02-07-07 7:02 • Tinkerbell
Charles: Perhaps people's different interpretations of the divine are failures to communicate. People share the fruits of their experience based upon their understanding of them. Experiences are relatively perceived and interpreted. Likewise, the sharing process itself is relative - based on its own unique set of relative constraints. As human beings communicating with one another - we do what we can do and can do no more or no less.
If you are trying to say all communication is dialogic and thus evolves through the efforts of the parties involve attempting to come to acceptable resolution; and, it is already drawn from within a context from which it is inextricable; then I agree.
But I should point out that to try and communicate even against inevitable failure is to push the boundaries of what can be said which in turn expands the boundaries of what can be thought and understood.
Thus even knowing the challenge cannot be met, it is right to ask until it can be met.
Charles: Certainly agreed - important point.
Changeling: Macintosh said, "To make an assertion like for example 'God doesn't exist' requires proof."
Does the assertion "Tinkerbell doesn't exist" require proof also?
Pinky: Yes, it would require proof, as I do not believe you have searched EVERYWHERE for her yet.
I would rather say that "Tinkerbell may or may not exist, as defining evidence has not been presented for either argument at this time."
And that would be irrational since without a reason to believe or even suspend disbelief, one disbelieves.
Reason is a skeptical position. You always start from a position of doubt.
Pinky: I cannot doubt something until I hear about it.
Ah, let me introduce you to the wonders of abstract thinking. It's similar to magical thinking except you realize that it is abstract instead of trying to pretend it is literal.
I can develop a healthy skepticism for the existence of *any* fictional or fantastic character which you might propose without evidence.
What you still are missing in all of this is that without evidence your proposals are empty and irrational *by*default.* Rationally, I can and should dismiss them out of hand until you arrive with concrete evidence to open a cogent discussion of actual gods or fairies with. This is why I can't be a theist or an atheist. There is nothing yet to be for or against. It is the same with being a gnostic or agnostic since there is nothing yet to test the limits of my comprehension against.
And like it or not a null set is empty, therefore no gods, no fairies.
Pinky: What qualifies as "sufficient reason" to disbelieve is of course subjective.
That is the significant difference between rationality and religion. With rationality you start with sufficient reason to disbelieve and only believe what contradicts that with evidence to the contrary.
Religion allows belief without reason and so is irrational. There "might be" a god just doesn't cut the mustard if one wishes to be rational.
"Might be" is just a dishonest way of saying "I wish there was, but there isn't."
Lenny: "Might be" is the engine of science!
No, daydreams of might be are fun, but no paper ever got published because there "might be" something to it.
It science you take a statement and then try and doubt it to death by showing it is wrong. It you fail you figure its good enough and so you publish what you did and let every one else take a crack at doubting it to death. If every one agrees they can't show it is wrong they then assume it is good enough until replaced by something better.
Lenny: You say something is false until proven true. No, I said something is assumed false until there is evidence to begin to believe otherwise.
Like "You owe me all your money."
Do you assume it is false, undetermined or true?
02-05-07 5:02 • Quoting Buddha
Newell: You speak of not reading or taking literal old writings, and yet you sometimes quote the Buddha to support your points? What's up with that?
Not trying to take literal something which is mythic and non-literal is not the same thing as not reading it or being able to use it appropriately.
Newell: Well, each person has to find the Truth themselves.
I'm not speaking hypothetically. I know truth and I know myth when I see it.
Distinguishing what is actual from what is fantasy is important if you are going to give up creating suffering for yourself.
Newell: The point being, Nibbana is beyond our ability to understand.
Then it is totally pointless and not at all what the Buddha was discussing since what he was talking about *is* within our ability to understand.
DangerAngel: Swarm - I just love having you moderate this tribe.
Just thought I'd give a big hooray for your logic.
Woohoo!
02-04-07 5:02 • Was Buddha God?
Brock: Isn't it amazing? "Lord Buddha" is predicted by name thousands of years before He came to earth, along with the name of His father and village. Does that seem like a dumb reason to believe He is God?
How about his stance that he was just a human and unworthy of special reverence?
The thing religious people don't seem to get about the Buddha's teaching is it is all about being human. Gods are at best an unprofitable line of inquiry...something to be pursued only if you feel you must, and then his suggestion was to just worship the gods of your fathers.
The buddha was a human speaking to humans about human concerns and what is possible for humans to achieve if they put forth the effort.
Gods are irrelevant and to pretend he was a god is to pretend he was irrelevant.
Whisper: Of course God designed us! You try laying out the proper amounts of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen and some trace elements, and you still will not have a human.
We did start with nothing more than that and we do have humans after a mere 3.5 billion years.
Now you want me to start from scratch all over again?
Whisper: The soul must exist! Even a recently deceased human has all of those parts, yet is not alive.
So? A star has all those elements too. Organization and placement are important. I never said it was easy, I just said we've already done that once.
Whisper: Whereas a chunk of iron just sits around until manipulated by outside forces. Actually in the proper chemical configuration iron participated in writing Shakespeare.
Phil: Have you got any wisdom to share about the meaning of life and how to cope with not feeling great about stuff...?
Don't worry too much about it and it goes away after a while.
Laura: I'm a vegan and I think everyone should do the same! They have great vegetarian imitations of chicken, sausage, beef, you name it. Plus, it's better for the cows, and more moral. How do you think you would like being eaten?
Perhaps its just me, but it always seems like vegetarians are actually faux meatitarians.
Cows have it pretty sweet for a large game animal, especially these days.
Break out a good National Geographic and compare how we manage the life of the cow with how wildebeests are managed by the lions.
Then consider that the cow and the wildebeest come from the same territory and then compare their present territories. Wildebeests are losing ground every year. Cows are now the dominant large game animal on the planet.
So being tasty and fitting well are very genetically advantageous for the species.
As for being moral or not, nature knows neither.
As for being eaten, it is only hubris which makes you think you aren't subject to being eaten every moment of your life, just like all else that lives. A predator doesn't have to be big to be successful.
01-23-07 7:01 • My Self Interest
Anthony: I happen to think that what's best for me is what serves my interests best. Period. What's wrong with that?
This results in suboptimal performance in trying to find solutions to the problems life throws you.
Particularly when confronted with problems which require the cooperation of others to solve. For example, if I was in a position of having to choose between helping you and helping some one I know is interested in my needs as well as their own, you are going to be left in the cold. Also, in helping each other we become a team and you are now at a distinct disadvantage in competition with us.
The synergy of helping the group results in your own interests getting served better than you could serve them just looking out for yourself, which is why most people don't really behave that way and people who truly only serve their own self interest make those around them very uncomfortable to the point where it is seen as a pathology.
Paul: I'm at a loss here. I don't know how people integrate Poly families with children. My partner wants to change to another family, raise our daughter there, and change our relationship to a non-romantic one. They will live an hour away.
I hate to break this to you, but this is called breaking up, or "getting a divorce."
Paul: I'm confused at how this is a good decision for our child and our family. I would still be involved as a father (weekend custody and other, details aren't all worked out yet), just no longer in romantic context with the mother.
Get the details in writing and at least notarized. You should seriously consider at least getting a lawyer's advice since a child is involved.
Best wishes.
Paul: I know it sounds like "breaking up," but there is still hope, this has been going on since Halloween, and our "issues" aren't significant enough to warrent these actions. I suppose I'm the detective type and need to know the real reasons so i can act in best interests to my mate and daughter. I love them dearly and unconditionally.
If you love them dearly get your separation agreement in writing and legal. It will help prevent things from becoming acrimonious later.
If you think the issues aren't significant enough to warrant these actions, then you don't know her side of the story.
Your soon-to-be-ex is no longer your mate. You must reconsider what your responsibilities are towards her.
Your daughter is going to be watching the two of you very closely and wondering if the tension is really her fault.
Whether or not you can still alter the course of these events is impossible to say, but it certainly might be worth finding out.
Trinsic: I was wondering what Letting Go means...You know, when you think you know something, but you don't really understand the true meaning behind those words? I think this is one of those things for me.
I want to work for myself, but if its not doing well, could I still be holding onto the need for people to take care of me without knowing it? How can I let it go?
As one of those zen guys said: if you can't let it go, then just set it down.
Trinsic: Lately for me its been me having to grieve over something I didn't have in my life, or having relied on some warped subsitution for something real before I can let it go.
Which is why I kind of frowned on the idea that "if you cant let something go, just set it down..." I didn't really know how to go about doing that and I felt that was kind of a half-assed answer, especially since our personal identity can be really wrapped up into what we still hold on to.
Not to say that its not good advice, I just don't think it works that way for things that go really deep.
Everything which is made of thoughts is created by the mind, fed by the mind, held onto by the mind.
There are untold things which you never had in your life. Some are wonderful. Some are horrible. Some are bland. But what they all have in common which sets them apart from what is causing you grief is how you think about what causes you grief and how you don't think about those other things. The grief comes from the unfulfilled cravings which the mind creates by noticing what it lacks and wanting it.
So the first reaction is "well I just won't want it." Unfortunately, the way minds work, not wanting and wanting have the same effect: focusing on the object and creating cravings and aversions about it.
This kind of suffering has to be cut off at the root, which is the point of attention. The mind can only really focus intently on one thing at a time. Even when you think you are focusing on multiple tasks, what you are actually doing is switching back and forth between the two.
If you are really focused, there is nothing left to create craving and aversion.
There is no real big secret to this. People do it all the time. But usually it is haphazard and requires effort, which means that one tires and gets distracted.
The main secret of both the teachings of Epicurus and the Buddha is how to achieve focus and pay attention as a natural part of your existence so that you don't get tired or distracted.
One of my main gripes about psychology is that they are fixated on the problem, and how hard it all must be.
Perhaps you can't let go of "deep" problems, or even just set them down. But as Milton Erickson found out, it doesn't hurt to try...and *most* issues aren't "deep" problems. We just think they are because we've gotten all wrapped up in them.
Read more in the Archives.