Coming soon to Netflix: My Dinner With Agustino. Join VagabondSpectre as he joins his host for a meal at McD's he may never forget... or digest. The conversation is as sparkling as the soft drinks, and there is plenty of food for thought. The nude beach scene alone is worth the price of admission. 15 minutes later, you will be hungry for more! Rated PG for philosophical gourmet. Two thumbs up, way up! (Y) (Y)

It's a tautology. What is caring if not being emotionally invested? It's like saying "You can only eat if you can ingest food". My advice is to rework your thesis. — Reformed Nihilist

Yes, agree. If the current wording is not a tautology, it is at least too close to one and is vaguely worded. But the idea behind it has much potential, in my non-philosophy degreed opinion. How about something like- Beings influence and affect each other despite the lack of any apparent emotional connection. (or not, whichever position you choose). Maybe you could cite people's emotional connection to animals as a counterpoint. Also, possibly explore the "accidental hero" aspect, where strangers are instantly risking their lives for each other. Just an idea. Good luck!

(For what it is worth, some thoughts on the effects of words... )
The choice of words one uses to describe inner conflicts may be a subtle but critical point. I am referring mostly to connotations and possible associated meanings here, rather than strict dictionary definitions (denotations). The word "evil" (as technically accurate as it may be) may possibly not be the most helpful here, as it is a loaded term.

Speaking for myself, the word evil (or Evil) has associations of being extremely powerful, perhaps nearly irresistible or unbeatable, along with being related and similar to the word "Devil". As powerful more or less as "Good", as though it is some kind of dark Dionysian counterbalance to the Apollonian light. Or that evil is the inevitable Yin to the holy Yang, or something. (Both of which it definitely is NOT. But of course evil and wrong will almost always quickly lead to negative and painful consequences. This is a most important ethical and social issue, by all means.)

Personally though, whenever i have thought this way (that good and evil are somehow equally powerful or necessary) and acted upon it, i have gone astray into confusion. At times, there has been almost an obsession concerning evil/devil. Perhaps this is understandable, given the current world circumstances. (Disclaimer: this is NOT meant as a theological statement, affirmation, or denial). But as someone once said, "where attention goes, energy flows". I find it clearer and more effective to use words like wrong, bad, mistake, error, imbalance. They seem to have less baggage than the word "evil". Just a preference one may or may not find useful.

Breaking down the "wrong" into its component ingredients of ignorance, greed, and hatred, as Buddhism does for example, may shed light on how to recognize and neutralize it within oneself. Since most would agree that we can only control ourselves... and often even that is difficult. This is not meant to downplay the seriousness of the issue at all. It is meant more as a strategy to embrace the good in one's life.

One could compare the difference between right and wrong to two people cooking their dinner. One person is cooking it at an optimal temperature, and it is hardly noticeable except for a pleasant aroma. The other person cranked up the heat way too high, and there is smoke and flames which triggers the alarm. A real panic which naturally grabs the attention. An error in judgment leading to danger, but the basic elements are not essentially different than the first case. (just my two cents worth)

Nobody understands that what is real and what exists are not the same. — Wayfarer

Could you say more about this, and in what sense you meant it? I am having a little difficulty (in this thread) detecting irony. And figuring out when aphorisms are demonstrating an example of a "wrong" approach, or are simple statements of one's particular belief. In any case, yours is an interesting point. Thanks! (Y)

With regard to Eastern traditions, the OP uses psychological and sociological terms, as opposed to the terms of any particular worldview. I think these terms have been misused. — Galuchat

One could address the OP in a variety of ways, of course, and not be limited to a certain lingo. But recognizing the potential limits of the human identity/ego is somewhat of a central topic of Eastern philosophies, to be general. So if there is some valuable psychological knowledge there, it can potentially be looked at "scientifically", not necessarily as a matter of faith or belief. Western psychology, from what I have seen, does approach the subject, and various pathologies. Eg. the work of Freud and especially Jung. But it seems the prevailing current view of the self/ego/identity is something like "what limits? why be such a downer! we are all superheroes! full speed ahead". IMHO, YMMV.

But the use of these terms should correspond with current science, and with common sense where science is lacking. — Galuchat

Certainly! No problem with science or logic at all. (Y)

The usual definition of polytheism is (according to Wikipedia): the worship of or belief in multiple deities, which are usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own religions and rituals. In most religions which accept polytheism, the different gods and goddesses are representations of forces of nature or ancestral principles, and can be viewed either as autonomous or as aspects or emanations of a creator God or transcendental absolute principle (monistic theologies), which manifests immanently in nature (panentheistic and pantheistic theologies).

It seems that what has arisen is a sort of an "accidental polytheism". Or maybe an "antagonistic polytheism". By which I refer to the effect of clashing monotheistic systems. For example, when you have a Christian believer say in complete sincerity that "Al--h is literally the devil" (not to pick on anybody specifically, because this attitude goes both ways), there is a major disconnect in what monotheism means beneath its tribal roots. Perhaps a particular understanding of the Deity worked for a particular relatively small group of people at one time. That belief system gave the group a unity. But trying to have a global religion with a small-group mentality is beyond an ill-fit, it is more like having a roaring campfire in a drought-stricken forest. If a religious belief system cannot adapt to changing circumstances, then a million hard-core fundamentalist "true believers" hunting heretics and witches will not save it.

The solution to this clash of beliefs? Maybe God only knows. Even so, we best hazard an educated guess. Flexibility? Compassion? Non-literal interpretations? Another possible view of the "holy writ"? Something else? Your educated guess is as good as mine.

For those who would like to see a world with a more accepting attitude towards the human body in all its various shapes and sizes, the strongest "enemy" may not be the cliched religious prudery. Ironically, the apparent body-positivity of ESPN magazine's "body issue" (and similar hyped media skin marketing) promotes a competitiveness and hyper-body consciousness. While it may be temptingly easy to think that the selfie-inspired culture promotes healthy a lifestyle and diet, it mostly seems to add to the distorted body images so many people have. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to fall into Narcissis's pool these days. One might be better off not being deceived by the "body positive" spiel when it mostly falls back on the standard "sexy sells" marketing ploy. Their immediate goal is to move product, and being all "body-positive" like SI's swimsuit issue featuring slightly larger women, will likely have an overall negative effect on our comfort about our bodies, imho.

Listening to the Tao Te Ching in audiobook format is helpful, i find. Just letting it play over and over and letting the various meanings sink in. Ursula LeGuin's translation/reading is excellent. https://www.amazon.com/Lao-Tzu-Tao-Ching-Shambhala/dp/1570623740/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1498698516&sr=8-7&keywords=tao+te+ching+audiobook

And Jacob Needleman's wonderfully deep voice and nuanced reading add to this classic translation by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English. https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Te-Ching/dp/B0000544P8/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1498698516&sr=8-6&keywords=tao+te+ching+audiobook

As mentioned above, Stephen Mitchell's translation is a more modern take perhaps. https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Te-Ching-Author-published/dp/B00Y4RNUC0/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1498698516&sr=8-14&keywords=tao+te+ching+audiobook

I am my self (a subject having unique life experiences). Since self awareness (the combination of sentience and self identification) produces personal experience, if I am not my thoughts (and physiological processes), then I am not a subject, hence; do not exist.

Also, my awareness of my thoughts (meta-cognition) is itself a mental (thinking) process. So, if I am not my thoughts, how can I be my thoughts about my thoughts? — Galuchat

Are you = your thoughts? Or do you have thoughts? That is quite a leap to say if one is not equivalent to their thoughts then they do not exist. It seems a bit unnecessary to take it that far, but of course, who's to judge? I believe the reference was to the "unseen seer" in Eastern traditions which is distinguished from the usual flow of thinking per se. Some find it a useful and specific difference, especially in calming the mind, as you were probably aware.

Sounds like you have just given a general description of Buddhism. :)

(Y) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I would sign off on it and agree with that. Glad that it has helped pull you through difficult times. I seem to know (hopefully) what you are getting at, and have had more or less similar discussions with people close to me. It is hard to put things like these into words, though imho your post is well-worded. It is mostly clear by your explanation what you mean by the word "discard"; that one would assume that you don't mean it in some absolute, otherworldly, or impractical way. I would not want someone to read the thread title, and jump to conclusions.

When i have had discussions with others about this general point of view, sometimes that misunderstanding accidentally occurs. They may think i am saying the ego is bad, or that humans are selfish thus bad, or that I think everyone has an ego problem except me. (Which is not the case). Just trying not to get locked into some self-made prison of static identity, which tends to be limiting like prisons are. The aim perhaps is to make one's ego into a secure home which can offer protection from various elements and creatures, including other humans. While avoiding turning one's inner self into kind of an armed, windowless and isolated fortress (so to speak). Have tried that and it is not very pleasant or productive. I think that was your point overall, and please respond if you'd like. Thanks again.

Question: is the "DEALTHmatch"in the thread title intentional, or a typo? If intended, could you please explain? Thanks!

Thanks for the clarification, that helps to see where you were going with that thought. I would tend to agree with what you said here about wishful thinking. We seek wisdom, not wishdom! The Buddhist teaching of the Three Poisons is illuminating. Greed, hatred, ignorance make the karmic world go around (to summarize pithily). Self-deception is an ever-present pitfall. (Not unlike the cool tarot card pictured in your avatar, btw (Y)). What seems to help me is to have self-confidence on one hand balanced by a healthy self-skepticism on the other hand. Without either i tend to get off the track and into a ditch very quickly. YMMV.

I know, same here! Ize just being silly and yankin your chainsaw. ;)

Aerobic exercise benefits aside, isn't following oneself kind of chasing your own tail? :D jk!

When I first saw this thread, thought it said "What Philosophical School of Thought do you FAIL in?
And I thought, well, most of them... :-d

I'm sorry to burst the bubble here but I find the Tao Te Ching to be like a horoscope - ambiguous and vague enough to fool people into believing something which they really wouldn't. — TheMadFool

There is no bubble to burst! The Tao accepts questioning, laughter, being ignored, and honors like they are all the same. The Tao, the highest good, is like water. It will wash stinky feet without complaint, and will flow over solid gold without boasting. But i see what you may be referring to. The TTC may seem like some New Age advice which can have all the firmness and flavor of a wet noodle. To which I would say that much of the cliche-sounding New Age wisdom is a copy of a copy of texts like the Tao Te Ching, imho. But chapter 67 anticipates this question, and answers better than i ever could:

Some say that my teaching is nonsense.
Others call it lofty but impractical.
But to those who have looked inside themselves,
this nonsense makes perfect sense.
And to those who put it into practice,
this loftiness has roots that go deep. I have just three things to teach:
simplicity, patience, compassion.
These three are your greatest treasures.
Simple in actions and in thoughts,
you return to the source of being.
Patient with both friends and enemies,
you accord with the way things are.
Compassionate toward yourself,
you reconcile all beings in the world.

Didn't think he was arguing against logic per se, if that is what you meant. That would be highly illogical, Captain. :B

Yes, I would agree with that pithy assessment of one the core tenets of the TTC. I would just say that in addition to "speaking the map", one could "be in the territory". This meaning a kind of raw direct experience of having one's feet on the ground, and actually seeing the area represented by the map. I think the TTC encourages us to recognize and value this unmediated experience, which it calls "the uncarved block". Of course, any concepts formed and words then spoken about such experiences are then "map speaking", as accurate, helpful, and honest as they may be. (Y)

We seem to be always needing something, always lacking somehow. Hungry or thirsty. Needing oxygen, movement, rest, light, and more. Finding completeness in the lack is to know the stillness in the eye of a hurricane. From chapters 34 and 35:
The great Tao flows everywhere.
All things are born from it,
yet it doesn't create them.
It pours itself into its work,
yet it makes no claim.
It nourishes infinite worlds,
yet it doesn't hold on to them...

...Music or the smell of good cooking
may make people stop and enjoy.
But words that point to the Tao
seem monotonous and without flavor.
When you look for it, there is nothing to see.
When you listen for it, there is nothing to hear.
When you use it, it is inexhaustible.

Just small but important point, to repeat what I posted before. Buddhism is most definitely not going away. Currently around 5 million adherents. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_by_country
And this projection has them not disappearing. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/buddhists/
Buddhists are on six continents, and it would not be surprising if some Antarctican researchers were followers too. It might be interesting if Islam and Christianity could armwrestle for the heavyweight title, but it is not the only show in town. Thanks. Carry on!

Well, to some extent it is probably hard-wired in humans to be drawn to certain qualities- in food, in clothing, mates, leaders, etc. But I would agree that in our current culture, this can sometimes go overboard. On one hand there seems to be a repressiveness of any quality that we seem to share with animals, leaving us sipping our tea bemoaning the uncivilized. On the other, some seem to revel in hooting and screeching like a band of chimps because it's more real or primal or something. Not to fall prey to a Goldilocks fallacy, and suggest that i have found the perfect balance spot in this matter or anything else. Just playing darts in the dark. I generally think of the ideal hierarchy as an incline. One goes up as one takes on more responsibility or as ability seems to suggest. There is upward and downward flexibility, and downward doesn't necessarily mean "bad", just less responsibility. A total "vertical" type hierarchy just seems too static. Too top-heavy with power, and too bottom heavy with sheer number of "peasants". A totally flat and equal hierarchy placing everyone on the exact same level is also unworkable for very long.

For a different perspective on the question, how about a slight twist on the wording of the thread title:
Is everyone generally submissive to the alpha male? In modern civilization, should they be? Is it sometimes in their best interest to be? Is there such thing as an "alpha male" when discussing humans? And is there a corresponding "alpha female", or is there a certain genderless quality to it? Is there a point where even the strong leader overreaches, and the ripe fruit becomes rotten? If humans are arguably territorial to a point, starting with basic "personal space" and expanding from there, at what point do "territorial markings" just make things reek of urine? What to do when bravery degrades to empty bluster, and communication vaporizes into mere hot air?

Hello, welcome, and thank you for sharing your thoughts and situation. Would it help to hear that your feelings may be more of the norm, rather than the exception? Hopefully so. Understanding that each person's particular situation is... well, particular and unique. Definitely not trying to downplay your situation at all (quite the opposite), because it seems like a crucial crossroad that might be a make-or-break moment for you. There is a recent thread concerning this general area that I found helpful:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1440/philosophy-of-depression-

Several other similar threads too. But please feel most free to continue your discussion here! I'm not familiar with Zapffe, thanks i will check out his work. If it helps you, then that is good. And thanks again; best wishes and peace to you. (At the risk of annoying everyone by quoting the Tao Te Ching yet again, i'll just say that i find it most helpful and clarifying. YMMV).
:)

↪0 thru 9

Shouldn't just repeat stuff you don't understand to look a certain way. — Wosret

Probably! But wouldn't that eliminate 97% of this forum? :D

Lol! Actually, He may have had to wash their feet every day like messy children. They kept stepping in donkey manure. :o

What was the first thing that Jesus did when he said that he was going to lead his disciples? — Wosret

I forget. The washing of their feet was at the Last Supper, wasn't it? So it is not that...

Paused to take a breath? — Michael

Lol. Yes, like "Here it goes. I wonder if I should just move to a relaxing seaside villa and reconsider the whole teaching thing" :D

Cheers. I love medium format film. :) — jamalrob

(Y) thank you!

The Last Unicorn. Both the original novel/fable by Peter Beagle and the wonderfully adapted musical film touch on themes that seem to reach the core of the human experience. To paraphrase the quote about history: Those that do not learn from the Archetypes are bound to be controlled by them.
To me, the movie is transcendent and immanent, real and unreal all at once. It seems to be a whisper from paradise, or from our lost history. Love Christopher Lee's King Haggard. Similar to his portrayal of Sauromon, the voice of doom is given proper weight and almost Shakespearen tragic beauty.

Then there is the concept of "leading from behind", like a parent watching a child who is running ahead. I could not say better than this:

All streams flow to the sea
because it is lower than they are.
Humility gives it its power. If you want to govern the people,
you must place yourself below them.
If you want to lead the people,
you must learn how to follow them. The Master is above the people,
and no one feels oppressed.
She goes ahead of the people,
and no one feels manipulated.
The whole world is grateful to her.
Because she competes with no one,
no one can compete with her.

- chapter 66 of the DaoDeJing

@jamalrob posted this photo in the Shoutbox. Seems very beautiful and deep. (Can't figure how to re-post the photo, but here's the link:)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/79034

Thanks for your thoughts. Very helpful. Should get credit for 5 posts on the length alone. ;)

Still strong after about 2500 years. Don't think it is going anywhere. Saw a projection that has its numbers going up until 2030, then declining somewhat to 2050. Not sure how one would figure numbers 30 years in advance for that type of thing. Anyway, in the West it doesn't seem to be a "bring your family to services" type of thing. I would think the influence of its ideas and practices far outweigh the number of people sitting in the pews, or on the cushion, as it were.

With all due respect...

Remember when I mentioned before that, in my opinion, this thread was coming dangerously close to being evangelism? Well, with that last post of yours it seems you have unabashedly become an evangelist, the preacher to save all of humanity ("battle for the soul of man"), starting apparently with the nihilistic atheists and the holders of other worldviews present here. One could quote several individual sentences to support that, but what is more relevant is the whole tone and tenor of your post, which caps off where the thread seemed to be headed all along. Evangelism is discouraged, if not outright prohibited by this forum's guidelines. And for good reason, I believe. This forum, as far as I honestly understand it, is not the virtual equivalent of a street corner, where absolute free speech seems to rule. I am not going debate you point-for-point on which religion (and related political position) or worldview will be or should be crowned eventual World Champion, because it appears that you believe it to be a settled matter. And please don't suggest that if a sensitive soul is offended by your posts, not to read this thread. That would be obscuring the issue, which to repeat, is your engaging in evangelism.

Please understand this is not meant as an attack even on your beliefs or viewpoints, let alone on you as an individual or esteemed member of this forum. I am actually sympathetic to many of the views you hold, for whatever that is worth. I generally enjoy your posts, and admire your passion and scholarship. And I think for the most part, your posts show respect and courtesy. It is the approach that seems to me both unproductive and against the guidelines. Because I unfortunately have to say that here it seems that you are just pissing on anything that contradicts your manifesto, for lack of a better way to put it.

This is simply my honest and hopefully constructive opinion. If the moderators or other members wish to tell me that I have misunderstood the guidelines or am off-base, that would be welcome.

I was simply quoting Wikipedia about the different ages of consent in various parts of North America. Probably off-topic. Sorry if that was so upsetting. Want to talk and share about it? You are among friends here. Though i am not a therapist. I am not even a lawyer, let alone a supreme arbiter of Universal Justice.

Hey, if Ted Nugent can put aside the harsh words, surely we can too.

You're a creep. Why would I not call a spade a spade? — Heister Eggcart

Ad hominem. Care to take it back?

This thread is in the philosophy of religion section. If you can't even discuss religion there, where can you discuss it then? We're discussing the evolution and relationship amongst religions, including, yes, deciding and talking about which religion is best. You have an issue with that? Has it hit your "politically incorrect" button? — Agustino

Alright... i may have exaggerated. But in my opinion, not by very much. This is more like "the politics of Religion". But I'm splitting hairs. It is what is. If I didn't think it was worthy of discussion, I would ignore it. Carry on! (Y)

Wait... did you just say which religion is best? What is this, the Super Bowl? X-)

What may or may not be lawful does not make it right or wrong — Heister Eggcart

Good one. Well... the law of the land (whatever land it is) is definitely NOT perfect. And religious wisdom guides us hopefully. And in that spirit, would you mind terribly stopping the uncalled-for insults, dear chap? Thanks.

From Wikipedia:

The age of consent in Canada is 16. All U.S. states set their limits between 16 and 18. The age of consent in Mexico is complex. Typically, Mexican states have a "primary" age of consent (which may be as low as 12), and sexual conduct with persons below that age is always illegal.
Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia

And this was over a thousand years ago. Please take the time to get the facts at least somewhat straight. And chuck you, Farley! (L) X-) (L)

Indeed, fervor is the key. I see atheists as spiritual beings of a sort. Atheists are profound thinkers. They have looked deeply at the universe and come to an understanding – a knowing. This knowing has logic, but more importantly it is a feeling of what is right. After all the logic and reasoning is done they arrive at a conclusion – an evaluation. The conclusion is almost superfluous to their sense of being settled. What we seek is to be settled – we want to know – something. This knowing is a spiritual journey – no matter what you think. The journey is special and it is worthy. Atheism is a religion of one. It doesn’t matter if they think they are God or there is no God. They have come to a knowing. What we see in an atheist intellect is courage – this is noble.

Is it right? Who cares – it is a conclusion of significance. The significance is that they have a feeling – a knowing. We live our entire life moving from one feeling to another. We play leap frog in our minds from one moment to the next. The feelings are what makes our journey unique and it is a spiritual quest to find ourselves. To know thyself is a holy quest and it is unending. I applaud the man or woman of courage who seeks their own destiny and knowing. Those people who line up to be told what to think – do not show much courage. — Thinker

For at least this post, i agree, fwiw. And commend you on the attempt to see the big picture, to see both sides of the spinning coin. (Y)