Yes. I have no moral duty to put myself at risk of harm or to harm others. — Michael

You don't pay others enough to do it for you, though.

Not sure the percentages are correct, but something like that it might be. There are huge differences. — ssu

Which is which? Red tones are for yes, or for no to the question at the top?

Why shoulldn't the Biblia Sacra be considered a(n) (unsually long) Zen koan? — Agent Smith

Because it is not advertised as one and it does not classifiy itself as a Zen koan.

Nor is it advertised or does is classify itself as a logico-philosophical tractatus. (If it did, then we would be justified to expect a rigid internal consistency from it, at the very minimum.)

I believe that one of the key reasons why a man will hate women is because of the power they seem to hold over him as sexual objects of desire. — _db

A man who can be thusly overpowered isn't much of a man, then.

Question: Is the Biblia Sacra one long frigging Zen koan? — Agent Smith

If it would be advertised and classifiy itself as a logico-philosophical tractatus, then, perhaps.

But it is not and it does no such thing. It's a collection of witness testimonies, tribal histories, personal histories, didactic aphorisms, poetry, prophecies, mystic visions, ... Which makes it clear that its genre is definitely not that of a logico-philosophical tractatus and that it shouldn't be read as such.

Why spend one's time with whatever just any person claims is true about hell and how to get there?

Actual religions have actual doctrines, and those are what one should refer to; everything else is just personal opinion.

You're missing that the various experessions of this qualitative variability still all function on the same platform, namely that of craving.
— baker

No, they don’t - that’s only because you assume all forms of expression are a craving, a dissatisfaction with the world. But have you considered that many expressions of qualitative variability in the human condition don’t reach your attention, specifically because they are not an expression of craving, or not requiring your interaction? Are we aware of human expressions of inclusive collaboration with the world, or are we attune only to suffering? — Possibility

I think you underestimate craving, tanha.

What attracts our attention is usually tied to our perceived potential - our capacity to interact intentionally with the world. But in moments when we are genuinely doing nothing, fully awake and alert (such as in meditation),

That's not "meditation", that's zoning out.

we are able to explore a more complete awareness of reality, inclusive of what has no need of our potential to interact. I’m not saying this is an easy state to reach, and there is certainly plenty on our radar to pull our attention back to what society says we ‘should’ be striving for. But both Buddhism and Taoism encourage an intentional stillness or emptiness that enables us to embody the quality and logic of reality, without striving. In this state, we relate to the possibility for energy to flow freely, the possibility of no suffering - and with this develop an awareness of our own creative capacity to intentionally

minimise suffering in the way we connect and collaborate.

Early Buddhism isn't interested in merely minimizing suffering. It proposes a complete cessation of suffering. This makes it a whole other category than what many other paths teach.

The more we can embody this ‘stillness’, the more we realise that there is nothing we need to be striving-for in any moment in time - only allowing for a free flow of possible energy.

That's not Early Buddhism, just to be clear, and not to misuse terminology.

I’m simply saying that there is more to a conscious existence than you are describing here, and choosing not to follow a particular socio-cultural agenda does not necessarily entail premature death, pessimism or antinatalism. — Possibility

You'll need to spell this out. What other options are there?
In specific terms, please, not just anything that might fall under "awareness, connection, collaboration".

Reading and listening to music is increasing awareness. Talking with others and most discussions of philosophy are connection. Collaboration is maximising a collective efficiency of limited resources. — Possibility

All this is still firmly in the realm of craving, tanha. The craving for sensual pleasures, the craving for becoming, and the craving for non-becoming.

(Your project is based on what is sometimes termed "the third-and-a-half noble truth: suffering is manageable".)

I know it's an idiom. I simply thought the idiom didn't sit right. People can be content or cheerful when you think they should be miserable. — Tom Storm

Which is a potential indicator that happiness cannot be found "outside".

The afore-mentioned assumption is that people should do things that they enjoy, that they are "passionate" about, and that one's whole life can and should be filled with such things as much as possible.
— baker

As opposed to the assumption that people should do things they hate and are indifferent to.

No, no such opposition. The idea is that doing things that one finds pleasurable (in the broadest sense of the word) cannot actually make one happy. Ie. that it's in the nature of doing worldly things that they cannot satisfy. (This is also the theme in Ecclesiastes, so it's not some "esoteric Eastern" notion.)

Ha, I get it. But I am not a Buddhist, and actually think that Schop's attempt to point to asceticism is too optimistic, believe it or not. There is no escape.. — schopenhauer1

Mere asceticism doesn't solve the problem, indeed.

And even if there was, my grip remains.. We are at X place, and we need to be at Y place (Enlightenment), that in itself is a situation I find troubling.. The origin I place squarely on being a human born into the world as humans develop "selves" by mere fact of our species relation with language and the environment.

Need, need, need, must, must, must. You have such a compulsion around all this.
Birth is compulsory, making an effort is compulsory, compulsion is compulsory ... A fullblown compulsory compulsion.


You could, perhaps, cut all this compulsory compulsion short, and conclude that existence itself is burdensome. Much like Early Buddhism or Ecclesiastes.

A few months ago I was talking to my older brother who works for the US government as a translator about the issue of why China is so fired up about trying to retake Taiwan. — dclements

Taiwan is pretty much the world's most important factory of semiconductors. Whoever has Taiwan has the say over one of the most important commodities in the world.
Who wouldn't want that?!

The main thing is power and its attendant benefits -- cash, land, population, control, etc. How does this apply to Putin's case? He already has tons of cash, land, population, control, etc., so it isn't clear to me how wrecking Ukraine would benefit him and his various apparatchiks. Has he been taking steroids? Is he suffering from raging hormones? Is he mentally unstable? Is there some sort of obscure economic motive here? Ukraine is a major grain producer; so is Russia. Maybe Putin wants an even bigger share of food commodity markets? (I'm grasping at straws here) — Bitter Crank

I think the main reasons why so many people have such difficulty understanding Putin are these:

1. The very concept of "benevolent ruler" has become unintelligible to them. To them, it's a contradiction in terms. They do not believe that a benevolent ruler can even exist.

2. They are so used to acting in bad faith that they cannot even imagine that someone else might not.

For both of these, democarcy is to blame. Democracy effectively absolves everyone (the voters and the elected) from any and all responsibility for the situation in the election jurisdiction, on account that responsibility is so dispersed that no single person can be meaningfully held responsible for anything.
Secondly, it encourages people to think in simplistic black and white terms, us vs. them. Thirdly, it lowers the political discourse onto the level of a battle of wills, with little or no consideration given to the quality of the proposals of each party. Fourthy, and most perniciously, it teaches people to understand only one thing: lethal force.

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. That’s why he said it would depend on the situation on the ground, i.e., on his requests being met. — Apollodorus

Yes.
The West is so used to acting in bad faith that they cannot even conceive that someone else would not do the same.

An Ukrainian drone fell down in Croatia.
One theory is that it was intended for Yarun, Ukraine, but that the navigators might have been using Google Maps, typed in Jarun, and that led it to Jarun, Croatia, about a 1,000 km off.

How the 6 tonnes drone was able to fly across the airspace of at least two Nato countries without being detected remains a mystery.

But you've been examining this scheme for years ... And to what effect?


I think of this:

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html

You're conjecturing about topics that fall into the category of "the origin of the world", and you're quite predictably, vexed by doing so.

Perhaps you're not quite vexed enough yet ...

Incidentally, the swastika was used by many countries — Apollodorus

The swastika symbol /.../ is an ancient religious icon in various Eurasian cultures. It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.
/.../
In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Right, but getting to nirvana is a sort of discipline no? — schopenhauer1

If by "discipline", you mean something like a 'systematic effort', then yes.

I’m saying this is one more burden, one of the do (not do) of Buddhism.

A burden only the willing shoulder. It's kind of silly to sit next to the "burden" and gripe about it.

If there’s a delusion of self there’s being non deluded but that takes X thing that one must deal with like everything else from being born at all..hence my pessimism of even Buddhism which ironically is a kind of path forward from its own pessimistic evaluations

I don't know how to help you any longer. It seems like you're at a crossroads and decisive action is required on your part ...

I don't think that's it at all. Personally I don't drink, am indifferent to food and rarely go out. — Tom Storm

It's an idiom.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/eat-drink-and-be-merry

The afore-mentioned assumption is that people should do things that they enjoy, that they are "passionate" about, and that one's whole life can and should be filled with such things as much as possible.

And secondly, that in a normal person, this constant pursuit of pleasure (here pleasure is understood in a broad sense, it can mean eating, drinking, partying, or listening to classical music, bungee-jumping, or volunteering, etc. etc.) is 1. possible, and 2. inherently satisfying. Some (such as Schopenhauer and Early Buddhism) would say that these two points are not true.

That wasn't grand, that was underhanded.

Boredom --pathological one--is more like apathy. Nothing can interest you or make sense to you. It's close to death. Temporary, transient boredom is of course a totally different thing.
— Alkis Piskas

To me that sounds like depression. — Tom Storm

Or maybe the widely held and tabooed assumption that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry, is not justified.

As Russia has the most nuclear weapons, it can be pretty sure that any country won't attack it. That should be obvious. Or let's say the US response to the war in Ukraine makes this obvious. — ssu

Or maybe the US is just waiting to make a grand entrance and be the one who gets declared the victor?

I'm bit confused why you really seem not to get that having strategic interests doesn't mean a country can invade another one country whenever feeling like it. There's multitude ways to try to influence things, but annexing parts of another countries simply isn't one.

Bad faith always wins. Always.

they report from behind the frontline, on the effects on the civilians. — Olivier5

Democracy comes with a price.

Only under a dictator would civilians be innocent. Under a democratically elected leader, they are all accountable.

So you're saying that because the Russians are liars, Ukraine (who obviously never told a lie in their lives, and probably are being considered for beatification as we speak) can't negotiate. You're basically saying that the only situation in which two sides can negotiate peace is one in which there's no propaganda. Do you realise what a hawkish position that is? You're basically advocating full on war for every dispute until one side is utterly wasted. — Isaac

Hardly a new attitude in the human scope. In the discourse of this recent crisis there is plenty of textbook cases of psychological defense mechanisms ... Or maybe it's all just about what people really want.

As per the NT text, there was a conversation between Jesus and Pilates in the judgement hall. It seems to me that the most logical language to have been used in that exchange was Greek. — Apollodorus

Which was the native language of neither of them?

I imagine that Pilate, in his official capacity as a Roman governor, would speak Latin and that he would not lower himself to speak the native language of the people who were subjected to him (even if he were fluent in the language).

It's a power play: In a conversation, he who speaks the other's language thereby becomes the inferior one. It's why old-school politicians and academics insist in either speaking their own language, or a language that is a foreign language for all participants (but which they're all fluent in).

It seems theoretically possible that Pilate spoke Latin and Jesus spoke Aramaic and that both understood eachother's language, but insisted on speaking each their own.

I appear to be a genuine agnostic - i.e. I am genuinely unsure as to the existence, or not, of God, or supernatural realms and life after death etc. in general. I've never seen an argument on either the atheist side or the theist side which I have found wholly convincing. This leads me to contemplate whether, given my lack of religious faith or observance,

if I will be condemned to hell when I die. — RolandTyme

Then you need to check out the actual doctrines of those religions that teach eternal damnation.
Such as study the Catechism of the RCC, Islamic doctrinal texts, and whatever others there may be relevant (such as the Mahayana teachings on icchantikas).

Regarding this Z business:

Why would people who normally write in the Cyrillic script use the Latin one?

Most people who consider themselves Christians don't read the Bible, or at least not much.

But perhaps that's all we should want schools to teach. Even so, though, do we want or need laws which preclude the use of certain words or topics in schools? — Ciceronianus

Will, or can, a school district prohibit discussion of such topics by students, in order to protect itself from litigation? — Ciceronianus

Such is democracy. One must bend to the dictates of those who have been elected into positions of power.

And they say the Talibans are imposing restrictions on people!

So how about this for feedback -- at least when dealing with me: give respect, get respect. — Xtrix

That's just it: you don't give respect to begin with. You have the attitude that others should make the first step, others should take responsibility for the quality of communication. Others should respect you first, and then, maybe, you'll respect them. And you apparently don't seem to see the problem with this one-sidedness.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that puts people off and why they don't want to get together with those who have such an attitude. I just used you as an example for your thread topic.

I never once said I don't feel motivated to get together with others.

I never once said others don't want to get together with me.

The sentence you quote was in response to someone else. If you paid closer attention to the context,
/.../

Seems to me you're hell-bent on disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. If that's the case, I'm not interested. — Xtrix

See, this is exactly why I don't want to get together with you: your bad faith in relation to other people, your readiness to quickly assume the worst about the other person.
I've brought this up before with you in the covid thread, and I'm bringing it up here only because you said in your OP:

But in talking with others, I've come to learn about factors which were once invisible to me until pointed out. — Xtrix

What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle? — Xtrix

The theme of this thread is solidarity, but above, you're talking about different settings, where some of them have a category of relating to other people that other settings don't. While one may be solidary with acquaintances, strangers, and also with friends and family, there is another category of relating that applies only with friends and family. This is having cordial relations with people.

I could be wrong, and it really is ignorance. I would argue that isolation contributes to this. But let's assume I'm right, and the problems are known and solutions are fairly clear. What then accounts for inaction? A lack of a detailed plan? Perhaps. But I would point instead to isolation, hopelessness, despair, and the inability to engage with and join with others. — Xtrix

Rather, the love of comfort and convenience.

Genuine reengagement within existing systems would transform society, but many people think this is middle class masturbation and only a revolution will do. — Tom Storm

Yet we can see that every right, every privilege that was won through a revolution is eventually taken away from people, usually indirectly.

For example, women have won themselves the right to paid work, but the trend is that more and more employers try to diminish that (such that a woman must sign her resignation papers if she wants to get the job in the first place).

At the heart of the matter, in my view, are phenomena that have always been there: irrationality, false beliefs, greed, hatred, prejudice, fear. — Xtrix

If this is how you think about it, then it's no wonder you don't feel motivated to get together with others, and also why others might not be particularly motivated to get together with you.

This is a big one, no doubt. For the last 20 years I’ve often used this as an excuse — for all kinds of things. But then I look at what people in Argentina and Nicaragua and Sudan achieve, or in the poor areas of Boston and Chicago, and I realize I have far more opportunity than they do. Yet they make things happen, and it’s largely because of strong communities. — Xtrix

Or because they are so poor, in such real need that this keeps them together, acting as glue.
Once people are relatively materially comfortable, they feel no real, urgent need to get together with others, other than for the purpose of obtaining more power or for entertainment.

This relates to what I’m saying here as well. In much the same way as we know depression is often linked to social isolation (loneliness) or general lack of fulfilling relationships, I think this political hopelessness is also linked to a lack of collaboration with others. — Xtrix

No, it's the lack of a realistic goal, and people being less or more aware of this.

Many "collaborations" have as their goal an utopia. And I'm not making here a cynical remark about "human nature". It's that people want things that are realistically, practically, physically not possible. For example, it is not possible on planet Earth that everyone would live a first-world lifestyle. It isn't, because there just aren't enough natural resources for that.

And while many people try to "make life better" for themselves and others, they also have some measure of awareness that there are practical limits to how much better a particular person's life can get. It's because of this awareness that their heart isn't quite fully in their activism.

If anything, the "deconstruction of self" is a means to an end, namely, to nirvana, the complete cessation of suffering.

This is a bit tricky ... There is a lot of literature written about what @Possibility is talking about. But if one isn't familiar with it, it's very difficult to discuss it. It's a huge topic (in fact, in some Buddhist traditions, it is considered so problematic that insiders are forbidden to discuss it with otusiders and newcomers). It's quite optimistic of her to think she can properly present it within a few forum posts.

Yet this self-hood is at the heart of being born at all.. The fact that we even need a way out is something to look at first. If a perspective change happens through some Buddhist technique, the fact is, we were in place A (not Enlightened), and we need to get to place B (Enlightened).

Also, I just don't buy it.. The self-hood thing is part of moving through the world. Most people just can't become Enlightened ascetics (if that's even a metaphysical "thing" to become).. I may want to be the best X, but doesn't mean I will achieve that.. Same with this. In a way it is aligned with a radical perspective in anthropology that sees humans very cognition as being radically different. Sapir-Whorf like.. You see, Eskimos understand snow better because they have more words for different snow... — schopenhauer1

Earlier in the thread, a poster was especially displeased by our suggestion that he is at all times, basically, acting out of boredom.

I wondered thene whether to stop posting in this thread or at least send you a note about where it's likely going to head, given the displeasure of this poster (and some others), and that it might be best not to continue.

You're in a similar situation now like the other posters who took a dim view of your suggestion that they're acting out of boredom. Now, another poster is suggesting something that is outside your scope, and you take a dim view of it.

Just like you're at ease enough with the idea that humans act essentially out of boredom (while not all other people are at ease with this idea), some other people are at ease enough with the idea that selfhood is a construct (while you (and many others) are not at ease with said idea). It's why some people can discuss a particular topic without such discussion causing them unease, and others cannot.

So individuals choose to form an identity.. But that's just not true. Humans function (normally) via enculturation using socio-cultural cues aligning with a whole host of human-traits that we evolved to survive and live in the world. If anything, the desire to shed one's self-hood is simply a recognition of the disappointments of the self that must form as being a functioning human. First comes the identity and then comes the detaching from identity.. There is still a "deal with" situation of moving from attached to not attached.. So now there's that put upon the human born into the world...

There is in some religious/spiritual traditions a warning given that one should not discuss certain religious/spiritual topics with just anyone at just any time in just any setting. This warning is given with good reason, it is intended as a measure to avoid unnecessarily upsetting people, and to avoid wasting one's time.

I haven't seen such consideration emphasized in Western philosophy, but I think it is very much in place.

You are implying that with some sort of dialectic, using your New Age Hegelian approach, I would move "past" antinatalism/pessimism (meaning that this isn't the right view, but I will move to the "right" view).. I will move to the view of the agenda.. that is more people born, more people that must "collaborate". Collaborate (happiness placement holder) damn you! Follow the Possibility self-help plan! Collaborate, connect! By my interactions I will "grow" and "grow out of pessimism" because pessimism is a self-contained thing and not "truth" which is only had by this instrumental process of connecting and collaborating, that leads to awareness.. Yes, yes, this isn't subtlely just asserting that your view is just "right" by using terms like "collaborate, connect". Just hollow buzzwords if said without context. However, what is YOUR agenda with these words? Certainly you think that collaborating and connecting would never lead to Pessimist conclusions.. No, no, so it is MORE than collaborating.. but collaborating towards SOMETHING that YOU HAVE IN MIND. What is that? Oh right, I'm sure if we examine it more it's just a form of (Hegelian-style?) optimism bullshit. You can always just dodge this with more obfuscation around your use of those words or more unnecessary and non-analogous connections with how this algins with physics concepts.. but, go ahead continue.. Or am I isolating you, and thus not ":hearing" you and thus I just won't ever "get it".. again implications that YOU have SOMETHING IN MIND MORE THAN just CONNECTION and COLLABORATION! — schopenhauer1

I'm having the impression that Possibility is actually getting at the constructed nature of selfhood/identity, saying things like this:

I don’t think BEING is supposed to be about survival, subsistence or incorporation at all. That’s the language of consolidation: of an ‘individual’ [note the quote marks] whose perceived ego appears to be forced into a life they wouldn’t choose for themselves. There’s a sense of attachment to self, here. Bhava Tanha - a craving to be something - comes from a misunderstanding of eternalism/permanence. — Possibility

The idea in this kind of thinking is that we suffer and we are convinced that various unfair things befall us (specifically, having been born) because we construe ourselves as persons, because we take for granted that we really exist, as solid entities (but which are nevertheless subject to birth, aging, illness, and death).

In other words, you gripe about having been born because you see yourself as a person. If you didn't see yourself that way, you'd have nothing to gripe about.

Ignore, isolate, exclude... — Possibility

Whatever management seminar you were at where they teach all that about "awareness, connection, and collaboration" ...

Collaboration can only take place between equals. Most of a person's relationships are not with equals, but are hierarchical, so there is actually very little collaboration possible in life. To say that one is "collaborating" with one's boss, one's employees, or one's children is a gross euphemism at best.

Connection is also very limited -- not everyone wants to connect with just anyone else.

For example, from what I've come to know about you here, I am sure that you wouldn't want to "collaborate" or "connect" with me (however you are "aware" of me), but I am sure that you would blame this on me, that I am the one who refuses to "connect" and "collaborate".