Often the thought occurs to me... usually during a bout of insomnia... do you or I really and truly object to “the way things are”? Do we really want a radical change? (Culturally or civilizationally speaking, as opposed to existentially or “naturally”). Or do we merely object to our status in the grand pecking order?

In other words, does one simply want to reshuffle the deck of cards in hopes of a better hand... or on the other hand, quit this game and play something else? (I would suppose holding both views is possible, especially if one recognized the “reshuffling” to be a band-aid, quick-fix, stopgap kind of thing).

I could say that it is our Source, our Soul, our essential Energy
— Bodhisattva

I’m afraid that is something that bodhisattvas do not suppose. The hallmark of the bodhisattva path is no essential self. So by all means believe it, but do at least consider changing your forum name. — Wayfarer

Thanks for your input, as always. I see your point, and wouldn’t necessarily completely disagree. But... with all due respect, your reply could perhaps come across to some as a little terse, narrow, or cut-and-dried. Most likely unintentional. One would think an answer to that question might be more nuanced. If you could expound upon your answer, that might leaven the bread a bit (so to speak). Your reply to me earlier in this thread was a helpful thumbnail sketch:

actually that quotation you’ve provided on buddhanature does come close to heterodoxy from a Buddhist p.o.v. That’s because the Buddha always denied an unchanging kernel, essence or nature, in distinction from the Brahmin principle of there being a higher self. Buddha-nature refers to an innate capacity or potential for enlightenment, but that is not the same as positing an unchanging essence or self. It’s a subtle but important distinction. (Also important to note that not all Buddhist schools accept or teach in terms of buddha nature - you would rarely if at all find it mentioned in Theravada Buddhism.) — Wayfarer

I think the concept/teaching of anatta is most relevant to this thread. And (to risk a metaphor), our culture in general is suffering a scurvy-like disease from the general lack of this “nutrient”. (IMHO, we construct vast cities and tall buildings on the murky swampland of “self”. The separate self may be the archetypal fiat currency, the foundation of our civilization... as well as its discontents).

To be perhaps overly general.... it appears to me that the crux of the concept is on there not being a permanent, unchanging, and separate self. The relative self could be said to exist, as in “the small self”. A non-absolute self, with a lowercase “s”, always in the state of flux, and interdependent with the rest of life and existence. That’s just my quick take (and open to revision or correction) on this very profound teaching...

This article from Tricycle magazine is interesting. (a little long, rest of it is hidden):

The Buddha was careful to classify questions according to how they should be answered, based on how helpful they were to gaining awakening. Some questions deserved a categorical answer, that is, one that holds true across the board. Some he answered analytically, redefining or refining the terms before answering. Some required counter-questioning, to clarify the issue in the questioner’s mind. But if the question was an obstacle on the path, the Buddha put it aside.

When Vacchagotta the wanderer asked him point-blank whether or not there is a self, the Buddha remained silent, which means that the question has no helpful answer. As he later explained to Ananda, to respond either yes or no to this question would be to side with opposite extremes of wrong view (Samyutta Nikaya 44.10). Some have argued that the Buddha didn’t answer with “no” because Vacchagotta wouldn’t have understood the answer. But there’s another passage where the Buddha advises all the monks to avoid getting involved in questions such as “What am I?” “Do I exist?” “Do I not exist?” because they lead to answers like “I have a self” and “I have no self,” both of which are a “thicket of views, a writhing of views, a contortion of views” that get in the way of awakening (Majjhima Nikaya 2).

my perso al definition of Spirit is that it is the very essence of who we are as human beings. It is very difficult to articulate this belief in words. I could say that it is our Source, our Soul, our essential Energy. And, as energy never dies, our Spirit never dies. It is strongly connected to our true nature, our character. I had a very strong bond with my late mother. If I need extra courage, for example, I ask her to help me. And I have felt her loving presence very strongly at those times. I would call that her Spirit
But nothing whatsoever to do with "ghosts". I dont believe in all that rubbish. I realise this is all very subjective! It is an interesting question. — Bodhisattva

Thanks for that. I similarly think that there is some correlation and/or connection between spirit and energy. They both seem to be the invisible “yin” to matter’s (mostly) visible “yang”, to be speculative for a moment. Of course, I don’t think spirit and energy are close to being synonymous. But there might be some kind of Venn diagram type overlap. (This is all metaphysics, so I hope no one is waiting for charts, graphs, and hard numbers! :grin: )

But when I think of spirit, am I thinking of the 'same' spirit as you? — YuZhonglu

1. I don’t know. Perhaps.
2. It might depend on who you are asking.
3. Who is the one asking this question? (don’t we all enjoy an answerless koan on occasion? :smile: )

Without trying to define or explain what consciousness is (we understand it well enough for anything except a direct investigation of consciousness itself), how would you incorporate our unconscious minds into what you say? Our current understanding is that most of our mental abilities are unconscious, so it might be a little rash to assume that "Consciousness is our truest identity", without further qualification? — Pattern-chaser

Thanks again for the most relevant question. I think the term used to describe this luminous mind or pure consciousness is “the witness”. This refers not to the objects of the mind, but to the clear awareness itself, said to be as empty as the sky. It could be described as the consciousness of consciousness. The light itself, prior to and beyond anything illuminated by that light. Or perhaps the mirror, not the reflections. I would imagine this is central to our very being. All others aspects of self and mind (such as unconscious, memory, perception, sensation, etc.) remain as present, important, and functional as always. Perhaps the scope of the light could widen, bringing that which was unconscious into consciousness. That would nice. But in either case, the center is the witness rather than any content. This, to me, seems to be the essence of an individual self. If there could said to be a “next step”, I would say it would be Non-dualistic awareness, as taught in Advaita Vendanta. Also relevant (and more clearly worded than my attempts) are the teachings concerning Buddha-nature and Emptiness.

From The Tao Te Ching (chapter 2), trans. by S. Mitchell:
Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.

From Wikipedia on Buddha Nature:
According to Wayman, the idea of the tathagatagarbha is grounded on sayings by the Buddha that there is something called the luminous mind "which is only adventitiously covered over by defilements (agantukaklesa)"[20] The luminous mind is mentioned in a passage from the Anguttara Nikaya: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements." The Mahāsāṃghika school coupled this idea of the luminous mind with the idea of the mulavijnana, the substratum consciousness that serves as the basis consciousness.

From the idea of the luminous mind emerged the idea that the awakened mind is the pure (visuddhi), undefiled mind. In the tathagatagarbha-sutras it is this pure consciousness that is regarded to be the seed from which Buddhahood grows: When this intrinsically pure consciousness came to be regarded as an element capable of growing into Buddhahood, there was the "embryo (garbha) of the Tathagata (=Buddha)" doctrine, whether or not this term is employed.

so it might be a little rash to assume that "Consciousness is our truest identity", without further qualification? — Pattern-chaser

It was VERY rash of me to say so! Lol. Rash, premature, primative theory about something perhaps indescribable. Almost certainly unprovable. Like a caveman making a crude paper bag out of leaves, and constructing one of those little floating “hot-air balloons” powered by a flame underneath, in a crude attempt to model a flying machine. It might need a whole book to answer, or more likely years of silent meditation. In other words, I need some time to chew on this excellent question... leaving the floor open to @Wayfarer or someone else to field it.

Thank you much for your reply. :smile:

There is a series of aphorisms in one Upaniṣad, along the lines that 'the eye cannot see itself, the hand cannot grasp itself'. I think it's an important pointer to how we go about thinking about 'spirit' because what is often done is what I consider 'objectification'. But there is no such object of perception or cognition - it is never a 'that' (or even 'it'!) I think in non-dualist philosophy, spirit is the 'being' of beings, so not an objective reality. — Wayfarer

:up: Consciousness is our truest identity, if we have one at all, I would say. The empty space in which everything else unfolds, if it can even be roughly and vaguely described. And it would seem possible that “one” consciousness is somehow in some way connected with “all” consciousness...

In ancient Egypt, the hearts of the dead were measured against the feather of Maat, to determine their passage in to the afterlife. Maat being truth, law and balance.
Should the hearts outweigh the feather, they are be fed to Ammut - which would lead to a second death.

Now, swap out Ammut for the ego; the constant cravings for fame, power, items and so forth.
You feed over yourself and all your time, trying to please a thing that won't be pleased, and whereas you may have lived a content life, gratifying yourself - you throw everything away and start chasing a dangling carrot. And so, by throwing life away during the act of living, acquire a second death - realised at the moment of passing away, when all your regrets suddenly start piling up. — Shamshir

Thanks for sharing that. I think our general nature (somewhere in there) is to have enough, no more, no less. Our “cultural conditioning” on the other hand, says MOAR! To the victors go the spoils, to the victims go the toils. So moar is always better!

It is a useful skill to be able to tell your cultural conditioning to shut up sometimes.

The amount of nuclear waste is trivial (would fit in a football field stacked a meter high). — Wallows

Not in my backyard, dangumit! :mask: I will concede that it is renewable non-fossil fuel that may end up saving us, especially with some improvements. It needs top-notch equipment and personnel, which this cost-cutting economy seems averse to. I think The Simpsons and Chernobyl have soured me on the whole nuclear deal. I can be bribed to change my mind though...

Haha, I remember the idiocy of the "atomic for peace" campaign... — Wallows

Yea, nuclear fission energy with all its dangers and radioactive waste, is not really sustainable. And it simultaneously makes me cringe and chuckle when reflecting on the fact that they used to put uranium into dentures, for that glow-in-the-dark smile. :grimace:

@Janus
(Hope you don’t mind that I’m responding to your post from another similar thread by the same OP here, since this thread is getting more traffic. From here.)

Yes, I think what is needed is a change of consciousness as I already said. I don't know if that change will come easily, or if it will be forced upon us by dire circumstance.

Our worldview, as Charles Eisenstein points out in The Ascent of Humanity (2007) is based on the perceptions that we are all ultimately separate entities and that resources are scarce, that nature is not an abundant giver, but is "red in tooth and claw", and must be conquered and forced to yield up its secrets so that they may be exploited to the maximum. Our worldview is based on the perception of separation, scarcity and threat, which leads to our desperate, mindless pursuit of having at the expense of being in order to "protect" ourselves from nature. Another symptom of this is that accumulations of knowledge are privileged over transformations of wisdom, both practical and spiritual.

Now, contrary to that dire view of nature, it has in fact been extremely bountiful, the rise of technological humanity from the cradle of agriculture has been possible due to that profuse bounty, not the least of which has been the super cheap energy of fossil fuels. The gloabl aspect of nature's providence has been a remarkably stable climate. But that bounty is dwindling fast, while we are continuing to be stuck on the need for constant growth and acquisition.

Credit just is the promise of greater abundance in the future; but that greater abundance, barring some unforeseen technological miracle, is simply not going to materialize. How many people can accept this simple fact, though? It seems that most of humanity is still in a state of denial.

So, I think what needs to be accepted is that our super prosperous lifestyles have been a flash in the pan evolutionarily speaking, and that they will not be possible for much longer. It will not be possible to raise the poor of the third world into middle class lifestyles. Middle class lifestyles will soon be a thing of the past.

That we will be mining the asteroids and traveling to the stars, or even that renewable energy will allow us to continue our prosperous lifestyles are hubristic, deluded techno-fantasies. We should be accepting that we must change our lifestyles, probably returning to more locally based, agrarian ways and forget about globalization and world travel, since it will most likely not be possible without abundant, cheap energy, or unless population is drastically reduced.

Another helpful change of viewpoint would be to recognize that no one is really in control, it is like we are on a freight train careening out of control, inevitably to be derailed and crash, no one knows exactly when, while we party on, oblivious to what is unfolding. — Janus

Charles Eisenstein, as you mention, has IMHO some very creative, interesting, and useful thoughts on the general topic of “Western civilization” (ie. Where are we? How did we get here? Where are we going? Can we improve anything?) For me, he kind of picks up where the late Daniel Quinn left off, and builds upon that foundation, and that of Jared Diamond and others, as well. For those interested, Mr. Eisenstein generously has the excellent book you mentioned, The Ascent of Humanity, as well as several other of his works on the general topic, available to read for free on his website. (Donations graciously accepted, of course... And Amazon has a deal on the combo print and audiobook versions of The Ascent of Humanity $14.99 for both. Good deal, as the audiobook is over 27 hours long, lol!)

Oh; but, how the Japanese circa the end of WWII disagree here, along with the scientists that created the atomic bomb felt guilt and repugnance at their own creation. — Wallows

Agreed. I would propose that each “tecreation” (product of technology) exists within a “spectrum of help or harm”. Some products, like lamps, have very little harm built into them. (Although almost anything could be used as a blunt weapon). Some things, like nuclear weapons, are solely for the purpose of killing. They seem unable to be “beat into plowshares”, so to speak.

Because we NEED IT, dammit, no time for politeness.
— 0 thru 9

No, no, no... We want it. Needs have been met a long time ago. Wants and values are endlessly manufactured out of thin air. It's amazing really how malleable expectations are, and how this endless lack is perpetuated ad infinitum... — Wallows

I meant that line to be read ironically... as in the character of a capitalist mining boss (with dangling cigar) or something. Sorry, should have put it in quotes. Anyway, I agree with your statement that wants are endless, even though needs are not. We are like the hungry ghosts of Buddhism.

Our weakness is not our intelligence, but our stubbornness, fear, and isolation. These weaknesses are encouraged by the powers that be. But as powerful as they may be, it is not them who must be overcome. It is the ideology behind them that is antiquated, toxic, and overdue for a change...
— 0 thru 9

Hmm, this is somewhat distorted. Homeostasis eventually tells us, through self-regulation that we have enough, yet we endlessly watch TV and other outlets that perpetuate our alienation and disenfranchisement with ourselves and others. And, this is why I dropped out of college. The noble institution that it once was has been perverted and subjugated to the demands of the economy. I see no solution to this problem. Perhaps, I need to become more religious to stave off the wallowing. — Wallows

Sorry if that wasn’t clear. May have been in semi-rant mode, lol. I meant that all of us in general have enough intelligence. The issues are more in the psychological realm than the intellectual one. And that is perhaps better not to fight against particular “bad guys”. Rather maybe better to perceive, then attempt to change/improve the system of ideas, feelings, and images. Change the mythology, if you will. (Mythology being used neutrally here as meaning a system of beliefs that underlie a culture, mostly subconsciously. Religious or not, functional or not.)

The question always seems to be: where will the money come from? If the money is taken from the rich, by massively increasing taxation at the higher income levels, reintroducing death taxes or disallowing inheritance (above a certain level say) and the money gained thereby is given to the poorer sectors, then sales of luxury items that only the very rich can afford will decline, and they will decline to the degree that the wealthy are, so to speak impoverished.

If these industries generally decline and some even collapse what effect will this have on the global economy, if everything is interconnected, as it seems to be, in complex, and increasingly complex, ways?

Also, if the poorer people have more money to spend, then there may be a shortage of goods, which will cause inflation. Of course that would not seem to be a problem now, with inflation at historically low levels. It's a very complex situation, but I think whichever way you look at it, the current level of prosperity cannot continue, and bringing ever more people up to that level is unsustainable.

The only hope would seem to be that everyone very gradually reduces their level of consumption, particularly of fossil fuels; just to the degree that avoids collapsing current industries. But it would seem to be impossible to enforce, such a "rationing", or even quantify how austere would need to be, and people generally seem too complacently self-centered and unable to sustain voluntary cooperation for such a thing to come about through the "will of the people", anyway, even if they could know just how frugal they needed to be. — Janus

:up: Thanks for that take on the economic situation. Every adjustment to one group affects the whole. It’s mind boggling. I think nearly everyone is resistant to change, including the less wealthy. Being less wealthy myself, often I see proposed change as a trick or con. What’s the catch? I think suspiciously. There is very little trust on any side. It reminds one of trench warfare. I am for a “meritocracy”, where there is incentive to achieve and create. Still, a universal basic income, whether joined with a public works program or local currency or not, seems like an idea whose time is quickly approaching. But as I mentioned above, the situation is in a gridlock logjam mostly continued by those with the gold. And the opportunity for any significant change won’t happen as long as the “1%” keep throwing monkey wrenches into the machine, to put it politely. (And the political leaders who officially rubber-stamp the whole deal likely won’t change of their own accord, either. They are implicated in the whole process. The two party system is simply two sides of the same old gold coin).

There is no real reason, except capital gain and perhaps inertia, that each area or country cannot mostly make its own goods. (Though this would require time, effort, and investment of course). The manufacturing drain from the US for the last 40 or so years has been devastating. And the reason was purely profit-driven. The advantages of having each community more or less self-sufficient in many goods are many. More employment and less travel, fuel, and effort required for getting goods from creation to consumer. Shipping goods across the world is unnecessarily wasteful. Of course, there will still be some trade between states and nations, just not as much. And large cities will never be completely self-sufficient within their boundaries, foodwise most of all. But why on earth must most of our clothing come from the other side of the world? Also as already mentioned, planned obsolescence is a drain on the environment, everything, and everyone, except to those selling the products. But even they are affected eventually.

People want too much, and can't carry the burden of it.
It's always pushing and pulling; an overstressed heart.
A heart attack is a learning experience for some and a death sentence for others. — Shamshir

Yes, interesting metaphor. A heart clogged with stuff, but desperate for love and a feeling of belonging. Can we be open again? Can we cast off, like torn and soiled clothing, the tiresome and strained ways that no longer work for us? (That is, if they ever really helped us at all).

Well, everything is becoming automated. The Luddites were aware of this impending doom to their welfare and claimed that machines should be banned from becoming the means of production, yet here we are enjoying ourselves due to these machines that are sorting your mail or building new electric cars.

Keep in mind that things are progressing in a manner where costs are decreasing or remaining stable comparatively to inflation. This is just me pointing out the fact that technology, productivity increases, and efficiency gains - through automation and other factors - are causing deflationary tendencies in the economy, not inflationary. — Wallows

I can appreciate the thinking and optimism behind this, and your other posts. And I can see the logic, and partially agree. Science, knowledge, and technological advancements have both a neutrality and a goodness. Keep the knowledge and technical abilities, lose the rapacious and devouring modus operandi. Easier said than done, by far. It’s not just the climate, oil, deforestation, and pollution problems, bad as they may be.

There is something fundamentally wrong with our culture. Not with humans, since humans, in one form or another, lived upon the earth for millions of years as relatively harmlessly as apes, snakes, and squirrels. Survival of the fittest involves killing, but only a small-scale “necessary” killing for food and reproduction. We were the first to evolve to be smart enough to commit planetary murder-suicide. (Even putting aside nuclear weapons for the moment). We are the first to be at war with everything, including the earth itself. By war, I mean a violent conquering operation. If there is coal we want in a mountain, level it completely and leave a pile of gravel. Because we NEED IT, dammit, no time for politeness. Rape is the name for it, on a large (and therefore invisible) scale. There are many Sarumans, not just one evil wizard as in The Lord of the Rings. It is measurable ratio here: the injustice and violence that a culture unleashes on the earth, will be unleashed upon its citizens in due time. And will render such culture ultimately unsustainable on many levels. We are sawing off the branch we are sitting on, and developing more powerful saws every year.

Humans as a species can’t go backwards. We can’t live in caves again, or even mostly in small villages. Huge cities are here to stay. But we are smart and inventive enough to learn from our mistakes and find solutions. The solutions are already out there, like seeds waiting to sprout. There are those who would kill the sprouts as a contender to their throne. Our weakness is not our intelligence, but our stubbornness, fear, and isolation. These weaknesses are encouraged by the powers that be. But as powerful as they may be, it is not them who must be overcome. It is the ideology behind them that is antiquated, toxic, and overdue for a change...

where are the resources, both economic and energy, not to mention scientific and technological, going to come from to build all those robots? And where is the money going to come from to radically transform all the existing infrastructure to serve the new regime? And where is all the money to support all the humans who will be out of work going to come from? Where is the political cooperation, globally speaking, going to come from? Where is the willingness to sacrifice our precious lifestyles, not to mention the knowledge as to precisely how and to what degree to do it going to come from? — Janus

I’m not a believer in robot saviors-servents either. Not that I think robots will turn into Terminators. It’s the ones pulling their strings, the man behind the curtain, that is more worrying.

What brought us to this state is the triumph of the American Empire (let's call it AE). AE became the dominant global power in the aftermath of WW2. And following the collapse of the USSR, AE's global supremacy was basically unquestioned. However, America doesn't like to think of itself as an empire. AE doesn't conquer nations or set up colonies. Rather, it rules by trade. AE dominates other countries by giving them no other option than to business with it. And when you do business with AE, you do business on AE's terms.

In a lot of ways, America does a much better job at ruling than its imperial predecessors. It goes to war less frequently than the Romans did, and it doesn't violently impose its culture upon other peoples the way the British did. But because Ae rules through economic might, it's caused wealth and power to become nearly synonymous. And that, I think, is why we are so obsessed with filling our coffers and raising our GDPs no matter the human cost. Under the current global order, money makes the world go round. You can't do anything without money. All the noble objectives you want to accomplish require an enormous amount of money. And in order to get that money, you need to act like a greedy soulless capitalist. — Dusty of Sky

Thanks for the insightful post. I might quibble slightly about the US violently imposing its culture. But I get your point that business sets the pace. Multi-national corporations are ultimately loyal to and answer to no one, not stock holders, governments, or concerned citizens. They are more machine than human.

As a semi-trained economist I'm just going to throw this out here:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-offshore-wealth/super-rich-hold-32-trillion-in-offshore-havens-idUSBRE86L03U20120722

Private wealth held offshore represents “a huge black hole in the world economy,” Henry said in a statement.

Yeah, go figure. — Wallows

As a semi-potty-trained economist, I am inclined to agree with that assessment. A vacuum “Black hole” created by greedy people with their heads up their black holes. The thing about black holes is that they really suck. Money is just more power and leverage to the 1%. It’s all just a game, it seems. It is food, clothing, and shelter to us. Somebody please convince me that the system isn’t broken beyond repair, that we aren’t in complete sociological, economic, and planetary meltdown... despite flying AI drone smartphones that can read your mind and stock your refrigerator. (wait... is that a good thing?)

It would seem to require a rather drastic shift in values, and that takes time, probably much more time than we have left before the shit hits the fan. Oddly, I think people would generally be much happier if their values were shifted toward seeking meaning and happiness, rather than wealth, status, and distraction. In a culture that values meaning and happiness, "rationing" may not feel like rationing but simply living cooperatively for mutual benefit. — praxis

Yes. I would agree. Adding the small point that I don’t think any major shift will happen until “the shit (shift?) hits the fan”. Many want change, and many work towards improvement. But there is a cultural and economic logjam of epic proportions. Those on top absolutely don’t want things to change, unless it is to make it even more in their favor, if that can be imagined. I am not a revolutionary, and think that violence is usually counterproductive, poisonous, and a complete waste. It might be an ecological disaster that shakes things up so that new ideas are seriously considered, not just given lip service. Will we still buy from Amazon if the real Amazon forest has been turned into grazing land and parking lots?

So, do you think that "the desire for more" is the basic driving force in human development? Some people think it is. Should we suppose that human beings have been hungering for more for the last... let's say, 100,000 years? It seems like our species has spent far more time living in equilibrium with needs, wants, and resources than in incessant hankering after more.

Most of our history has been lived as hunter gatherers whose societies were very stable and who did not accumulate goods. The couldn't carry more than the absolute minimum gear needed to carry out hunting, gathering, and consuming food. Studies of contemporary hunter gatherer societies reveals people who are reasonably healthy, and reasonably happy. Our basic formula for success has been 'travel light'.

Of course, we want 'more'; just because you ate well at breakfast doesn't mean you will not want 'more' at supper time.

The idea that humans hunger for ever more and better goods, experiences, and services is a treadmill made to serve corporate purposes, not an inherent human desire. "Always more" is the motto of capitalism, which requires ever expanding sales to maintain profitability. This, by the way, is capitalist theory, not Marxist theory. It's just a fact: corporations can not achieve steadily increasing profitability on the basis of flat sales and consumer contentment.

Henry Ford understood this. His very short list models (any color you want as long as its black) were not made to be bought and enjoyed for decades. Ford engineers strove to produce a vehicle that would not last too long. Why? Because if everyone who wanted a car bought one, and the car lasted them for decades, Ford would be out of business fairly soon. Ford soon had the company of many auto manufacturers who offered an array of cars in various styles, colors, luxury, or utility. They all followed the same principle: car sales can be driven by encouraging dissatisfaction with what you have in hand in favor of what is at the showroom. And we haven't gotten to 1930 yet!

So, this idea of driving sales by the whip of dissatisfaction wasn't invented in 1901. Sales of fashionable goods (clothing, shoes, jewelry, home furnishings) had been applying this principle to the affluent bourgeoisie for a while; let us say, during the 19th century. The further back you go, the fewer people there were who had sufficient resources to engage in discontented buying (we are talking about very small numbers).

You know this: there is a huge industry devoted to the careful, 24/7 cultivation of discontentment. It is so ubiquitous that it might seem invisible. It is certainly so ubiquitous that it is inescapable short of becoming a cloistered monastic or falling into a coma. — Bitter Crank

:up: +1, yes, and amen. Thank you Professor Crank. That about sums the last 100,000 years (as far as I’m concerned). Excellent point about planned obsolescence being an integral factor from the very start of industrialization. It is extremely wasteful. I’ve thrown away 3 microwaves and 2 TVs in the last five years. Multiply that times a billion or so. This must change if we want to live somewhere other than a garbage dump.

One could rightly suppose that the thing which is referred to as spirit is just a part or function of the mind. I wouldn’t disagree, but would compare it to the way humans are part of the same family as the apes. Rooted in the same soil perhaps, but clearly attaining another level.

Spirit is the the power that moves.
One may compare it to wind.

Now, consider the following:
If you should sever your hand, you would no longer be able to move it.
Yet you will move the rest of your body just fine.
This is severing the flesh from the spirit; something that happens at death, when the spirit leaves the body and the body becomes a lump of flesh, a steak if you will.

If a gust of wind blew by your severed hand, it would move it.
If it blew in a specific manner, it could even make it wave at you or give you a thumbs up.

So I say: spirit is like a soft, silent wind that moves things. — Shamshir

Thank you for that. Well put. The mysterious spark of life. Without it, even the strongest brain and body is an abandoned house.

First, what's really being asked is not whether the idea of god exists, for it obviously does. To be more precise, the question is "does a god exist in the real world?"

This seems obvious too, until we realize that we aren't actually looking in the real world, but in the symbolic world ( words, theories, polemics, factions etc).

It's as if you asked if your shoes are in the bedroom and I replied, "I don't know, I'll go look in the garage." Nonsensical.

If we can set aside the God debate (words, theories, polemics, factions etc) then all that's left is looking in the real world.

The atheists suggest observation of reality as the appropriate method, and I agree. But not observation as a means to the end of theories and conclusions, but rather observation pursued for it's own value. Theories and conclusions just take us back in to the same old failed game.

We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world. Instead we are typically so very busy thinking and talking about the real world, something else entirely.

If our approach is to be reality based we might remember the the overwhelming vast majority of reality is.... nothing. — Jake

Thanks for the reply. Would not disagree. A small quibble I might have is about the words “the real world”. This would seem to open up the question of what is real, what is really real, etc. and be distracting. Maybe I would use the phrase “inner experience” or “personal perception”.

(Obviously, you won’t be replying to this... sorry to see you banned. But if it’s your choice, then that is that. Your walks in the woods will no doubt continue to inspire you. Thanks for the ideas and conversation. Peace and blessings to you, and to all.)

Thanks! I found this section most insightful:
In 1812 Schopenhauer started to use the term "the better consciousness", a consciousness

...[that] lies beyond all experience and thus all reason, both theoretical and practical (instinct).[3]

According to Yasuo Kamata, Schopenhauer's idea of "the better consciousness" finds its origin in Fichte's idea of a "higher consciousness" (höhere Bewusstsein)[4] or "higher intuition",[5] and also bears resemblance to Schelling's notion of "intellectual intuition".[4] According to Schopenhauer himself, his notion of a "better consciousness" was different from Schelling's notion of "intellectual intuition", since Schelling's notion required intellectual development of the understanding, while his notion of a "better consciousness" was "like a flash of insight, with no connection to the understanding."[4]

According to Schopenhauer,

The better consciousness in me lifts me into a world where there is no longer personality and causality or subject or object. My hope and my belief is that this better (supersensible and extra-temporal) consciousness will become my only one, and for that reason I hope that it is not God. But if anyone wants to use the expression God symbolically for the better consciousness itself or for much that we are able to separate or name, so let it be, yet not among philosophers I would have thought.[6]

If I remember correctly, the whole idea of upvoting and/or downvoting was either nixed or physically not possible with the current forum software. For instance, Reddit subs have multiple interesting and perhaps useful post sorting functions, like sorting by time, popularity, or controversial-ness. Some may like it, some not. But the Philosophy Reddits imho are of mixed quality, with some odd rules like not posting questions. The cream rises to the top, like pond scum.

I just, well, um, duh, discovered the follow feature. Useful! I felt an obligation to say so, so I did. — Jake

Which reminds me of an inspirational saying... Don’t lead, for I may not follow. Don’t follow, for I may not lead. Just walk beside me, and try not to fart too much...

Please refrain from insulting janitors by comparing them to us. Those people actually get paid. We are somewhere between drudges and the Borg. — Baden

:lol:

will continue to instruct my sub-elites — S

Is that like minions? Minions seem to have a sense of purpose and job security.

Thanks much for the thoughtful and in-depth reply. (Such messages are more filling and satisfying, imho. Posts with dazzling name-dropping, feats of logic, or one-line zingers may be tasty, but leave me hungry again too soon. :yum: ) The “god question” is a funny one. On one hand, it might be THE QUESTION. On the other, it can easily produce so many more words, theories, polemics, factions. There seem to be enough of those. It could probably be assumed that we are all (self included) doing at least some psychological projecting. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but awareness of it helps immensely. I think humans have many innate emotional needs. And it seems that almost all of us are damaged or hurting in some way, maybe unconsciously. (I don’t think our culture is very nurturing and encouraging to the human spirit, but that may be another topic).

Certainly I sympathize with those who yearn for the possibility that there is some Divine order in the universe. That there is meaning and justice. And I understand the general atheist position of living a moral and productive life without a human-created mythology that doesn’t inspire being dumped on you. (Mythology equaling other people’s religion, as the joke goes). Maybe the popularity of superhero movies and literature is trying to fill the mythical need we seem to have for “poetic truth” and meaning. (As opposed to mere facts about existence). Whatever gets you through the night, and makes you want to get out of bed in the morning...

Of course, if it was possible all over the world to “isolate” all people older than 30 years old, then young people in the world could have a chance to build a truly global world just like a virtual one. After all, the older generation for the most part does not understand this call for globalism and for that they have their real arguments. And so they will do everything to destroy this globally virtual world. — Geo

:lol: Don’t trust anyone over 30! Unfortunately, this idea isn’t new. It’s far older than 30 years, so best not trust it. And of course young people today are all perfectly peaceful and in harmony with everyone and all of nature...

Yeah, probably was a bit overkill there. :smile: — Baden

:up: Lol! No problem. (I’m a little biased and predisposed to trying “natural” remedies and herbs when possible.) Glad your laser surgery has helped. It is the surefire cure, no doubt.

Anyhow, the main point is if you want to argue for this method working, show the evidence. If you can't, consider that you might be misleading people and potentially wasting their time on an important issue for them. — Baden

Duuuude! Misleading people? Dr. Zero? Methinks that’s a little overkill. I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV. It was just my opinion in a Lounge thread about this very topic. C’mon... :rofl: You called it pseudoscience. That seemed to me a tad premature, just pooh poohing without really giving it a thought. I don’t have to prove anything. If someone doesn’t want to try this free and natural exercise, fine... no skin off my eyeballs. :eyes:

It's pseudoscience. — Baden

Not so fast there, Herr Doktor! :nerd: The human eye, with its flexible lens and intricate system of muscles, is by nature adaptable. If someone if locked in a small space without the ability to view large distances, their eyes will become near-sighted, as you know. The reverse process (overcoming myopia) might take longer and involve much effort. And perhaps beyond a certain age, the eye becomes less flexible. But it is at least possible to re-focus the lens without surgery or glasses. YMMV.

Thanks for your reply, and for starting this thread which hopefully (with all of our best efforts) will generate more light than heat. And any heat present be used to warm the cockles of our hearts (whatever those are, hee hee).

Agreed, very understandable and very human. I'm attempting to develop more compassion for this need and a more realistic acceptance of it. I managed this a long time ago with the religious, but apparently still have considerable work to do in regards to the atheist true believers. — Jake

A noble goal, which if achieved, might deserve a Nobel prize, lol. They may be two sides of the same coin. (There’s no anti-Catholic like an ex-Catholic, as a saying goes). The polarity of beliefs, be they religious, political, sociological, or other, is attention-grabbing and divisive by nature. It’s a love-hate relationship. One person’s meat is another’s poison. For example, some entertainments I used to devour years ago, I can no longer stomach. Strength is a quality, but more is definitely NOT always better (despite appearances to the contrary).

I'm not debating here, just suggesting that if ignorance is the reality of our situation then let's embrace it and mine this asset for the value that it offers. Not sure how this relates to Buddhism though. For now it's merely Jakeism. :smile: — Jake

Definitely. Just adding to what @Wayfarer wrote above. Buddhism (and Taoism, which if I recall correctly you had elsewhere expressed an interest in) has a useful way of reconciling the opposites, as in the symbol and idea of yin and yang. Apparent opposites that complement rather than compete or wage battle against the other. In very general Buddhist terms, the ignorance you refer to might be more like an acceptance of sunyata, or emptiness. Ignorance (in Buddha’s thought, such as I understand it) would be more like pounding one’s own head with a hammer, and taking aspirin for the pain.

Or, to put it another way, problems appear when we try to translate an experience in to an explanation. A better approach may be to skip the explanations, and offer some practical tips on how the other person might have their own experience. An even better approach would probably be to wait until they ask for such tips. :smile: — Jake

Yes. Sometimes, I wonder if our animal pets listen to all our babbling, and think to themselves “there they go... human-splaining everything again! :monkey:

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Most appreciated.

The question I keep asking is: how do these experiences we associate with ‘God’ relate to each other and to the experiences/understanding/knowledge of the universe that we can verify? What is it about the universe and how humans relate to it that enables these expressions of experience to make sense to those who experienced them? And if I leap to a conclusion based on what information I have, and then encounter those who disagree, I have to exhaust the very high probability that they at least have experiences of the universe that I don’t. Like the blind men and the elephant... — Possibility

Yes, that is a reasonable approach to that which seems to beyond reason. (Sometimes thinking about the possibility of the Divine is like trying to catch hydrogen atoms in a butterfly net, lol. Or as Huston Smith put it, a dog trying to comprehend the contents of a book by giving it “the sniff test”). Without totally abandoning healthy skepticism, I think we can learn from each other’s experiences.

I realise it’s a messy way to approach it, particularly to those who prefer to work systematically or analytically (or alone). It often feels like I’m piecing together a jigsaw puzzle without an image - one that doesn’t have any edge pieces to speak of. I’m not looking for a definition of ‘God’ - I’m looking for an understanding of the universe that is fully inclusive of these experiences we associate with ‘God’ and spirituality, rather than of what anyone claims to ‘know’ about ‘God’. — Possibility

There is something of value in a “messy way”. Life is messy, birth is difficult, death is a downer. We intuitively know this, and eventually make some kind of peace with it. The experience of consciousness, and the awareness of experience is foundational to us. It is difficult to package and market, which is probably why simplistic slogans to rally the troops are so prevalent... and unfortunately so effective at controlling behavior.

Such a willful denial of reason, such a determined clinging to a comfortable fantasy... Not the religious condition, but the human condition.

To prove this, observe how I keep typing such things over and over again despite any evidence that it will ever do any good. Me too. Clinging to the self flattering fantasy that I can make some kind of difference here. I see the evidence of my delusion, I see the evidence is inconvenient, so I ignore it, and keep on doing the same old thing, over and over and over. — Jake

Attempting to break down “the big question” into smaller ones, this thread about spirit was created. One would imagine that if there is indeed an Absolute source, there is a good chance that It would intersect or interact with us generally in the realm of what is described as spirit. And on the other hand if there is no Creator, the needs, hopes, dreams, and weaknesses might also reside in our spirit, or higher/deeper consciousness.

At human scale we experience time as a reliable fixed measure, which is reasonable and practical because at human scale that's very close to the case. But what science is teaching us is that what seems an obvious given in our everyday human scale experience can not be automatically assumed to be binding on everything everywhere.

Variable time speed seems relevant to the God debate because it further illustrates a pattern of assumptions that often attempt to impose facts that are reasonable at human scale on to the immeasurably larger scale addressed by God theories. — Jake

Exactly. The naïveté, hubris, or emotional longing that compels us to declare and define absolutely the nature and existence (or non-existence) of the Absolute is quite understandable and all-too-human. But we live in a relative world where absolute answers are rarely, if ever, seen in the wild. To put in Buddhist terms, let not desire or aversion lead us into ignorance.

About one’s deeply held beliefs, what sometimes may happen is that a person (often at a crucial moment of their life) has an internal experience. An experience that seems to cut to the core of their very being, in terms of identity, feelings, perceptions, and more. This feels seismic, and they intuit that it would be unwise to completely ignore it as a reaction to eating pizza late at night, or something. So far, so good.

Problems appear when a person expects anyone else to immediately feel the same fear and trembling awe. (The movie Contact depicts this scenario wonderfully). Perhaps only Art can convey such depth of feeling, such breadth of vision. (Art who? Vandelay? lol). But what about the majority of us who can’t produce a masterpiece that will make the ground tremble? We can only share our undoubtedly limited perspective, like the Ancient Mariner telling his tale. Hopefully as honestly, humbly, and accurately (and logically) as possible. If someone else happens to find it helpful or at least interesting, all the better then.

(And here I present a best case scenario. Those who callously wrap themselves in the holy and pure robes of sanctity and righteousness to intentionally mislead others for power and profit are the dregs of the earth, and are rightly mocked. Self-righteousness is the last refuge of a scumbag.)

For “evangelical” atheists who scorn and deride those clueless masses still injecting themselves with Marx’s “opiate of the people” *, I have little respect or time. Certainly, contempt, and controversy sells. And they are raking it in as much as the Bible-and-bombs school of thought(lessness).

How can one balance the need for answers with the benefits of having an open mind? It is like the tightrope that the Karamozov brothers were on.

I respect atheism in general. I respect belief in general. The ignostic skeptic in my mind debates with the curious mystic. I would not get rid of either of them, since they balance its opposite without negating each other. That which seems more complex and interrelated upon inspection is more deeply satisfying, imho. Simple answers devised after much market testing smacks of an ideological pyramid scheme.

(Perhaps this is a distinction between the natural and the artificial: upon closer inspection, does something display a complex connection with the outside world? Or is it all surface, with no depth beyond itself?)

(parts of this are from a post from another thread. Wanted to give it a chance to be ignored here too, lol).

* Marx’s full quote has much more nuance:

Still pondering a general description of spirit... I referred to it above as “higher consciousness”. But the metaphor of deepness is at least as apt as height. Deepness, centrality, the root, the core of something. What is at the core of a human? Where is the control center, if there is one? Is it mostly conscious or unconscious? Is there a volcanic furnace of energy at our core, like at the center of the earth or the solar system? Is this material or energy? Both? The streams of identity, feeling, and consciousness seem to lead down into some murky depths of our being. These are the depths under investigation. For it seems this might be the essence of our unique existence. And yet paradoxically and simultaneously connect to the universe around us.

About one’s deeply held beliefs, what sometimes may happen is that a person (often at a crucial moment of their life) has an internal experience. An experience that seems to cut to the core of their very being, in terms of identity, feelings, perceptions, and more. This feels seismic, and they intuit that it would be unwise to completely ignore it as a reaction to eating pizza late at night, or something. So far, so good.

Problems appear when a person expects anyone else to immediately feel the same fear and trembling awe. (The movie Contact depicts this scenario wonderfully). Perhaps only Art can convey such depth of feeling, such breadth of vision. (Art who? Vandelay? lol). But what about the majority of us who can’t produce a masterpiece that will make the ground tremble? We can only share our undoubtedly limited perspective, like the Ancient Mariner telling his tale. Hopefully as honestly, humbly, and accurately (and logically) as possible. If someone else happens to find it helpful or at least interesting, all the better then.

(And here I present a best case scenario. Those who callously wrap themselves in the holy and pure robes of sanctity and righteousness to intentionally mislead others for power and profit are the dregs of the earth, and are rightly mocked. Self-righteousness is the last refuge of a scumbag.)

Does Jesus/Yahweh love us or is he stalking us? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Lol. I nominate this for the thread title of the year. Award ceremony next February. But if the Divine Creator is crushing on us, wouldn’t that be better than living alone in an empty universe? Plus, think of the swag you’d get having a supernatural honey. :halo:

It is interesting how the Eastern theory of the chakra system frames the idea of spirit. The bottom three chakras are important and necessary (especially the first center where the kundalini energy may be sleeping), though somewhat animalistic. The fourth chakra, at the heart, is critical. It is thought that if this chakra is closed, it prevents energy from rising further up to the higher “spiritual” centers like the third-eye and the crown chakra. One could say that there is a type of consciousness present at each level. But the higher ones allow one to experience a larger view of the world, or perhaps beyond. So it is believed anyway... I would not begin to know how to empirically prove such a thing. Just seems to be a very well-described way of imagining the energies present within us.

any philosophers who represents a genuine break with modernity — räthsel

I think I could guess what you are getting at here, but perhaps some clarification might help. A complete break with modernity, or just specific strands of it? A complete break would seem to imply a fundamentalist type of belief system. (Not saying it’s necessarily bad, it would just have to be comprehensive to even begin to counter-act all of modernity.) As for specific aspect objectors, there are many writers who might qualify (whether or not they are strictly philosophers). My favorites are Ken Wilber, who objects to the “flatland” materialism of the age; and Daniel Quinn, who posits that our “totalitarian agriculture” mindset has dire consequences.

In my participation at the mental clinic I've found that they are very unclear on where mental illness comes from. They claim, "Mental illness is a brain disorder" and then remedy it with cognitive therapies pushing forward their claim of naturalism, the belief in psychoneural identity theory. — Daniel Cox

Some have a theory that mental illnesses, minor and major, (which I’ve been aquatinted with now and then) come from “above and below” the brain, in a way. Below meaning food, toxins, exercise, etc (or lack thereof). Above meaning thinking patterns, ethical choices, mental stress, etc. The mental and physical collide in the physical brain, so to speak.

I apologize for talking out of turn. — Daniel Cox

Just my two cents, but I noticed nothing wrong with your posts. My take on the evangelizing prohibition thing is to prevent closed-minded cultist types. (As opposed to open-minded cultist types such as myself. :snicker: )