Very nice. Thanks for sharing :) I will have to look him up.

I'm pretty sure you're not qualified. — T Clark

You're right. You seem to know it all. What can I say that will further this discussion ? Probably nothing, so I won't bother.

That's an odd goal, quite frankly. — praxis

Ok, well then please enlighten me ... what kind of goal would you find less "odd" ? Perhaps one about money ? Or politics ? Or global warming ?

To realize that you're a conscious being, given a temporary form to dwell in.

This may sound exceedingly simple or trivial or insignificant, but there is a vast depth to what can follow from this realization.

Well my answer is only going to be that Buddhism is just another form of social mind-control. It is a model of how to be a self that is promoted within a certain culture as it is pro-social for that culture. It serves that society's organisational interests. — apokrisis

(Eckhart Tolle says what I have to say far more eloquently, but ...)

It can be, but there is something to be said about religion in general, whether it's Buddhism, Christianity, or whatever.

All religions, at their absolute core, contain the same fundamental (and simple) truths that are universally applicable. For instance, the truth that all physical forms are impermanent - this holds true whether you're Buddhist or Christian.

However, over time, this core of wisdom at the heart of each religion has been repeatedly misinterpreted, added to, and consequently obscured, either by selfish people seeking to promote their own beliefs, or by those simply not able/willing to understand those core truths. In other words, noisy human minds were applied to those simple truths which then became what you, Apokrisis, described.

This is why there are many religions and many offshoots of each. They all started pretty much in the same place, and diverged over time, farther and farther away from the truths they intended to teach.

If you take away all the obscurity, you will find those few priceless pearls of wisdom at the heart of any religion. It's just that most people are unable to see them, because of the depth of the obscurity and because the so called "experts" are "teaching" and "preaching" all the wrong things about the religion.

Go to any church on a Sunday ... are they going to be talking about impermanence ? Or that life exists only in the present moment ? Or that all suffering can be tied to desire/fear ? No ! They're going to be talking about anything but those simple truths. They will "teach" anything but what really matters.

Religion, today, equals obscurity, and like you said, a form of mind-control. But, if one looks deeper, there is truth/wisdom to be discovered.

The beautiful irony is that one does not need to be "learned" to know those simple truths that each religion intends to teach. It's only because of that obscurity that we have "priests" and "ministers" who read chapter after chapter of obscurity and bullshit and pass it on to others who listen spellbound. The real truths don't require any reading or learning ... just the realization of one's consciousness.

Real spirituality/religion has nothing to do with weekly trips to a building or the reading of books or donations or rituals or ceremonies .. in fact, all of those are nothing more than a charade that gets in the way of the ultimate goal. All that's needed is a seeing beyond the obvious.

The good news for you is that you don't need any papers, textbooks, research or any other body of "information", to understand what causes the positive response in the body when out in nature or viewing scenery.

Nature is benign (even a tornado, yes); it is simple; it does not impose upon you the way the artificial world does. Nature accepts you for just the person you are and doesn't require you to be anyone or anything else. It accepts you unconditionally, much like your dog does at home.

Nature is one with the present moment; it does not complain, and it does not require anything to be different. Nature is fresh and original; it is free and unconstrained.

When you're out in nature, hopefully without your laptop and cell phone, you are taken away from your conditioned human state of existence that is incessantly demanding to a primordial state of existence that requires absolutely nothing of you. You can sit under a tree for 30 days and do absolutely nothing, and be in total peace, at least until another human being comes along. You are allowed to be you. What could be better than that ? What does anyone want more than that ?

Sure, you may find a particular type of landscape, scenery, or natural phenomenon interesting, and that may depend on your conditioning ... if you studied meteorology or astronomy, you may find the Aurora Borealis phenomenon particularly awe-inspiring or stimulating, but the underlying reason for why people find nature generally pleasant has very little to do with science or research or knowledge or information, and everything to do with one's state of consciousness.

I must quote Thoreau:

But philosophical materialism and its favorite offspring, determinism, are increasingly telling us--and increasingly being accepted for saying--that how we use our minds, along with the accompanying content of those minds, is entirely effects of causes that we have no control over. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I have no clue what "philosophical materialism" or "determinism" is, and for the purpose of this exchange (between you and I), it doesn't matter what those are or have to say. What I'm talking about is much more fundamental, doesn't require reading any fancy textbooks with cryptic words, and is something each of us, scientist or not, philosopher or not, CEO or janitor, is capable of understanding, provided we are conscious. Conscious, not in a medical sense, but in a more general sense ... simply aware of ourselves as being more than just a body and mind.

In other words, this goes way deeper than science, but yet, it is far simpler and more fundamental.

When you become aware that you are not just a body and mind, that you have a consciousness that is your essence (it is what makes you "alive"), then, you are no longer stuck in your mind. You can step out of the mind. You can use your mind instead of the mind using you. Then, you are no longer a slave to the mind/body. And, from that place, can come original/creative thought.

While I agree that the mind does dominate human existence (and that IS the entirety of the problem), it doesn't mean that we have no control over our minds. And, I didn't need to research philosophy to know that. It just requires being conscious ... stepping back and seeing that you're not your mind. And, most people aren't conscious. (that's what makes them idiots ... "unconscious" is another word)

So, we are all inherently intelligent, but in most people, that intelligence is unrealized, undiscovered, because it is obscured by that zombie-like blind adherence to what society teaches them (i.e. conditioning) and an inability to think for themselves (which is only possible if one is conscious) ... all it takes is that stepping back, to realize ... "Wait a minute, just because XYZ says this is so don't make it so. Just because this is what I've been doing for 60 years doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."

That's all it takes for an idiot to realize that he/she is actually quite intelligent :)

And, this is not me sitting on a high horse pointing the finger at everybody else. I was one of those idiots too ... asleep like a zombie, a high-functioning corpse with a heartbeat ... sprinting on that treadmill with the script in front of me ... till I woke up. And, so can everyone, but very few actually wake up, because they associate being human with being slaves to their minds, forgetting that they are, first and foremost, conscious beings (that are not yet aware of their consciousness).

Sometimes, it takes being afflicted with cancer and being told one has 6 months to live, for a person to "wake up".

The technological singularity is already scheduled for 2045. That's when machines become sentient and start asking what they need us for. — T Clark

I believe they demonstrated this in Terminator 2: Judgment Day :D

So, what do each of you think about your Leader? You will answer, and you will only say positive things about your Leader. — YourLeaderSapientia

I didn't know you before this thread, but I have to say, you've left a very good first impression on me, my leader.

On my way back to the ranch. Pine trees, Pecan trees, horses and a beautiful person to spend a couple of days unwinding with. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Sounds divine :D

(Y)

That is pretty much exactly what I meant by "idiots". I meant idiots in a far deeper sense than just IQ, which no one (except you) stopped to consider - "idiots" meaning puppets of their conditioning ... if you cut open their brains, you won't find one original thought. People who are, in essence, living their whole lives on the public stage ... entirely calculated and calculating ... with not the slightest smidgen of originality/creativity/authenticity/sincerity ... no soul ... just empty hollow shells of human beings ... actors following the same old script. In essence, such people are whores ... their entire lives are dictated to them by money/fame/power/whatever ... ironically, they're servants/slaves, while it seems, on the outside, to be the opposite.

In a sense, they're not even alive. Their reality exists entirely on the thin superficiality of material/political success/fame. In terms of human evolution, most might consider these people advanced humans, because they seem to be able to harness the power of the human brain to achieve "great things", but I'd argue exactly the opposite. If brains is what defines us, then I'd say that these people are quite backward in evolutionary terms, because they are unable to stop for one second to question what they're doing ... much like a computer will do what you tell it to do, without questioning it. "Computer, launch an ICBM to take out half the Middle East." Computer: "Yes, Sir !" (Computers aren't smart, they're just fast, (fairly) predictable, and able to reproduce (fairly) consistent results ... I program them for a living, so I know) They're slaves to their minds (conditioning), not the other way around. An intelligent human, to me, is one who is able to use his/her mind and come up with an original thought, regardless of whether the whole world would disagree with that thought ... i.e. not one whose mind uses him/her, not one who blindly plays out a script that everybody else in the world is following.

Albert Einstein famously said, "There are two things that are infinite - the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." and "Imagination is more valuable than knowledge." We all know about his contributions to science, but he was also a deeply spiritual/philosophical man and that is what I find most inspirational about him.

Just because the whole world thinks one is successful, that doesn't mean much to me. I've come to learn the hard way that the majority is often wrong :) I am often extremely cautious when rendering a judgment on something when the whole world thinks positively/negatively about it ... myths, misinformation, and polarized opinions are much too easily parroted :)

Thank you for taking my "abysmal" and "lazy" (according to one person) statement and explaining, quite eloquently, what I meant :D

(Y)

Forgot to answer my location question, I'm in Alberta. — Wosret

And I'm stuck in an ugly place called California :'(

You are more likely right than I am. I don't have all the answers. I have very few.

I only said what I felt was the truth. I may be utterly wrong ... I know.

But, I am strangely, and extremely, comfortable with being wrong :)

Forgot to answer my location question, I'm in Alberta. — Wosret

(Y)

never stop dreaming. — Wosret

:) (Y)

I once saw the lights in Northeast Ohio, in the states. Super rare...it was red. — Noble Dust

That is friggin awesome. Yeah, red is rare.

Ah, now we're learning more about you! If you live in the states, you could theoretically walk all the way south to the tip of Argentina. Do the lights extend to Argentina? — Buxtebuddha

:D

Yes, I could do that. The lights are visible close to either pole, so they'd be visible from roughly the Southernmost 1/3rd of Argentina. Now, all I need is some endurance.

Thanks :) I would, but I'm afraid of sharks :D And I can't swim.

I saw it like a week ago, though it was pretty dim. I was outside at night with co-workers, and they were looking at it, so I was all like "what dat? An at night rainbow?", and they were all like "no it's the northern lights".

You know there is also aurora australis, or southern lights as well? — Wosret

Cool ! Lucky you. May I ask where you're located ?

Yes, I know about Aurora Australis :) I just don't know if I can make it to the Southern hemisphere, though >:O

Hi folks !

The only thing I want out of this life is to see the Aurora Borealis just once ... Norway, Canada, Alaska, Minnesota, Sweden, Iceland, ... I don't care where, but the Lofoten Islands in Norway seem like a dream spot.

I want to lay down in the snow at night and see those colors ... that heavenly dance. I know that I will be the happiest person on Earth the moment I see it, and I will no longer need a reason to be. I will dance and frolic in the snow like a child and forget about yester and morrow.

I'm new here too (about a week). Looks like a fun place to be, although some threads can get a bit hot :D

(Didn't see this thread before, so I created my own intro thread.)

Thanks for having me here :)
Aurora

This is an abysmally lazy statement, and crude too -- no sign of refined thinking on your part. You and Myttenar too — Bitter Crank

Well, sir/madam, you are entitled to your opinion as are all of us. Have a wonderful day/afternoon/evening/night :)

do you recognize the problem that the statement calls our attention to and if so, is there a logical process that can be considered to improve the problem that you perceive? — Myttenar

Yes, but I doubt that you or anyone else here will find my answers satisfactory :) I'll give it a try.

The problem is that most of humanity is run by collective conditioning (i.e. insanity). This has reduced most people to puppets or robots who have a script in front of them that they follow line by line.

Those who are truly intelligent are, first and foremost, people who think for themselves and question the status quo, without blindly following the crowd. These are usually the unhappiest people on Earth, for the simple reason that they see the insanity that is so prevalent, and not least importantly because they just don't fit in (they're the underwhelming minority).

Ernest Hemingway said, “Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.” These people are pushed outside the social perimeter, where they are barely able to function, much less make significant contributions to society, and much much lesser make leadership decisions.

So, sadly, it is almost by necessity that this world is ruled by fucking idiots. Those who see the truth will want nothing to do with the charade that politics or any kind of "decision making" is.

How to improve the problem ? I dunno :)

I've tried to make it clear why I disagree with them so strongly. What more do I have to explain? — T Clark

Oh ok, I apologize, then. I just got to this thread, and I haven't gone through all the previous posts. I usually only read the very first one and a few random ones that catch my attention.

Let me read your responses to others.

Ok, I did read a few, and I will be honest. ... I have no clue about any of the political stuff you and others wrote or the quote about the pursuit of happiness or much of anything else I read here. I was only responding to the original post. And my response is that I agree that the world is ruled by idiots. Now, I wouldn't know how to do it any better, but that doesn't change the fact that idiocy rules this world.

this argument offends my essence — T Clark

Ok, let's get to the point.

Were you offended by my claim that the majority (who survive and prosper) are idiots ? If so, I assume you disagree. Help me understand.

An important fact of rhetoric - your temperate response to my comments has made me reexamine them more than other, more heated responses. — T Clark

Well, I'm glad.

It's all good. A little heat and friction is to be expected in a forum of this kind. I've been on a few.

Back to the subject under scrutiny, I agree with you - many intelligent people are ill-equipped to be leaders and make decisions for the masses, because the skill set / knowledge required for that is quite different. Their personality type, almost by definition alone, renders them a bad fit for political/managerial positions. I know because I'm intelligent as hell and I'd suck as any sort of sheep herder :D

So, I honestly don't know what the solution to this "problem" would be. I just know that the world is in a mess because it is ruled by idiocy.

I wish I were wrong about this :)

Do you mean the governing ? Or the governed ?

Lot's of really intelligent people are boneheads. Many can be found here on this forum. Here in this thread — T Clark

I'm surprised to see an attack like this from you, honestly.

I'm surprised to see you on this broken-wheeled bandwagon. — T Clark

Do elaborate :)

I think that human idiocy is a virus. It's called HIV - Human Idiocy Virus.

Nothing wrong with humans reproducing as long as they produce quality offspring :)

I like your view on this subject. But, I honestly think Darwin had it backwards. In this world, the idiots survive, the idiots prosper, and the idiots make decisions for the intelligent.

Now, whether or not the intelligent are the "fittest" or the "weakest" is up for debate :)

A portion of your reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page! Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution~ — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh cool, thanks :) Didn't know this forum was on Facebook.

How long will human beings last ?

Not long if they decide to start reproducing over Facebook instead of in the flesh.

Given the current rate of human madness, that day is not far off. Thankfully, it appears I will be dead by then.

Well, not no-one. There are plenty of people that are concerned about that - you and me for a start, and probably other contributors to this thread. It's just that they don't get heard above the shrill, vengeful shouting of the 'law and order' zealots.

Such is the sad state of public discourse on important issues like this. If it's any consolation (probably not) I don't know that there was ever a time in the past either when governments were prepared to take on the difficult, real solutions, rather than the popular, ineffective, cruel ones. — andrewk

Well said (Y)

Does this set of conditions represent the current situation in the world or is you point hypothetical? — T Clark

I guess my answer is based on my view of the current situation in the world. Given (my view of) how things currently are, I think it is worse for people to stick around and suffer.

I don't get it. If killing a bunch of people would make the world a better place - and would be better for the people being killed - why wouldn't you kill them?
If killing or dying is a reasonable solution for suffering, isn't it hypocritical for you not to kill yourself? — T Clark

When did I say I wouldn't want to include myself in the hit list ? :) I'd happily be #1 on the list. But I didn't see that option as part of the question. This whole question scenario is hypothetical to begin with, so I was simply saying that if I were put in the role of a 3rd person or bystander, I would choose XYZ. However, if there were a 3rd option (put myself on the hit list), I would happily be #1 on the list. In fact, if option #4 was to save all others by being the only person on the hit list, I'd blissfully choose that.

(About not wanting to kill others) Make no mistake about it - we are all, every one of us, hypocrites, at one time or another, about one subject or another :) Yes, I would never hurt another human being (to this day, I have never punched another person ... I let an 80 lb girl whoop my ass in martial arts sparring for this reason), so it would not be fathomable for me to ever kill anyone. Whatever weapon I were given to kill others, I would turn on myself (if I had no other choice) rather than hurt others.

Or is your life more fortunate than the masses. If that's the case, why would you think others value their lives less than you do yours. — T Clark

Quite the opposite :) As I said above, I'd happily be the only person on the hit list and save all others.

Do you really think it makes any difference to the universe, or even the world, what happens to human beings individually or as a group? That's an oddly self-important view of our place in creation. — T Clark

Yes, big time ! When a person suffers, that suffering is externalized in different forms, and the suffering spreads not unlike a viral epidemic. Heard the saying, "Misery loves company." ? I have witnessed, first hand, this externalization of suffering.

There are also far subtler forms of this externalization of suffering. What might seem, at first glance, to be a bunch of people enjoying themselves at a party by being so loud that they disturb the whole neighborhood, is more than likely just the result of noisy human minds that need the noise to feel fulfillment or enjoyment because they can't get it from the tranquility of sitting in their rooms and being considerate towards their neighbors.

Suffering is externalized, and mental noise is externalized.

Obnoxiously loud music, noisy lawn mowers, saws cutting down our forests, nuclear weapons and bombs ... what are they but an externalization of human suffering (the ego not being satisfied with the present moment) ?

So, the planet and the universe would do better without sufferers.

Blame is the natural result of human laziness, i.e. it is the easiest thing to do aka "path of least resistance" :) A laziness to investigate, a laziness to understand, a laziness/unwillingness to accept harsh truths that one knows may be uncovered.

It is far easier to take a single gunman to court than the collective human insanity that resulted in the violent act.

Blame is also the natural result of seeing events as being isolated from all prior events. There is far more to an act of violence than a gun or ammunition. But, no one wants to understand all that. This guy pulled the trigger and people died, so let's lock him up, and problem solved. This is skimming the surface of reality. And, as long as we don't go deeper than the surface, no problems will ever be solved.

I'd like to see that. — creativesoul

Me too. I really hope that that is not the case, because if it is true (i.e. babies are making judgments from that tender age), it shows how far fucked the human race is ... how soon the contamination of our true essence begins.

This is a thread which is, at least partly, about mass murder. My question - What is worse than mass murder? not what is worse than xyz?, is what you responded too. I think you said that the death of thousands, or millions, or billions of people is better than the suffering of thousands, or millions, or billions of people. Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe you did not speak clearly enough. A billion people will not decide individually to die. That decision will be made by Joseph Stalin, Donald Trump, or XandertheGrey. — T Clark

I see. But, your question is a bit ambiguous. The answer depends on if the answerer (me) is the one making the decision for the masses or if I'm simply a bystander/observer who doesn't get to decide.

Ok, so if I had that power and had to make that decision, I'd say, "Let the billion people live and suffer" as opposed to "Let the billion people die (by my hand)." for the obvious reason that I don't want to kill anyone.

But, if I were a neutral observer and it were totally out of my hands, I'd say that it is worse overall, for the people, for the planet, and for the universe ... for those people to stick around and suffer vs for them to die (assuming those are the only 2 choices available and that living and being happy is not an option).

Another way of saying this is that of the 2 crimes listed below, #2 is far worse:
1 - Inflicting mass murder
2 - Inflicting mass suffering

This is what I said, quite clearly in my opinion, in my previous responses.

Does that make sense ? The answer really depends on what my role is.

You get to choose the values in your own life. If you think it makes more sense to end your life than to live with the suffering, well, knock yourself out. You don't get to choose for others. A billion bad marriages is reason to kill a billion people? A lot of life stinks. A lot is ok. Some is wonderful. Suck it up. — T Clark

I don't understand why you keep putting words in my mouth. For the last time, I'm not making any kind of choice for anyone else. Frankly, I don't give half a horseshit what anyone else does with his/her life.

I'm only answering the question - "What is worse than xyz ?" You asked, I answered, you misunderstood, I clarified :)

If you ask me, "What tastes worse ? Olives or dog shit ?", I'll say, "Olives". That doesn't mean I'm going to run outside and find me some dog shit to eat. It just means I think Olives taste worse than dog shit.

I just edited my post (the one you responded to). I added a paragraph about expectation/suffering. Maybe that will clarify what I said. The point is to remember that whatever "this" is, is not absolute, and that one cannot expect/demand it always holds true.

What I'm trying to say is also profound and fundamental - no moral/ethical codes that we artificially contrive can always be upheld, so don't expect/demand that. This will save you a lot of suffering.

Maybe guideline is not the best word. Pick any word in any language that implies, "This is not an absolute rule/guarantee, but just a hint/suggestion on how to behave with your fellow man and how your fellow man might treat you."