• Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    Was in Mysterium Coniunctionus: — I like sushi
    Thank you.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    Jeez, masturbation is boring enough! — Janus
    Please, understand that, given the shortcomings of my vocabulary, I only use the term "masturbatorial" as a shorthand for "pertaining to the pursuit of pleasure as a primary objective". I don't intend to suggest any references to the physical act of masturbation, which, while it may avoid being boring, always leaves one feeling terribly unfulfilled.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    Personally I’m with Jung when it comes to my regard for meditation. That is it is a means of building up a wall between the ego and unconscious... — I like sushi
    Ah, very good! I must read on this. Have you a reference (Jung's collected works are voluminous)?
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    ...'practice for no gaining idea.' The message being, if you think you're going to get something - enlightenment, or some great experience - then you're 'wasting your time on your little black cushion'. — Wayfarer
    If that is to be accepted as a premise, that Buddhism must be, or is best approached experientially, phenomenologically, rather than (I struggle for the word...) accusatively...objectively (in the specific sense of "with an objective to be reached"), then how can anyone's Buddhism be authentic save that of Siddhartha himself? The argument made for Buddhist pursuit is that "this way of llife will free you from the pain caused by your longing, from the burden of your desire and the oppression of yourself by your will, and ultimately (for "religious" Buddhists) a release from the cycle of Samsara". This argument inherently involves an objective or two: (a) the achievement of Nirvana, and (b) the achievement of Moksha. Since this essentially seems to be the argument put forth by Gautama himself to those who listened to him, and then by them to all subsequent "disciples", then all but Prince Siddhartha himself has had an approach to and experience of Buddhism which is 'tainted' (I use that word cautiously) by objectivism...by having the objectives of Nirvana and Moksha in mind upon entering into the franchise, would you not say? As "sushi" has noted,
    the Buddha may be viewed as,
    one guy who had an extraordinary experience — I like sushi
    ...but all who have followed him have not have the same experience as experientially as did he, based upon what I have noted above. Have not all but Siddhartha, then, according to the Zen admonition, simply been "wasting their time" on their little black cushions?
  • What do we mean by "will"? What should we mean by "will"?
    The evolution of the organism would be quite impossible if it had any fixed determinism or any goal. The organism is forever linked by adaptation to the larger physical reality. The process of this adaptation is mostly trial and error, for mutation means in ninety-nine percent of cases, death to the organism. There is only the blind will to survive — boagie
    A good point, to be sure.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    ↪Wayfarer
    yes, but the meditation is the means in Buddhism, not the end, which is the achievement of Nirvana, is it not?
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    Speak plainly. What exactly are your misgivings about Buddhism, and why? — baker
    I have a couple:
    (A) that in it's true, full iteration it is based in a Hindu cosmology, which appears as nonsensical as that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,
    (B) that in it's partial, bastardized, secular modern form it appears no more than masturbatorial in it's elevation of pleasure (bliss) over purpose as the ideal of life, and
    (C) that both of the aforementioned forms demand espousal of an essentially dehumanising process. Mankind did not evolve as a being which is devoid of desire and/or agon. We evolved from former social mammals which were competitive to the core of their psyches, and which subdued that innate competitiveness only insofar as was necessary to coexist within an evolutionarily advantageous social group. Within the group, competitiveness reigned, as it still does within the core of the human psyche today. Because of this, I feel that Buddhism preaches an essentially unnatural doctrine. I'm not saying that this doctrine is inherently "bad" or "evil", just that it is unnatural. The man who has been able to to relinquish all of his desires and longings in the pursuit of Nirvana seems to have become essentially inhuman to me. If one has relinquished or utterly subdued one's essentially human qualities in the pursuit of a cessation of a Samsara which is non-existent in the first place, then all one is left with is bliss, and to have sacrificed essentially human (competitive) purpose for the simple achievement of bliss seems to me a bad trade.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    There is no such thing as "miserable enough", there is no rock bottom to hit after which one would be automatically and sufficiently inspired to change one's course. — baker
    Yes, that is what observation instructs. I do hope you realize that my tongue was planted firmly in cheek for that last bit.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    Did (the Buddha) dismiss too easily life as it is usually lived? — baker
    Well, in my opinion, yes. More significantly, though, I think that Gautama rather ignored the power of those human qualities which underpin "life as it is usually lived", in particular the universal mammalian drive for social status and what is properly called in human social contexts "authority" (but in actuality is good old-fashioned "dominance"); these things that the Ancient Greeks referred to as ἀγωνίᾱ (agonia, "struggle", "competition"). Renunciation of these "agonistic" drives is certainly possible, but only makes sense within the peculiar Hindu cosmological view within which Buddhism is based, one in which individual consciousness survives the body, the continuous reincarnation of said consciousness is fact, and cessation of said continuity of reincarnation is possible. I would argue that the practitioner who believes in Samsara and has become a Buddha, thought to have achieved moksha, is living in delusion based upon his acceptance of this cosmology. Even so, he has achieved the delightful bliss which the renunciation of desire imparts. However, for both him (because Samsara appears to be as false a doctrine as 'heaven' and 'hell') and the so-called 'secular Buddhist', whose practice is not based upon Samsara but on the achievement of said bliss alone, the entire Buddhist enterprise seems, as I have said elsewhere, a mere masturbatorial exercise, and the ultimate goal thereof seems akin to the pursuit of orgasm ("good feeling"). For my part, I would rather struggle on agonistically in search of world domination, even if it makes me miserable. Perhaps, though, this is because it has not yet caused me enough agony, has not yet made me miserable enough.
  • What do we mean by "will"? What should we mean by "will"?
    Will, I surmise, is also about direction; mathematically speaking, it's a vector minus the magnitude i.e. pure bearing. — TheMadFool
    This is very good...a very elegant model for "will"! And of course, since both a vector and a bearing are directional in nature, this model proscribes "will" as being the aimless, fickle thing posited by Schopenhauer, would you not say?
  • What do we mean by "will"? What should we mean by "will"?
    Will

    1. A desire, an intent. It was God's will that Jack go to San Francisco. By the way, where's Jack Cummins?

    2. A natural tendency. Water flows downhill. Entropy always increases.     — TheMadFool

    Hm, Mafo (since I think this a better nickname for you than "Fool"...I can call you "Mafo" when I am pleased, and "Mofo" when I am not :wink:), I am not sure that either of these sense-definitions are among the best, or indeed, the most generally accepted for "will". Note that the definition as relating to "desire" is noted as being archaic/obsolete in the Wiktionary page (under "Noun", senses 6 and 7):
    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/will
    Within philosophy, "will" has had many definitions. Certainly, Schopenhauer related it to desire, as a superlative and insatiable form of longing. Others, such as Nietzsche and Mill, had ideas which differed variously by degree, with Mill's being quite opposite. Do you not think that "will" has something essential to do with "purpose" and "intent"?

    I wonder, do those of your post reflect your own conceptions of "will", and if not, where did find these senses?
  • What do we mean by "will"? What should we mean by "will"?
    According to Schopenhauer, the will is a blind force. Personally, I think one can see this in all things of necessity and instinct, mindless sex and procreation, hunger-killing and consumption to stay in being. I think Schopenhauer made his case. — boagie
    Clearly, "blind, insatiable drive" is how Schopenhauer viewed will; it is this that he called the will. I disagree, however, that he "made a definitive case" for this. I feel that Nietzsche's conception of will can be viewed as a partial renunciation of Shopenhauer's. Rather, I would be disposed to call such an "aimless, insatiable desire" as that which was indicated by Schopenhauer, the libido, as in Augustine of Hippo's particular usage in his concept of libido dominandi. I say this because I view the will as having more to do with intent and purpose than with desire or longing, as indeed did John Stuart Mill, which fact is made obvious in the passage quoted above. If this is true, of course, "will" is far from blind and insatiable; rather, it is focused, and is satisfied by a realization of intent...by a fulfilment of purpose. My concept is that, where there is no purpose, there can be no will, but rather exists only the aimless longing indicated (and misnamed??) by Schopenhauer. In this conception, will is closely associated with Viktor Frankl's "search for meaning" which he hypothesized as being universal in man. Indeed, such opposing considerations are the reason that I entitled this thread as I have.
  • What do we mean by "will"? What should we mean by "will"?
    Nietzsche Will of Power is just a "branch" from the tree of Will. And not Will itself. He gives Will a huge significant value that covers all human aspects and characteristics. Power among them for sure. But more as a Will in general for each person to Thrive spiritually. — dimosthenis9
    Yes, I think this is true. Will was certainly a central concept in Nietzsche's philosophy, largely due to the influence of, and as an answer to, Schopenhauer.

    While I was doing some research on "will" a few months ago, I found online an article by one John Skorupski about the philosophy of John Stuart Mill from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which discussed Mill's concept of "will", which is remarkably close to my own. I liked it so much, that I added it as a quotation to the English Wiktionary page on "will". Read the excerpt below:

    Mill’s case for the claim that happiness is the sole human end, put more carefully, is this: ‘Whatever is desired otherwise than as a means to some end beyond itself, and ultimately to happiness, is desired as itself a part of happiness, and is not desired for itself until has become so’ (1861a: 237). Nothing here assumed Hume’s view that every action must ultimately flow from an underived desire. That is a quite separate issue, and Mill’s view of it is closer to that of Kant or Reid than to that of Hume. He insists ‘positively and emphatically’ that the will is a different thing from desire; that a person of confirmed virtue, or any other person whose purposes are fixed, carries out his purposes without any thought of the pleasure he has in contemplating them, or expects to derive from their fulfilment. (1861a: 238) This distinction between purpose and desire is central to Mill’s conception of the will. When we develop purposes we can will against mere likings or aversions: ‘In the case of an habitual purpose, instead of willing the thing because we desire it, we often desire it only because we will it’ (1861a: 238). Every action is caused by a motive, but not every motive is a liking or aversion: When the will is said to be determined by motives, a motive does not mean always, or solely, the anticipation of a pleasure or of a pain…. A habit of willing is commonly called a purpose; and among the causes of our volitions, and of the actions which flow from them, must be reckoned not only likings and aversions, but also purposes. (1843: 842) The formation of purposes from desires is the evolution of will; it is also the development of character. Mill quotes Novalis: ‘a character is a completely fashioned will’ (1843: 843).

    Please render your thoughts on this passage and discuss.
  • Philosophy/Religion
    Both philosophers and theologians claim the authority to evaluate metaphysical principles, but the standards by which they conduct those evaluations are very different.

    I think the very methodology by which the universal metaphysics are developed within philosophy and religion follow an opposing order. Philosophy, like science, begins with the human experience of reality, and asks "what does this mean?" Then, hypothesizing and theorizing about metaphysical principles follows. Both philosophy and science begin with observation, the general procession being: observation > hypothesization > theorization > [philosophy or scientific law]. The nature of both scientific and philosophical enterprise are marked by inquisition; science and philosophy are inquisitive in nature. Religion, rather, is not.

    Boethius said man is the one creature blessed and cursed with self-awareness, and so with the foreknowledge of her death. — Wayfarer

    A very cogent observation, and pertinent to my point. The goal of religion is to ameliorate the human existential crisis which pursues the foreknowledge of death. Religion takes the opposite approach from both philosophy and science, beginning with an assertion about a desired end, for instance that human beings will not experience death, and developing a cosmology determined to show, prove, or convince of that assertion. The process enjoyed by our particular 'western' religions, for instance, is as: [assertion of eventuality] < "faith" < natural truth < divine revelation. This means that as an enterprise, rather than being inquisitive, religion, opposing both philosophy and science, is generally demonstrative in nature. This is an essential difference between the focus of religion on the one hand, and that of philosophy and science on the other, in my view.
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    They're winners.
    — frank

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bandwagon     — Wheatley

    THE ANTI-URBAN DICTIONARY MANIFESTO

    Ah, Wheatley! Wheatley, Wheatley, Wheatley... I would advise you not to cite this (um...garbage) "Urban Dictionary" in your posts. I know that as an intelligent fellow, you are above this. I have, upon occasion, received websearch "hits" of urban dictionary entries, and the inanity that I have always found there has ever left my head a-wagging. This site is only good for informing about how people in the ghetto, as well as "ghetto" people who live elsewhere than in the ghetto (following the cogent distinction originally forwarded by 'Malcolm X'), define the terms of their existence. Now, before anybody "gets their back up" about this, let me state overtly that these are not intended as remarks with any 'racial' connotations whatsoever, there being many 'caucasian' people who are subsumed within the group heretofore defined. This post is serious in nature, and intended to indicate a real folly.

    Many most, of the entries in the U.D. are (a) both semantically and/or grammatically incorrect, (b) vulgar, and (c) exhibiting a degenerative mental orientation towards what I might call a "typically American 'ghetto' mythos". I mean, who writes this shit, "Cita" from "Cita's World"? The instant definition of "bandwagon" is illustrative of one of these inherent problems, particularly of "(a)" above, within the "Urban Dictionary". The Urban Dictionary entry for "bandwagon" states:
    bandwagon
    Taking interest in something just to fit in with the crowd.
    "Walker started watching Hockey because the Bruins where in the playoffs and everyone else was watching it. Walker is a major bandwagon."
    ...wherein the definition is faultily rendered in the sense of a deverbal adjective, to wit, a participle ("bandwagon" is a noun, not a verb or a verbal participle), and the usage example is given in an improperly nominative sense, that is, in the sense of a noun, but still incorrectly for being the wrong type of noun...that is, not as the specific type of derived noun (perhaps "bandwagoner", or "bandwagoneer" would be more correct?) which should be used within the example.

    Please guys, let us refrain from ever citing the Urban Dictionary for any reason, as so doing would seem to have the power to reflect negatively upon the level of discourse here on TPF. If you need a lexicographic citation, the just use Wiktionary. At least then, you have definitions generally written by pro lexicographers or others interested in good lexicography. Any appearance of the U.D. on this site just reflects badly...
  • what the hell should I do with my life?
    If you had kids now, you to a certain extent would be stuck where you are. Tough spot, man. Luckily, you do not. My advice is don't postpone a decision another ten years, because then you'll be like me...and this really sucks! The longer you wait, the more doors close to you. If you long remain in the situation of being frustrated, depression will probably set in, and your marriage will become unhappy. There can be little worse than being middle aged, feeling that you've "failed", and stuck in an unhappy marriage, with or without children. If your marriage becomes too strained, if your own unhappiness should become too great a liability to her happiness, then you stand a fair to middling chance of being left by your wife. Take it from me, you don't want to experience that anger; it can "eat you alive".

    At my job some guy was talking about starting a union but I don't know anything about that and I'm already OK with my job. — John McMannis
    Tread carefully. If you fuck up in your job while doing this, you may get fired, instead of experiencing leniency...which from the sound of it, might not be that bad a happenstance.

    Someone mentioned running for a local office but I know even less about that and don't even know what I'd run for. — John McMannis
    This is only for someone who is highly invested in their community, and that doesn't sound like you.

    Man, your post drips malaise, and hints at a vague desperation. You need to go off somewhere by yourself, the mountains or something, and do some deep thinking and hard reckoning. Look at things from all angles, and leave no consideration unexamined. Above all, you must assess yourself truthfully, and in isolation, for only you can discern your repressed feelings and deep emotions.

    On the positive side of things, you're still young enough to make a change. Equally certain is that you should do something which will help you to eliminate your debt. If you want to keep your marriage, you might consider joining the service, as it represents a way to do just that. If you have a degree, you can go to OCS. Then, you'll make good enough pay to pay off you loan debt, save some money, get the "post-9/11 GI Bill" for some graduate work, maybe have a couple kids with the wife, and have the possibility of a life changing experience at the same time. The military is a good way to set yourself on a sound financial footing; I wish I had stayed in for 20. Challenge yourself! Try to become an Army Ranger 2nd Lt., why the heck not? When you get out, you'll be 36, with your whole life ahead of you.

    Sushi is right, your wife and marriage are major considerations. Are you happy with your marriage, or does it feel like a hasty mistake? It's hard to give you advice without knowing how "stale" you are on your life. If the answer is, "man, really fucking stale! I feel trapped and unhappy. I just want the fuck outta this!", then just freakin' do it...be honest with the wife, get a "no fault" divorce, get yourself to Aubagne in the south of France, find the Foreign Legion Recruitment Center, ask the first NCO that you see where the recruiting office is, and present yourself there as a candidate for enlistment. This is a last resort option for those feeling a serious crisis, but beware: https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/americans-struggle-to-meet-the-french-foreign-legion-s-high-bar-1.497591

    In any case, it's time to grab the bull by the horns, and make some hard decisions manfully. Whatever you do, don't hang around and become like me: depressed, with a failed marriage and all kinds of financial and resultant psychological struggles! Fulfillment of purpose is important in the life of man. Time slips away, dude...please don't let it slip away from you, without your discovering some type of meaning in your life. You do have options. Use one of them.
  • Emotional Health vs Mental Health: What’s the difference?
    I know there are a couple of physicists on here. Out of curiosity, are there any psychologists of psychiatrists?
  • Emotional Health vs Mental Health: What’s the difference?
    Emotions are not feelings, emotions are felt... — Varde
    ???
    "Affect", "emotion", and "feeling" are all directly synonymous, in the sense of "a person's internal state of being and involuntary physiological response to an object or a situation, based on or tied to physical state and sensory data".
  • COP26 in Glasgow
    I feel / fear that what 2030, 2050, or 2070... deadlines mean is that "We'll worry about it then. In the meantime, we'll wait and see how fast things get worse. — Bitter Crank
    Kinda like the "Free Beer Tomorrow" sign in the pub?

    I actually don't pay any attention to any of this shit because I already know what's going to get done...not a damn thing, until it's obviously too late. As we stand right now, I think it's probably already "too late" to prevent eventual tropic zone catastrophe, only now it's just not yet obvious. All I feel I can do is say "Que sera, sera", and thank my lucky stars I don't live in the tropics.
  • Love doesn't exist
    ‘Love’ can be both ‘selfish’ and ‘selfless’. — I like sushi
    You are right in observing that a definition of "love" is wanted as a premise for the OP's argument. The incompatible ideas that "there is no love, only selfish acts which appear to show love", and (your consideration that) "love can be selfish" are only able to exist in an environment wherein love remains inadequately defined. Definition is key in philosophy, as is shown by the history: Schopenhauer's "will" and Nietzsche's "will" are different things. @obscurelaunting? This is your cue for a statement of your pretextual definition of "love".
  • What is Nirvana
    For your questions, you may consult
    The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice
    and other writings by the same author.     — baker
    :up:
  • Bannings
    Then I remembered the troll that hid under bridges and fucked with people. But "baiting" people, like fish, brought me back around. — James Riley
    Ah, good. Well, nobody has to really worry about me "trolling". I prefer my violence to be physical too much to enjoy the "virtual" brand. To myself, there is no worse feeling than wanting to grab someone by the lapels, and be prevented from doing it by a computer screen or a telephone line (I've experienced the telephone version many times in my life).
  • What is Nirvana
    But have you read anything from the primary Buddhist text, the Pali Canon? — baker
    No, I cannot say that I have. I suppose that a translation would have to be special ordered at the bookstore, allow five weeks for delivery...
    Why would you even think of accepting it? — baker
    To fill the void left by the lapsed Christian faith. Religion seems important to me, after all.
    From a Theravadan perspective, this is backwards. They would say there is kamma, therefore, there is rebirth. It all starts with kamma. And ends with the ending of it. — baker
    Did you mean to write "karma"? Please expand upon this when you have time. Does the view of this differ in Mahayana Buddhism, or in Tibetan?
  • Bannings
    ..."stirring the pot"... — James Riley
    Oh, yes. This makes sense. I think that my own conception about this term involving "surfing around for opportunities" was influenced by the sense of "trolling" as a fishing term, wherein a line is dragged behind a moving boat in search of hungry fish.
    quite possibly, they "pat themselves" (if you know what I mean) — James Riley
    Hahaha, oh yeah, I know what you mean. I've "patted" myself a few times in my life, thank you very much...although it concerns me that this has grown more infrequent over the years.
    Wikipedia is your friend... — Srap Tasmaner
    ...and a good friend at that. I turn to Wikipedia for the quick synopsis of everything, but I never though to reference it for this term. I guess, since I have never used social media (no interest, and I disdain artifice in general, anyways) or have used online forums until recently (which I only started using when I decided to learn Latin), I never though it important enough for me to bother.
  • What is Nirvana
    One of the meanings of "samsara" is 'to wander on, aimlessly'. — baker
    Yep, from सम्- ("sam-"), "along with", "together with" + सार ("sara"), "extension", "prolonging", "stretching out". And so literally, "that accompanied by prolongation", or metonymically "aimless wandering".
  • Bannings
    ↪Srap Tasmaner
    okay, I have that: "flaming"="personal attack", and "sockpuppetry"="the fraudulent portrayal of approbation by means of multi-accounting". How about "trolling"? I have heard that term in the past, but never knew exactly what it referred to, simply inferring that it means something like "seeking out opportunities for belittlement or argumentation". Would that be about right?
  • Bannings
    ↪Michael
    thanks. A couple of questions: what is "flaming", what defines a "troll", and what is a "sockpuppet", or rather, what is "sockpuppetry"? (I don't use "social media" platforms like Facebook, etc., so I'm probably way behind the curve on such terminology.)
  • Bannings
    We did reverse a ban and they're still here. — Michael
    Ah. So, what type of criteria can result in a "banning"? I just want to know as an aide in keeping a lid on those of my own inherent opinions (I have some strong, fairly "non-P.C." ones) which might amount to liabilities...especially in view of the turbulence of the emotions which I am experiencing at the instant stage of my life.
  • Emotional Health vs Mental Health: What’s the difference?
    Thoughts and emotions are different things, If you include feelings in mental health then yes, your emotional health, depending mutually on your "thoughts health" can indeed be in bad shape. If you consider the mental as comprising both thoughts and feelings, and all the stuff that surrounds them, the you are absolutely right. Thoughts and emotions are mutually dependent, and the health of one can influence the state of the other. — LaRochelle
    You speak truly. Emotional health is one aspect of mental health. The mind is composed of intellectual ("thinking") and affective ("feeling" or "emotional") dimensions. Both thoughts and feelings/emotions are the result of neural activity. Resultantly, both "thinking problems" and "emotional problems" can be characterized as "mental illness". Emotions, however, seem to have a greater influence on rational thought than vice-versa, because emotions have a greater physiological component than thoughts. More specifically, the experience of a given emotion will effect the chemical environment of the brain, by causing the localized release of excitatory or inhibitory neurotransmitters in ways very specific to an individual person, thus altering the relative activity of differing areas of the brain, and so effecting thought. In this way, the prolonged experience of given emotions (anxiety, fear, joy, sadness, pride, wrath, etc.) can result in the establishment of new neural pathways in the brain which can permanently (actually, "permanently" is too strong a word here..."durably" is better) alter the ways in which a given brain tends to process information and generate thoughts. I have experienced this myself. Now, after having experienced a number of years of great frustration and eventual depression, which both were exacerbated by the Coronavirus epidemic, I find that my ability to reason and to remember things has diminished, and at the same time, I have become quite irascible and prone to anger. I can but hope to find a way to reverse this trend in my own mind...in my own brain. If I cannot, my hope to do well in the future looks somewhat bleak.
  • IQ vs EQ: Does Emotional Intelligence has any place in Epistemology?
    I am sorry for upsetting you. — god must be atheist
    Thank you, you're a gentleman.

    I am rather sensitive to percieved insults. I fully mean my characterization of myself as a "loser": only one semester of college (absolute shit show for my being absolutely unprepared for the milieu) followed by far too many years of menial jobs, with me continually regarding my bosses and saying to myself, "fuck, man, not only am I smarter than this guy, I'm in an entirely different intellectual category...what the fuck is wrong here, what the fuck is going on?". In any case, "abject failure" is my opinion of the state of my life, and as a result thereof, there exists a seething anger (actually, "rage" would not be too strong a word) which resides just underneath the surface of my affect.

    If you want the truth, the convincing reason for the strength of my personal convictions regarding "emotional competence" is my own personal experience with it. My own problems were never intellectual, they were purely emotional in nature, based upon early (as early as second or third grade...that is, seven or eight years of age) perceptions of inadequacy. I blame the parents. If you see your kid is feeling shitty about himself to the extent that he seems to have developed the kernel of an injurious, malign self concept, and you don't address the issue, in fact do whatever the fuck you have to do to address the issue, then you are utterly remiss. My point is, that I know from personal experience, and can unreservedly affirm, that intellectual capacity is utterly ineffectual if it exists within a framework of emotional instability or of a malignantly poor self-concept.

    Anyways, sorry for the intensity of my above reply (it was even more intense before I edited out all the "f-bombs"). I hope that I have provided a reasonable explanation therefore...an explanation sufficient to merit the pardon of yourself.
  • Bannings
    I banned him for saying something to signal he was Marco. — fdrake
    So, did you can him for signalling that he was Marco, or for being Marco? Just curious about how the burgermeisters on here view these things, based upon the apparent idea of bannings being permanent and irrevocable. Would you have not re-banned him if he had not so "signalled", even if you knew it was he? What if a banned member "reincarnates", and behaves in an utterly different manner? Will he be summarily re-banned based upon the original banning, or does TPF offer the possibility of redemption?
    He has rejoined several times since then. I must say, when he joined as Graveltty he was clearly making an effort to hold back at first. Wasn't starting several threads per day... — SophistiCat
    This begs a question: might it be thought that "Prishon" was another avatar of said "Marco"? I must say, the notion occurred to me almost immediately that "Graveltty" might in actuality be "Prishon" with a newfound discipline, mostly because of the whole "physics" thing, but also...uuhhh...general tenor. I was even considering this before the 'Graveltty' banning; I dropped the name "Prishon" in my very last reply to "Graveltty", to see what type of reaction I might receive. If this is true, I hope that if he reincarnates again, he devises a less wierd username...like, maybe, "Joe".
  • What is Nirvana
    What is the source for your understanding of Buddhist doctrine? — baker
    My knowledge is very general. Quite a number of years ago, I read a book called "Buddhism for Beginners" (I forget the author's name), and I've read one and a half of Thich Nhat Hanh's books, given to me by a buddy: all of "The Art of Communicating", and about half of "Living Buddha, Living Christ", before my interest in something else tore me away from it. Also, I have, somewhere, a great looking scolarly book on the ways in which Buddhism was changed as it crossed the Himalayas into China and Tibet. I actually can't remember the title right now, but I think it's from the University of Chicago Press...that tome is somewhere on the reading list... I've gotten my concept of the 'general Buddhist landscape' from the Wikipedia article on Buddhism (colored maps, and all, Wikipedia is awesome, sometimes), and that is where I originally read about Theravada (which I evidently misspelled earlier) Buddhism, it's geographic distribution and it's distinction from better known Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism. I also have a friend who, following his mother, practices Nichiren Buddhism, and have had a few brief conversations with him about that. That's about it, really.

    I suppose my own stated misgivings are based upon my view of the human being, and the fact that I percieve Buddhist doctrine and practice as involving a renunciation of those things that make particularly men great men: aggression, the lust for power and dominance, the desire for fame/renown, etc., etc. To be totally honest, I must admit that, in common with most other "meat and potatoes" American guys, these traditional western "manly attributes" remain my own cherished values; I suppose that I am fully steeped in that tradition. Though they all certainly died agonistically, driven men like Alexander, Sulla (a real 'man's man'), Caesar, Charlemagne, remain my ideals, as opposed to Diogenes, Cicero (although his bad-ass prose redeems him), and indeed, Siddhartha. Of course, the purpose of life for such men as compose the first group is not bliss, happiness, or inner peace, it is achievement. Buddhism just seems to fly in the face of all the values that I was raised with. For me to accept Buddhism as aiming at something desirable, my basic values would have to change.

    The second reason for my misgivings center around my renunciation of any notions of "spirituality". I am an atheist who refuses to accept the possibility of the existence of a God, of Satan, of heaven or hell, of spirits, human souls, and all the rest of it, until such a time as I have some evidence for these things. In short, I have become a strict spiritual skeptic. Based upon my notion that, ultimately, the acceptance of Samsara, of reincarnation, which itself suggests the incorporeal self, the 'spirit' if you will, is necessary to the full realization of Buddhist doctrine, it would seem to myself that my lack of belief in the incorporeal self nearly proscribes participation in the Buddhist enterprise. To myself, the pursuit of Nirvana without believing in Samsara appears as no more than a masturbatorial exercise, a mere chasing after the good feeling of bliss. For a guy who believes that the point and purpose of life has nothing to do with feeling good, it seems that all masturbatory exercises should be limited to two minutes in the loo...

    This is alot more information than you asked for, @baker, but I figured I'd put it all out there, so people could try to convince, enlighten, shape, and mold me in more pointed ways, should they desire to do so.
  • What is it that gives symbols meaning?
    I'm thinking mainly about works of art here but there is likely a more general application. By "symbols" I am thinking of those things within an art work that draw us in and with which we make an emotional connection. — TheVeryIdea
    I don't know that I can speak to the artistic symbolism which you mention, not being entirely sure of your definition of this. I believe that symbols in general, though, achieve meaning for humans through significance and representation. Indeed, these are the things which define a symbol, and determine what is a symbol for us, and what is not. An object becomes a symbol when it comes to signify and represent some other thing, especially some abstract thing, to a person, and a symbol is strengthened as said signification and representation intensify. Perhaps this applies to what you view as symbols in art, as well?
  • What is Nirvana
    I think it can be said that the early forms of Buddhism were strictly renunciate, with a radical difference between the Buddhist order and ordinary life. — Wayfarer
    Without looking up the term, this is called something like Theraveda (?), would that be right? Practiced mostly in India and Myanmar? Within this type of framework, is Buddhism considered to be something "only for the monks", with the 'laity' not pursuing a Buddhist lifestyle at all?
    However in Mahāyāna Buddhism (of which Nichiren Shōshū is a form) there is not the same sense of the radical separation of renunciate and worldly life. — Wayfarer
    Ah, my pal didn't explain that to me. I was under the impression that "Nichiren" formed it's own "branch" of the Buddhist "family ttree", if you will, rather than being a form of Mahayana.

    Thanks for the link to the Boddhi essay, I will read it.
    Certainly. Tell me, though, how do you define "lasting" in this context?
    — Michael Zwingli
    Not subject to decay, imperishable, secure. Generally speaking, in terms of ordinary life, whatever can be gained can also be lost, what is young will become old, everything we hold dear is subject to decay, but Nirvāṇa is not, according to Buddhism.     — Wayfarer
    You have, I think, missed the admittedly 'implied but unexpressed' essence of my question here. I guess the way I would pose it to a Buddhist scholar (not quite sure if that adequately decribes yourself) is, "if individual consciousness does not survive the body, meaning that the doctrine of Samsara is false, does the 'hardcore' (if you'll forgive the term) Buddhist expect the individual experience of Nirvana, even though being 'not subject to decay', to expire with the end of natural life?" I have an opinion about this, but yet wonder what the Buddhist thought would be. What I seek is to assess the applicability of Buddhism to my own personal life, as well as the desirability of pursuing that.
  • Philosphical Poems
    Graveltty, whose banning I don't understand — PoeticUniverse
    What?? This is news to me...

    I just checked under "Bannings", and saw nothing. Where did you hear this?
  • Is the United States an imperialist country?
    What exactly are the circumstances of the when, why, and how you can deal with that pest? — tim wood
    I am assuming that you mean "militant Islam". In my opinion, not only "militant Islam" should diminish, but Islam in general, and Christianity as well..."theism" must be shown to be the delusion which it appears to be. We cannot, however, defeat Islam, militant or not, by force of arms, as we might defeat an opposing army, since it resides in the hearts (the affective minds) and minds (the intellectual minds) of people. The only way to eradicate these things, then, by force of arms would be to kill all theists, of course an absurd proposition. We must convict people of theistic falsehood by clearly describing why the acceptance of the various assertions about God are contraindicated on a rational basis, and at the same time provide an alternative. But, we don't even have a viable alternative ourselves, as yet...not even "out of the gate" with one.
    Geez, why fight the Nazis? Was that cultural imperialism? — tim wood
    No, we weren't trying to Americanize German culture, we were (since at the outset of U.S. involvement in the war, the fact and extent of the Holocaust were not yet known) trying to stop Germany from realizing it's own imperial aspirations...the Third Reich wanted, essentially, the bulk of Europe to be theirs territorially, and then, of course, in the fullness of time, culturally. That had to be stopped. But, the Afghanis, the Taliban, aren't trying to expropriate vast territories or alter foreign cultures. They're just power-loving theocratic meatheads who we should be trying to convince of a better worldview, within which they might retain their political and cultural power. We should be trying to convince them that they can lose all the "God nonsense" (particularly, in my view, by emphasizing it as "Arabic religion", and asking them if they want to remain as "the bitches of Arabs"), and yet retain both their power, and all the old, pre-Islamic elements of traditional Pashtun culture. Things impossible to achieve by force of arms. I mean, look where we are now...essentially right back where we began, twenty years and billions later.
  • What is Nirvana
    I've been curious about Buddhism for some time now. I have a friend, an acquaintance really, who practices Nichiren Buddhism. I have long wanted to query him about it, but with our schedules, we have never seemed to find the opportunity.
    Ego is not the self, but the self's idea of the self. — Wayfarer
    Yes, an important distinction for sure. I find myself under the impression, though, that in order to achieve Nirvana, the will must be relinquished. Is this a correct understanding?
    Ego clings to its imagined sources of satisfaction but all of them are transient and incapable of providing lasting happiness. — Wayfarer
    Certainly. Tell me, though, how do you define "lasting" in this context?

    Also, and this seems quite important, what is the design and meaning of Nirvana if one has not been able to accept the claim of Samsara?
  • Is the United States an imperialist country?
    Korea, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, these seem defensible, even if not all well-executed. And so forth. — tim wood
    Not so sure, Tim, that I'd include Afghanistan on that list. The first six months of punitive measures against the Taliban are defensible, shootin' 'em up and makin' 'em pay for supporting Bin Laden, but the last 19.5 years seems not. What could our purpose have been but to try to instill democracy, women's rights, and alot more of our "cherished values" into a culture not amenable thereto? It seems a case study in the exercise of folly, and clearly culturally imperialistic in motivation, to my understanding.
  • Philosphical Poems
    He died at 17 by poison. — PoeticUniverse
    Yep, usually thought to be a suicide secondary to Chatterton's entrapment in poverty, though it has been hypothesized that he was taking a curative for syphilis containing arsenic, and accidentally overdosed himself.

    Byron at 35, — PoeticUniverse
    Yeah, romantically in Greece, fighting for Greek independence.
  • What is Nirvana
    I had bliss... — I like sushi
    I assume that you mean "...as a result of having experienced Nirvana", which leads me to believe that you are a Buddhist. Using that assumption as a context, I would like to have your opinion on something, particularly under the assumption that there is no "soul", "spirit" or independent "consciousness" by means of which Samsara might be effected (that is, under the assumption that there is no "cycle of reincarnation" to be interrupted): is this "bliss" that you mention worth what is sacrificed in the pursuit of "Nirvana"? It appears to me, indeed, as Gregory has noted above, that what is sacrificed in this pursuit is the "ego"...one's very self, including the will and every other aspect of one's personality. Is this true, and if it is, is the loss of self worth achieving the bliss of Nirvana? I assume that if there is no Samsara, that "bliss" is the only thing to be achieved by striving for Nirvana. I might just as well achieve "bliss" through the regular use of heroin, no? In that case, I would not have to lose that essential aspect of my "self" which proceeds from my consciousness, namely my will, in order to achieve bliss (though indeed, other things are sacrificed thereby). I ask these questions, because they lie at the very heart of the misgivings that I have long had regarding Buddhism.
Home » Michael Zwingli

Michael Zwingli

Start FollowingSend a Message