Well, ok. As a person who can see the end of his life on the horizon, I agree that there are many things worse than my death. Are you willing, as XandertheGrey is, to extend that to the deaths of thousands, tens of thousands, millions of people? Are there things worse than that? What are they? I think I understand XtG's answer to that question. His take is utilitarian. Kill all the people who use more than their share of resources so that people who have access to less than their fair share will have a chance. Is that ok with you? In principle if not in practice? — T Clark

My response about homicide had nothing to do with the OP advocating mass-murder. I just shared my opinion, in general, about homicide. By saying that there are things far far worse than homicide, I'm not saying, "Ok, let's go wipe out a bunch of people."

Are there things worse than mass-murder ? Abso-friggin-lutely !!! This is the easiest question you've asked me all week :) Answer - Mass-suffering ! Think about what people in workplaces, schools, social circles, and unhappy marriages do to each other day after day after year after year. Worse than murder ? Any day of any millennium.

What could possibly be worse than the suffering people inflict on each other ? Bullying, harassment, alienation, discrimination, objectification ... ??? I can't think of anything worse, and I've spent 34 years trying.

To live and suffer is orders of magnitude worse than death, in my opinion. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be shot dead by my worst enemy than be treated like crap by my fellow man every single day for 80 (or whatever) years. Oh, this is an easy choice for me :)

As you indicate, values are not absolute, but I think some are fundamental to our nature as human beings. Among those fundamental values is the value placed on human life - both for individual humans and for humanity as a whole. By calling a value "fundamental" I mean two things. First - I think they are built into the physical, biological, and genetic structure of who we are. We have evolved as social animals. We have no choice but to like each other. Second, no society could survive without these fundamental values. These are not "guidelines." They are bedrock foundations for human social life. No group of humans could survive for long without them. — T Clark

I agree that chaos would quickly ensue, without certain values. But, what I meant by those values being "guidelines" and nothing more, is a bit deeper than immediately meets the eye or the mind.

No matter what rule/law/whatever we come up with, there is no power in this universe that is going to enforce them or guarantee that they are followed or adhered to without exception. It is well and good to say, "Thou shall not kill." Is there any guarantee that that rule will never be violated ?

The reason for pointing out that this is a guideline is a hint that says, "Don't think of this rule/law in absolute terms. There is no guarantee that it will not be violated." You might think this is a silly and unnecessary little footnote, i.e. it is obvious to everyone that this is not an absolute guarantee, but then if it is so damn obvious, why are people so friggin shell shocked when something goes wrong in their lives ? Getting robbed, car getting vandalized, family member getting murdered. If they know that no law is absolute, what's the problem ?

That was a rhetorical question. I know the answer - because people expect and demand that these laws are always obeyed. So, it is best for people to remember that those so called laws are not absolute truths, and that people can rest assured that they will be violated. i.e. They are just guidelines that suggest, not enforce, a certain code of conduct.

A lot of suffering can be avoided by simply remembering that these are guidelines. That's what this is really about - avoiding suffering. Expectation = suffering. So, by not expecting/demanding that this guideline be always followed, a lot of suffering can be avoided.

Hope this clarifies things.

:D

Language is required in order for us to become aware of some things. So, placing all awareness as prior to language is a mistake for it renders you unable to take proper account of the things which only language facilitates our awareness of — creativesoul

I respectfully, and completely, disagree :)

Language is only required, in my opinion, when something needs to be communicated to another person ... because, when two people communicate, without language or another communication protocol, the two parties will not be able to agree on what is being said. This communication could be a sentence in Russian or just a smile or a kiss on the cheek.

However, if it is just you wanting to be aware of something, you don't need language at all. In fact, I would go so far as to say that language sometimes gets in the way of understanding something. When you label something as "tree" or "rock" or "elephant", you convince yourself that now, you understand whatever you are labeling. Do you mean to tell me that there is nothing more to a tree than the English word "tree" or the German word "Baum" ?

Labeling (i.e. language), often, is a reflection of our laziness to really understand something. It is necessary, but not always sufficient.

Haha. Will have to read some of his posts.

Yes, I resurrected this thread because I found it worth a read and response.

Hmm ... I will take a second look at your responses to my inauthenticity thread and also what apokrisis has to say.

And, I disagree that the part of us that is authentic is also culturally mediated, because by definition, authentic means uncontaminated, untouched, unaffected.

Now, what I think you're trying to say, and I'll agree, is that a 100% authentic interaction is impossible, because we need structure in communication and interaction. That implies the necessity for language, social norms, and other forms of "cultural mediation".

So yes, all interaction is culturally mediated, and we can almost never have a truly authentic interaction. But, my gripe is with how inauthentic most interactions seem to me to be. But hey, I live in Southern California, and you know what that means :) Maybe things are better elsewhere in the US ... I would hope so.

Oh no ... I don't think it's anyone else's responsibility (at least not any singular individual). I'm not pointing the finger of blame anywhere. Human insanity cannot be put on trial :)

No, it's not harsh. I just think there is a misunderstanding here of what I'm trying to say. I value your frankness.

How does your understanding of the mechanistic lives of people jibe with your dismay about their inauthenticity? Is that where the inauthenticity comes from? — T Clark

Good question.

Being mechanistic ... inauthenticity ... it's all directly related, in my view.

A lot of my understanding of human behavior comes from direct observation and experience (not unproven theory), but I have also been influenced greatly by the spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle whose teachings really speak to me and reinforce that what I have observed is true.

The true essence of a person is consciousness, prior to its contamination by societal/cultural conditioning. So, newborn babies are closest to that true essence; they have not yet been conditioned with concepts, language, and other artificial constructs that most people blindly adhere to and mistake for absolute truths.

So, the "mechanistic" behavior of humans, that derives from their conditioning is also 100% the cause of their inauthenticity. In fact, the inauthenticity is the conditioning ... that part of a human being that is not part of his/her true essence. Eckhart describes this conditioning as a mask obscuring the true essence.

If you recall my grocery store example in my thread about inauthenticity, we have been conditioned, like robots, to reply to the question, "How are you?" with the response "I'm good. How are you ?". This is what makes it inauthentic. It comes from a superficial place within us ... that mask or layer of conditioning that hides our true essence.

Hope I made some sense.

It's not about my beliefs; I'm just telling you what I experienced (reality, not theory). I did put my open and sincere heart out there ... genuine interest, genuine respect, n all ... and in return, I got bent over and ... you get the picture.

Hmm ...

I think that people are puppets of/to their conditioning. It's almost like they're robots/machines on autopilot ... executing their instructions without any questioning. You're an engineer (as am I) ... you can appreciate that.

It wasn't my intention to pull rank on you with my 40 year history or discount your own experiences. — T Clark

Oh no, you're fine. I didn't take it as you pulling rank on me. I meant what I said quite literally ... no sarcasm or innuendos. I respect experience, when it comes to any aspect of life. I'm a firm believer that real-life experience is a better teacher than any book or theory.

So, I was saying that I respect your experience, and that I don't doubt the truth of what you're saying about marriage and its challenges.

Interest and respect are irresistible. If your heart is pure, there is no good reason anyone would want to resist them. — T Clark

Oh, how I'd love to believe that, and I did for the longest time ... it just didn't prove true for me :)

There is no *good* reason ... but there are reasons :)

One of my favorite songs, although I'll only listen to it on Mondays — T Clark

LOL. I'm assuming that the song is, in some form, a response to what I said ? If it is, do elaborate, because it flew over my head :D

I applaud you on your candor. This is not a subject that most people feel comfortable talking about as raw as you did.

I think that human life, like any other form in the universe, is neither worthless nor priceless.

All these so called laws and moral and ethical codes we have contrived are simply guidelines and not absolute truths. How can they be absolute truths when they were artificially created ? They are required in society for structure, but the problem arises when people mistake them for absolute truths and are shocked when "criminals" violate them :)

That said, I don't condone homicide, but I don't consider killers "evil" either ... I consider them unconscious ... i.e. unaware (on a deeper level than the superficiality of the mind) of what they're doing. I laugh every time the news immediately labels a mass murderer "evil". What they're doing, of course, is what is easiest to do - label someone without any investigation or understanding whatsoever. "He killed 10 people, and he is therefore evil. Case closed." This is because of laziness ... no one wants to know the deeper truth behind what actually happened. Also, the action is mistaken for the person performing the action. An evil act is mistaken for an evil person.

There is a beautiful saying in the Bible (I think). "Forgive them for they know not what they do." What this means, according to Eckhart Tolle, is that no person in his/her right mind would hurt another. (and I use "mind" in a deeper sense, not just meaning the brain). Don't judge someone based on their actions. The action is not the essence of the person.

Not everyone who kills is evil, and not everyone who goes to church and never harms a fly is innocent, either. So, I think homicide is bad, but there are evils that are orders of magnitude worse than homicide. They look harmless or even noble on the surface, but are far worse than homicide. When you subject another person to suffering (mental, emotional, physical) and force them to live their entire life with that suffering, that, to me, is far worse than putting that person out of his/her misery.

I'm not against suicide; I think that life is overrated, as I mentioned earlier. Whether or not it is the right choice for someone is entirely dependent on the individual. The only pain one can measure is his/her own, so one has no business judging another person's choice to commit suicide.

Thanks to observation, I realized what Jean-Paul Sartre said.

"Hell is other people"

In my experience, which is limited to one 40 year continuing marriage plus observations of others from the outside, problems in marriages are not primarily related to inauthenticity. I think they are caused by unexpressed conditions, desires, fantasies, that marriage partners are generally not fully aware of. I remember vividly how my girlfriend's attitude towards me and our relationship changed abruptly when we got engaged. People expect things, and feel entitled to expect things, from spouses that they would not expect from lovers or friends. We can argue if you'd like about whether those expectations are reasonable, but they are there nonetheless. They can cause irreparable damage to love, friendship, and commitment. — T Clark

If you've been married for 40 years, then you've got 40 years on me :) I've had one relationship my whole life, which lasted a whopping 8 months. I'll take your word for it.

I'm sure there are more issues/factors at play than mere inauthenticity, but I feel like inauthenticity is one of the most fundamental ones, because it can and does lead to things you mentioned - unexpressed feelings/desires, among several others. It's not the only problem, but it is one of the big ones.

I was describing what I have noticed, in general, in human relationships (including friendships), and my attempts at them.

I doubt that's how the Buddha saw it. — T Clark

I can't speak for the Buddha; only for myself :) I don't know what he experienced, but I will say this with almost absolute certainty ... if someone comes to you and tells you that, from 2:00 pm to 2:10 pm everyday, he/she has the exact same experience, and that that experience never changes from day to day, that no thoughts ever occur, then, what you are being told is boldfaced lies.

Seems to me that is a flaw in my ability to surrender to what meditation has to offer rather than a flaw in the method — T Clark

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one :) The moment something is a "method", it is already an obstacle to awareness/presence.

Now, there are certainly ways (physiological/neurological) to reduce mental noise. Why do people drink or take drugs ? What is, ultimately, the "high" about ? It is largely about the lack of those pesky thoughts that dominate our existence. But, these are crutches at best, in my opinion. Meditation is one of them.

I will copy here what I wrote in my response to Michael Ossipoff ...

"It is counter-intuitive, as is a lot of spirituality, but the real meditation is in the present moment and nowhere else. When you put aside a specific 10 minutes for it, you are already lost because you are no longer in the present ... you are chasing something in the future, and using the present as a means to an end."

Tolle's description of that problem was excellent, and a wake-up call. ...how people's internal conceptual narrative about description, evaluation, & classification--and the related or resulting perpetual postponement of satisfaction (the present is just something to get through, for something better later)--displaces actual genuine experience. — Michael Ossipoff

That is very well put :) "perpetual postponement of satisfaction". English is a beautiful language, isn't it ? At least it was, till the internet came along and began contaminating it with pseudo-verbs like "Google" and "friend" ("friend me on Facebook").

Glad to know that someone else here has read Tolle :)

And yes, it is counter-intuitive, as is a lot of spirituality, but the real meditation is in the present moment and nowhere else. When you put aside a specific 10 minutes for it, you are already lost because you are no longer in the present ... you are chasing something in the future, and using the present as a means to an end, as you mentioned.

This is a nice topic. I'll throw in my two cents.

I never pondered this subject till I came across the book, "The Power of Now", by Eckhart Tolle. My life has never been the same after reading the first four pages of that book. Allow me to describe, briefly, a couple of terms, before I get to my experiences.

Eckhart defines consciousness as "thoughtless awareness". In other words, it's perception prior to the first thought about what you are perceiving. If you think of consciousness as a blank canvas, all your thoughts and feelings are colors and shapes drawn on that canvas. Pure consciousness is stillness, it is tranquility, it is peace.

That said, my own life, like most others, is dominated by thinking (98% of it useless/repetitive, like in almost all humans), but I welcome brief gaps in that thinking whenever they occur. For instance, let's say I'm out on the porch in the morning with my hot chocolate, and a blue jay lands on a nearby branch, there is a brief moment of absolute stillness ... no thoughts, no ideas, no judgments, just perception. And, that is very refreshing and peaceful, given how much thought dominates human existence.

People who meditate are chasing this gap in thinking, with the goal being stillness and peace. But, I think that it's the practice of meditation itself that gets in the way of that goal, because the pursuit of something creates thoughts about it, which doesn't help when what you are trying to do is stop thinking. Eckhart says, "You cannot cause it to happen, but you can allow it to happen" (referring to thoughtless awareness)

Ok, I was giving an example (i.e. marriage, where authenticity really counts ... I would think/hope ???) to illustrate my point about inauthenticity and how deeply ingrained it is in people. If the one place/situation where authenticity really counts (marriage) is not enough to crack that defensive shell/facade, then what is ?

I went off on a bit of a tangent, but it was to illustrate the main point of this post.

Almost everyone is interesting. Almost everyone has a real place inside them which is not very deeply hidden. — T Clark

Yes, I have no doubt that everyone is interesting. Where my experience differs from yours is in the second statement of yours ... in my experience, that authenticity is deeply hidden. It is so deeply hidden that it is inaccessible to most ... it's like they've forgotten it exists, thanks to the deeply ingrained societal/cultural conditioning right from birth. All in the pursuit of "fitting in".

It is no surprise that 60% of American marriages collapse within a few years. It's not rocket science to figure the following scenario:
- When two people meet and court each other, they have a rigid and impenetrable facade, giving each other the illusion of perfection ... no true feelings, no painful history, no flaws, no embarrassing habits, no weird fetishes ... no harsh realities or simple but deep truths are revealed.
- They keep up the facade, very well, for a year or two, and then the wedding bells ring. Everything's great !
- A year or two later, when the bad habits begin to emerge ... when the real person emerges ... when one has to wake up in the middle of the night and care for the other ... when one has nowhere to turn to but the other ... when the act and inauthenticity and lying takes up so much energy that it is no longer worth it, what then ?
- The two feel like "This is not the person I married. I want out." No shit, this is not the person you married ! You never got to see that person.
- Divorce lawyers get telephone calls.

There are some people, very tightly wrapped types, who don't seem to be able to relax their defenses, take off their masks, and just be themselves. I think it must be a really very unhappy condition to live with.

There is also the fact that for some people "authentic" isn't also "nice". The "real person" can be unpleasant. — Bitter Crank

Very true ! And yes, I feel sad for those types who can't take off the masks.

(and Bitter Crank)

I have only lived in Asia and the US. (I don't know how things are elsewhere)

And, I have to agree ... interaction in the US is incredibly shallow in most arenas. Forget salesmen ... that's to be expected ... but even in "friendships" and "romantic relationships", ... :(

I'm not saying this with my head up high or claiming to be some expert critic on human behavior ... I say this as someone who has lived here a long time ... and with a deep sadness ... and, to the best of my ability, neutrally.

It is almost always in your power to make any conversation authentic by being authentic yourself. That doesn't mean you confront others with their falsity or try to be inappropriately personal. "Authentic" doesn't mean profound or complex, it only means human. Be a human being and think of, treat, others as human beings.

You can have an authentic conversation about the weather or "How about them Red Sox." You can have an inauthentic conversation about the most personal things in your life. — T Clark

(Y)

Thanks to everyone who responded ... you've given me a lot to think about. BTW, I'm new here, and I'm still getting used to the format/theme and the rules.



Bitter Crank, I esp. liked your response. My spellings were intentionally inauthentic because, on some other forums I've been on, you can get banned for using those words. I guess that's not the case here ?

And yes, the example I posted was just the simplest one I could think of. Yes, it's not that important to be authentic in a grocery store line with people behind. I think the more important cases I wanted to refer to were those from a more intimate setting, such as at a party or even a friggin Thxgiving gathering with those who are supposed to be the nearest/dearest to you.

And, in all those cases, I have noticed almost 100% inauthenticity ... posturing, maneuvering, charades, nothing heartfelt.

- Aurora

"Where Does Morality Come From?"

The illusion of morality comes from misguided expectations that lead to suffering.

No amount of research, organization, rearranging, or planning, is going to solve any of the problems you mentioned. These problems cannot be solved on that level of thinking.

What is really required is a shift in the level of consciousness of the people that make up the workplace. That is really the only way anything will change.

To quote Einstein, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them."

This is just my opinion, of course. Take it or leave it :)

That's the way to go ! That is very wise.

Having expectations of other people is kind of like playing the slot machines in Las Vegas. You can always hope, but you can never be sure which numbers will come up :)

Thank you :)

You're absolutely right. Silly me !

It's not the technology itself that's the problem (I'm a computer engineer); it's how people mistake things like Facebook/Twitter messages for real connection/interaction, that's the problem.

No such thing as genuine interaction anymore :(

I could write a book about this topic. I quit my corporate job 2 1/2 years ago, due to a lot of the issues you listed.

I think that the workplace, like any other arena in life, is largely consistent of factors/variables entirely out of our control ... much like you can't choose your family members, you don't have much of a say in your workplace, unless you're Mr./Mrs. CEO.

Also, at the end of the day, the primary function of work, for most people, is to have running water, electricity, food to eat, and a place to poop. My former manager told me this, and it was one of the wisest things anyone has ever pointed out to me.

Once one realizes these things ... really realizes them, and keeps them in the forefront of one's mind, I think that the workplace can be a great opportunity for self-growth and even enjoyment.

The problem most people have is their expectations of what they "deserve" and what they think they should be able to control/influence. Expectation is the root of all suffering. Drop it and see what happens.

The evils you mentioned are just a function of human nature, and will not go away anytime soon. So, what, then, can be controlled ? Only our outlook towards work and the workplace.

Again, this is with any aspect of life.

Yes, it is our conditioning by society that leads us to interpret things/people/events as good/bad (which is still entirely subjective), while the deeper truth is devoid of any such interpretation.

Without knowing sadness/melancholy/pain, you can never truly experience the highest highs of happiness/joy. You can never experience only one pole of a polarity.

Sadness and pain can absolutely be beautiful ... they open your eyes to what you didn't notice or think about before. They give you a better vantage point whence to look at life and the world.

That said, when you come to the realization that ultimately, nothing is good/bad ... that it is, as you so eloquently put, all part of a big movie ... a movie that we mostly watch, and only infinitesimally influence ... then, we can go beyond the superficial lows and highs of happiness/sadness ... to a deeper place of peace and tranquility.

Eckhart Tolle says, "The function of suffering is to awaken you. Suffering is necessary till you realize that it isn't."

Drinking - A love story, by Caroline Knapp

True love is ... peace ...equilibrium ... stillness of the mind. Only then can you see anything for what it truly is.

Ten years ago, I was sitting on my couch in my little studio apartment, with this girl, watching a movie. And I felt totally at peace. I felt safe and protected. I turned toward her and told her I loved her (only person I've ever said that to).

I think the world needs less technology ... let's start there.

It's hard not to be happy when you've got a full bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon sitting in front of you.

That aside, I think the only pre-requisites for happiness are the absence of other people in your surroundings and the absence of expectations ... of any kind.