Upvoted, not because I agree with you, but because it was an interesting text to read. More enjoyable that the original article, which feels like reductionist applause lights. (Although the original article is not that bad, just that its good parts are already better described on LW, so it brings no new value.)
Seems to me that you accuse "neo-Buddhists" of motivated cognition: they profess that there is no self, because they were promised such belief leads to end of suffering. Maybe they are experimentally right about this consequence, but just because some belief makes one happy that does not mean the belief reflects the world correctly. On the other hand, saying that "if a person is interested in exceptional achievement, this is the last thing they should do" is motivated cognition too. Again, even if you are experimentally right that such belief leads to (higher probability of) exceptional achievement, it does not mean that it reflects the world correctly. Seems to me that both of you are basicly saying "state of mind X leads to outcome Y"... and as far as I know, you may both be right (belief of no-self leads to more tranquility, and belief of self leads to more achievement), and still this is somehow irrelevant to the question what is the nature of the "self".
Saying "there is no self" can mean a few different things, so let's try to make the meaning more specific.
First, there is no elementary particle called "self". At the bottom level of the universe, there are atoms, or more precisely amplitudes of quantum configurations, and everything else is built from them, including my brain, my body, or the computer I'm using to write these words. What consequences do I expect? Even if I say "there is no spoon (as an elementary particle)", it does not mean that I can bend the spoon using only my mind, or anything like this. The spoon exists on the same level of reality as I do. I could bend it using my hands. I anticipate that the spoon can be modified or destroyed; depending on material it may corrode or dissolve in acid. I anticipate that if I ever learn the history of the spoon, it will show that the spoon was made, not that it existed since the Big Bang. How about the "self"? Similarly, however it is constructed at the lower levels, on this level it appeared at some time, and it can be destroyed.
Second, human mind consists of parts that are sometimes in conflict with each other. This could be used as a further evidence that it is not an elementary particle, but this argument is on a different level of reality: not a particle level, but psychological level. What consequences do I expect? Internal conflicts, akrasia, compartmentalization, and other symptoms of internal disunity.
On the other hand, saying "there is a self" can mean that a person has a shared history with themselves across the time, so we can expect memories, long-term goals, similar reactions to similar stimuli, and other kinds of similarities. A self-aware human will extend their survival instinct to this continuity; they will not only avoid death and pain today, but will also try to avoid tomorrow's death or pain, though not with the same intensity, because their models of tomorrow are imperfect.
Is there another meaning, another set of anticipated consequences, to saying "there is a self" or "there is no self"?
Hey all - I typed this out to help me understand, well... how to understand things:
Mental clarity is the ability to read reality accurately.
I don't mean being able to look at the complete objective picture of an event, as you don't have any direct access to that. I'm talking about the ability to read the data presented by your subjective experience: thoughs, sights, sounds, etc. Once you get a clear picture of what that data is, you can then go on and use it to build or falsify your ideas about the world.
This post will focus on the "getting a clear picture" part.
I use the word "read" because it's no different than reading from a book, or from these words. When you read a book, you are actually curious as to what the words are saying. You wouldn't read anything into it that's not there, which would be counterproductive to your understanding.
You just look at the words plainly, and through this your mind automatically recognizes and presents the patterns: the meaning of the sentences, their relation to the topic, the visual imagery associated with them, all of that. If you want to know a truth about reality, just look at it and read what's there.
Want to know what the weather's like? Look outside - read what's going on.
Want to know if the Earth revolves around the Sun, or vice versa? Look at the movement of the planets, read what they're doing, see which theory fits better.
Want to check if your beliefs about the world are correct? Take one, read the reality that the belief tries to correspond to, and see how well they compare.
This is the root of all science and all epiphanies.
But if it's so simple and obvious, why am I talking about it?
It's not something that we as a species often do. For trivial matters, sure, for science too, but not for our strongly-held opinions. Not for the beliefs and positions that shape our self-image, make us feel good/comfortable, or get us approval. Not for our political opinions, religious ideas, moral judgements, and little white lies.
If you were utterly convinced that your wife was faithful, moreso, if you liked to think of her in that way, and your friend came along and said she was cheating on you, you'd be reluctant to read reality and check if that's true. Doing this would challenge your comfort and throw you into an unknown world with some potentially massive changes. It would be much more comforting to rationalize why she still might be faithful, than to take one easy look at the true information. It would also more damaging.
Delusion is reading into reality things which aren't there. Telling yourself that everything's fine when it obviously isn't, for example. It's the equivalent of looking at a book about vampires and jumping to the conclusion that it's about wizards.
Sounds insane. You do it all the time. You'll catch yourself if you're willing to read the book of your own thoughts: flowing through your head, in plain view, is a whole mess of opinions and ideas of people, places, and positions you've never even encountered. Crikey!
That mess is incredibly dangerous to have. Being a host to unchecked or false beliefs about the world is like having a faulty map of a terrain: you're bound to get lost or fall off a cliff. Reading the terrain and re-drawing the map accordingly is the only way to accurately know where you're going. Having an accurate map is the only way to achieve your goals.
So you want to develop mental clarity? Be less confused, or more successful? Have a better understanding of the world, the structure of reality, or the accuracy of your ideas?
Just practice the accurate reading of what's going on. Surrender the content of your beliefs to the data gathered by your reading of reality. It's that simple.
It can also be scary, especially when it comes to challenging your "personal" beliefs. It's well worth the fear, however, as a life built on truth won't crumble like one built on fiction.
Truth doesn't crumble.
Stay true.
Further reading:
Stepvhen from Burning true on truth vs. fantasy.
Kevin from Truth Strike on why this skill is important to develop.