Being ignorant, I can’t respond in detail. It makes sense that there’d be variation between ideologies, and that many people would have versions that are less, or differently, bad (according to me, on this dimension). But I would also guess that I’d find deep disagreements in more strands, if I knew more about them, that are related to motive dismantling.
For example, I’d expect many strands to incorporate something like the negation
of “Reality bites back.” or
of “Reality is (or rather, includes quite a lot of) that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” or
of ” We live in the world beyond the reach of God.”.
As another example, I would expect most Buddhists to say that you move toward unity with God (however you want to phrase that) by in some manner becoming less {involved with / reliant on / constituted by / enthralled by / …} symbolic experience/reasoning, but I would fairly strongly negate this, and say that you can only constitute God via much more symbolic experience/reasoning.
For example, I’d expect many strands to incorporate something like the negation
Some yes, though the strands that I personally like the most lean strongly into those statements. The interpretation of Buddhism that makes the most sense to me sees much of the aim of practice as first becoming aware of, and then dropping, various mental mechanisms that cause motivated reasoning and denial of what’s actually true.
Being ignorant, I can’t respond in detail. It makes sense that there’d be variation between ideologies, and that many people would have versions that are less, or differently, bad (according to me, on this dimension). But I would also guess that I’d find deep disagreements in more strands, if I knew more about them, that are related to motive dismantling.
For example, I’d expect many strands to incorporate something like the negation
of “Reality bites back.” or
of “Reality is (or rather, includes quite a lot of) that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” or
of ” We live in the world beyond the reach of God.”.
As another example, I would expect most Buddhists to say that you move toward unity with God (however you want to phrase that) by in some manner becoming less {involved with / reliant on / constituted by / enthralled by / …} symbolic experience/reasoning, but I would fairly strongly negate this, and say that you can only constitute God via much more symbolic experience/reasoning.
Some yes, though the strands that I personally like the most lean strongly into those statements. The interpretation of Buddhism that makes the most sense to me sees much of the aim of practice as first becoming aware of, and then dropping, various mental mechanisms that cause motivated reasoning and denial of what’s actually true.