in particular. But be clear, until you changed tack, you were focused on meaning, which I have no opinion on. Instead of assuming I meant some critique, ask for clarification.boda wrote:The cognitive shift in awareness due to the Overview Effect, that you claim is akin to the ‘opening experience’ (if that’s an acceptable descriptor) you had in relation to rebirth, is nonreligious (secular) in nature.Queequeg wrote:I've just read our exchange very carefully and here's what I found: you're all over the place.
Your brief critique of the secular/materialist view seemed to suggest that it was lacking in perspective. Yet you went on to give an example of a nonreligious cognitive shift akin to that of your own experience in relation to rebirth (nonsecular). But regardless of this, in reality a secular view is not limited in perspective any more than a religious view. In fact it is quite the opposite, religious views being limited to whatever the current narrative entails. Nonreligious views are free to entertain any perspective within the range of imagination. Most importantly, in my opinion, a secular view allows the possibility to admit that there’s more to heaven and earth than are dreamt of in any religion, philosophy, or science, dear Queequegio.
Sorry if I stepped out of place, by the way.
The secular/materialist view is going to handicap a person trying to understand Buddhist scriptures, just as someone immersed in Buddhist cosmology is going to have difficulty understanding astronomy. The perspectives are defined by certain assumptions, and preclude certain ideas implicitly. Nonreligious does not equal secular/materialist.
Your categories are all over the place so please excuse me if it's hard to exchange with you.
I would not use a label of religious in this context simply because it can mean a broad range of ideas, many of which are contradictory. It's functionally meaningless except in a very general way to define certain modes of human activity.