02-14-05 7:11
Some people seem a bit unclear on the issues so I thought I'd lend a hand.
Arguing with heathens and non believers won't let you find evidence to convince them and trying to shift the burden of proof won't work because except for the fun of the debate, its really not their concern to show your god one way or the other. Your god is important only to you, hense the burden of proof.
You must remember this is a buyer's market on gods. There are just scads of people who claim their god is the god and their path is the path and as far as I can tell none of you have the slightest bit of honest proof.
But I am willing to give you some help.
There are people I've met who I respected as having a touch on something extrordinary. Some were even xtians. Some were not xtians. They have a surplus of caring and kindness, but it isn't pushy or demanding. They are honestly concerned and interested in others, but willing to let you be. Stuff doesn't stick to them be it possessions or mind games. They are focused and happy, but not blissed out, spaced out or zealed out. They care about who you are, not who you worship.
Be one of those people and even if I don't agree with your conclusions, I guarantee I'll consider what you have to say seriously because that state of being seems to me evidence of something.
But if I see no evidence in your words and actions so how can I believe you?
Or to put it xtian terms:
Be Jesus and I will listen to what you have to say about Jesus.
02-14-05 7:11
Ethan: Hey, I'm contemplating removing myself from college and American life, and finding a temple in Tibet to center myself, with only a simple robe and the minimum amount of food and drink to survive. It's the only way that I think I can escape materialism.
Finish what you have started first.
Tibetean monasticism has a lot a parallels to college and demands an educated and disciplined mind. Many of those monks have the equivalent of PhDs.
You don't escape materialism by running away from it.
You escape by setting it down where ever you are.
If you wish to simplify, donate everything you haven't used or worn in the last year to charity. This will remove most everything you are just clinging to.
You can reduce your diet to a limited lacto-ovo vegitarian diet: eggs, milk, butter, and mainly brown rice and lentils (with other fruits, grains, beans and vegitables added as desired) for an indefinate period to simplify your diet.
Start going down the list of precepts and see how many and how well you can keep them.
Do the same going through the eightfold path.
Meditate and be compassionate at least once each day.
That's a lot harder than it sounds so start on just a couple and give yourself slack while you are learning them.
Do this much and I guarantee materialism won't be a problem.
02-09-05 7:11
C:My friend Swarm, can you define Atheist, without talking about God and using it as a noun?
Here's a start for you, but I'll check with some atheists to refine it a bit.
An atheist is some one who acknowledges as existant only that which can be demonstrated as actual; and, denies all super natural claims and explanations.
Define God?
God: a nonexistant scapegoat used by the power mad to control the ignorant. It can also be used as an admission of complete, willful and unreasoning ignorance ala "god created the universe" actually means "I have no flipping idea how the universe came to be, and not only do I not want to know. I'll kill you as a heretic if you try and find out."
02-01-05 2:01
B: Swarm, do you always speak as though your point of view is incontravertable fact?
Yes. But don't let it bother you.
B: More to the point, have you never experienced someone who seemed one way but turned out to be another?
I didn't say outward apperences and inner states were necessarily congruant, I said they are not seperate. There is a causal link between the two which no pretender can escape. In a master, they are conguant as there is no longer any need for pretense.
An example of this is the story about Bankei by the blindman.
The blindman said that normally when a person gave a complement there was always some jealosy in their voice and likewise people always held something back in their interactions with others.
But when he heard Bankei speak a complement held only a complement, sympathy held only sympathy. Never was there anything he held back in how he interacted with others.
In other words his outerward appearence had been brought into alignment with his inner state.
B: You are saying that a teacher must be able to teach.
I am saying an enlightened teacher must be able to convey his enlightenment in order to teach it.
B: it is not a simple thing to recognize an enlightened master.
Then that isn't the right teacher for you.
When you find an enlightened master that is easy to recognize, that is your teacher.
B: Besides, Tozan Ryokai learned the Way from the rocks and stones. Did they know how to teach?
No, he knew how to learn.
B: if you think you can judge who is enlightened and who is not, go forth and seek the appropriate teacher.
It isn't a mtter of my judging them. It more like wandering around in a room full of people who speak many languages. When I find the one who speaks my language I will know that there is something he can say to me.
B: when people get all "That teacher is not authentic!" then they miss the vital point.
Agreed. Lineage is silly and authenticity is a matter of being able to prove yourself that you have learned. Who taught you is unimportant.
Re: zen in japan
O: Even if a teacher is enlightened... and has something to teach... they cannot give you the experience of enlightenment anymore than a map of New York City can give you the experience of NYC.
I never said they could just give you enlightenment. You still have to do your own work. But that doesn't mean they are of no use what-so-ever either.
A map of NYC will get you the the Met far faster than just wandering around.
01-24-05 4:11
R: I ’m asking why, on the basis of egoism, is it wrong to screw others for financial self-interest and you make an argument that has a value claim as a premise.
First, I'm not and have never claimed to be an egist or to represent egoism. I do not find RSI to truly be an egoist position as egoism is not rational.
Second I fail to see your problem with rational values or why they are not applicable.
Third, I'm getting tired of you claiming anything you disagree with is "begging the question." If you have a point or couter claim, make it.
R: You ’re missing the point. I was criticizing an egoist basis for morality.
Criticizing a point of view that isn't represented or being defended is just setting up a strawmwn. Criticizing it on the basis of imaginary counter examples is hardly telling.
Personally I hold that people are inexerably linked to social considerations which perclude any true egoist position. Self interest is important and must be accounted for, but it cannot truly be seperated from group interest and the interest of other individuals. I also hold that there are moral concerns besides just simple benefit.
Not being a rationalist I don't always have rational defenses for you to pick apart. My positions are grounded in pragmatic considerations and my experiences and the experiences of people I trust.
That a pragmatist and an empriricist should dismiss petty financial gain should give at least a moment's pause to your mindless pursuit of wealth be any means.
You seem hung up on the rediculous idea that I have to some how prove everyone, everywhere and always. I don't. I have already excluded sociopaths and psychopaths as having mental defects which prevent them from understanding why a moral position must include others to actually benefit them personally. Since your cases are made up whole cloth its hard to say if your cases fall into the same catagory, if they are people willing to pay unreasonable costs for petty benefits or if they are just flat out impossible.
Further, your ability to think up silly hypothetical situations will always exceed my ability to counter them. And, since your morality is based on "I read it in a book," I don't really feel the need to extensively defend my position against your assault of hypothetical people.
I suggest instead you actually try ripping off old people for a while and see how it sits with you. Law is ripe with opportunity but you could also try telemarketing.
You might note that carreers which lead people to take advantage of people in the way you describe are known by society as having sleazy qualities. That is some of the cost coming back to haunt professions which allow excesses against morality as part of their trade. A garbage man might be personally sleazy, but it is not because of the kind of garbage man he is. A lawyer can be sleazy because of the kind of lawyer he is.
Your obscesion with the imagined benefits of secret immorality don't interest me because I know they don't exist.
The "benefits" are fleeting and unsatisfactory. The costs, both subtle and overt, are long ranging and dogged.
If I'm unable to pursuasively convey that understanding then you will just have to learn the hard way.
R: Well, their spiritual harm apparently isn ’t stopping all of them from engaging in their corrupt practices
I never said it would.
I only said the cost out weighs the benefit. Some people pay that cost any way. Bush for example has sold his honor, his integrity, his country and his soul for a buck and a moment of power.
What is your soul worth in petty financial gain? The devil always has ready cash.
01-24-05 4:12
R: I was the one who started this exchange by challenging ethics based on rational self interest.
No, actually you were complaining about egoism which you then equated to RSI.
R>:I think the main culprit is egoism...including collective egoism (tribalism)...the tribalist value that what's good for "our people" is good period, even at the expense of other peoples...what scares me about the fact that the primary criterion for justification that seems to be cited for foreign policy is that it serve "our national interest".
So far I have no real issues, though I think you are misusing the term "tribalism."
Note: "our national interest" not "my rational self interest."
R>: It's also what disturbs me about philosophical proposals to base ethics on "rational self-interest", which entails that harming others is moral if it rationally serves one's self-interests.
Here is where we seperate. First and foremost RSI is an economic theory, not an ethical theory. It is also not something individuals practice, per se, but rather it is the way the idiosyncracies of individuals cancel each other out.
"most economists have begun from an assumption few modern psychologists would endorse. The assumption is that human beings are highly rational and self-interested.
This assumption is especially characteristic of neoclassical economists."
william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/.../txt/Neoch/Eco111t2.html
Second, you do not show that RSI has any real relationship to national interest beyond the word interest. National interests are group interests, not self interests. Nor are the noted for being rational. Yet you seem to blithly condemn RSI on the basis of you dislike of poorly executed national interests.
Finally, since you seem so down on egoism, I dusted off my resources and did a bit of research. RSI is adopted by *rational* normative egoism, not egoism in general.
Rational egoism claims that the promotion of one's own interests is always in accordance with reason...A problem with rational egoism is that reason may dictate that one's own interests should not govern one's actions...self-interest conflicts with reason.
(more at www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm )
Note that even this is not exactly RSI and it also answer's part of your issue with egoism. However egoism isn't a very interesting moral system and it isn't particularly influencial. Your equating egoism with national interest with rational self interest is flawed from the get go.
Sorry I didn't catch this earlier, but as I said, egoism is not a big interest of mine and I see RSI as a stepping stone to enlightened self interest where there is mutually beneficial partnering.
BTW, there actually is a moral system which includes rational self interest, it is Ayn Rand's objectivism, which I also find flawed because it seeks to treat the individual as seperate in moral concerns.
01-24-05 4:13
R: Do you believe that to be moral is rational?
Rationality is just one tool for making moral determinations. It is not the only tool nor does it have primacy. The whole person and one's social context are a part of morality, so there are emotional and social considerations as well as a certain je ne sais quoi.
R: you've iterated some values of yours
In a nutshell: pragmatism, empiricism, the teachings of Epicurus and the buddha, zen, a smattering of Hegel and Heidigger, some eastern and western mysticism, functional bits and pieces from here and there such as naturalism.
I'm more of a connectionist and a soft dualist than a skeptic, reductionist, dualist or monist.
R: you haven't provided any reason why these values are necessarily "rational"
I have found they work and provided optimal solutions for the problems I encounter while keeping life interesting and happy.
Being a pragmatist or an empiricist says nothing substantive about the basis of one's moral beliefs
Au contraire. It says that I am more interested in practical solutions with actual benefits and that I base my morality on observation of actual effects and experience.
My morality can be boiled down to: observe, practice what works, eschew what doesn't. What works is what moves one and others from anxiety, harm or suffering towards equanimity, benefit and ataraxia. It also means that only working definitions are needed of what these mean as the details are unique to each situation and must be worked out in the actual moment.
R: You've provided no reason why anyone should necessarily and rationally consider the interests of others.
This is so vague that you don't seem to be picking up on my reasons. Let's make it more specific to draw out the salient points.
Instead of "anyone," let's say you and instead of "others," let's say me.
At the most basic level, if you piss me off by steping on my interests, I'll hunt you down and put you out of my misery; and, since you aren't trusted, I'm checking your actions and having my friends do the same. Further, I'm not entirely rational about who I assign blame too so it would behoove you not to be at the bottom of my list just in case there is ambiguity as to who actually did me dirt.
Now do you see why it is in your rational self interest to consider my interests?
Now lets add a level. I happen to know old people some of whom are in their dottage. Which ones I know is subject to change and not public information. If old people I know are negatively impacted it sets me off worse than when I'm negatively impacted. The ones I'm protective of, I check up on.
Also I take unkindly to people who prey of the helpless.
So, if it comes out that you are picking on the helpless, or if I find those under my protection preyed on by you, I'll take it as a personal mission to see it never happens again.
Now suppose you *think* you have the perfect plan to rip off some one helpless and they'll never trace it back to you.
You can't know what, when or how I'm checking up on you and you can't know who I'm protecting. There is a definate possibility that something will go wrong or I'll get lucky. Even if nothing happens immediately, that worry is going to be there. The more you flaunt your ill gotten gains, the more you stand a chance of getting caught, the more you worry. All of which is happening without my actually catching you or doing anything.
It is your knowledge of having done wrong and possible consequences that you are having to deal with.
That niggling doubt and worry is what the buddha called suffering. It is a bitch to get rid of.
As for Vesco: Vesco, Robert.. The undisputed king of the fugitive financiers. Vesco fled to Costa Rica in 1973 in order to avoid standing trial for the alleged theft of $224 million from the Swiss-based mutual fund, Investors Overseas Services. Shortly before Vesco left, he delivered $200,000 in illegal campaign contributions to Richard Nixon's re-election campaign. ... Vesco was indicted in absentia. He was indicted yet again in 1989 on drug smuggling charges. From Costa Rica, Vesco hopscotched to the Bahamas, Antigua..., Nicaragua and, finally, Cuba, where he has lived for the past two decades and, since 1995, been domiciled in a Cuban jail. ... He gets out in 2009, when he'll be 74. Vesco's Cuban wife Lidia was convicted on lesser charges and gets out in 2005.
I think his life is not all peaches and cream: on the run, in Cuban jail, loved one in Cuban jail, these seem definate drawbacks.
R:my morality is based on my religious world view.
That has not been my experience of the vast majority of xtians I have known. You might be the rare exception, but JC set a high standard.
R:Well, I believe in a soul. Do you?
I do not believe in a soul.
I have soul.
R:If you do, then what is it, and why should someone always care for it more than they care about their bank balance?
It isn't an it. The expression of who and what I am has a certain rhythm, harmony and groove. I am my own personal art. Anything which diminishes that, diminishes me. I fit into the melody of the whole in a synergistic way. Diminish the whole and all are diminished.
What you suggest diminishes both me and the whole. No matter what whatever is left of me gains, that gain is external to the melody and no such gain can make up for being lesser altogether.
R: I think they should on the basis of my religious worldview, but that's not an available moral reference point to you.
Why do you think that? Nothing in particular is forbidden a pragmatist. We are partial to what works but not bound to it.
There is some wheat amongst the chaft of xtianity. For instance there are good ideas in the sermon on the mount and I'm partial to cor 13, plus there are useful counter examples like Paul and Lev.
