Ha, that’s good! Had not heard that one. Thanks.

Another quote, I think from Joseph Campbell (could have been quoting someone else): Life will grind you, there’s really no escape from that. But depending on the angle we choose to take, life can either grind us down, or make us sharper.

There's a similar thought expressed in Alduous Huxley's Doors of Perception — Wayfarer

I only borrow from the best! :yum:

But on the other hand, the insights that arise from mindfulness practice are often quite subtle and not at all spectacular. There are of course aha! moments, but not that many. — Wayfarer

:up: Definitely. I think in general our awareness is both larger and deeper than our intellect. And as many large deep things often do, it gets buried and lost in the shuffle. What is the saying? Our awareness is as open, clear, empty, and large as the sky itself.

I think the purpose of belief is to snap you out of an habitual mode of understanding and awaken you to a totally different relationship with your fellows and with the world. But the point is, for that to happen, you really do have to commit to it; it can't be just a hypothetical question. You need to have a commitment, 'skin in the game', so to speak. And obviously the Christian faith can provide that - if you take it seriously, if it really means something to you. — Wayfarer

Yes, completely agree. And I have far to go, much more progress can be made. But not much need for shame or pride. Just keep going. I think of spiritual-type knowledge as a support for the practice, and the practice as a support for life. Ignosticm and apophatic approaches (neither denying nor confirming) help me get out the head, and into the heart and soul. That’s were the action is. And the kingdom of God is spread out on the earth, even if we don’t see it. Whether a simple aphorism or a complex theory, the ideas that tend to enlighten me are the ones that run against the wind of our world, and yet are a breath of fresh air.

Quo vadis? — Posty McPostface

Latin for “Where are you going?” (had to look it up). And as you know, the popular Roman epic film from the 1950s, when Hollywood was required by law to make at least one Biblical or Roman epic per year. Preferably both. Would you say the current POTUS possibly reminds one more of Nero or Marcus Aurealius, the philosopher-king? :snicker: Or other? Julius or Augustus Caeser? Should he wear a toga? It might actually be a good look, especially if the Senators wear togas too. The House of Representatives can dress like the House of Lords then, if they wish.

So, then it isn't all about Trump after all. Now what? — Posty McPostface

Yea, I’m with you on that I think. He has control of the football. What will happen next? The spotlight glares. But does it light the way, or blind the driver? Do all roads really lead to Rome? Even backwards in time? Are they still lined with the followers of Spartacus on the Cross-roads we still ride?

Ah, well you didn't say "I fear they are not" in your original post, but that does help clarify it. — Maw

Ha! Yes, more distinction and emphasis was needed on my part. Niemöller’s quote is more elegant than my editorial page opinions.

It's a good quote and relevant. My use of the term "concentration camps" is not meant as a direct parallel to Nazi Germany though. As I mentioned before, the British are responsible for bringing us concentration camps and not all involve torture and gas chambers. But Trump's cages can be called concentration camps according to the definition of the term:

"Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp — Baden

:up: Definitely. It was clear that you were referring to the larger existence and (sordid) history of concentration camps. I was probably cherry-picking the most vivid example to me. Thanks for your reply.

Please read my post again, if you don’t mind. And forgive me if I was not completely clear the first time. To emphasize:

I HOPE and PRAY that any parallels to Nazi Germany are incorrect, wrong, and baseless.
I FEAR that they are not.

(In these kinds of statements about these kinds of issues every word and letter is critical, it seems. It feels like driving in a traffic jam during a blizzard while on the phone. But anyway... :wink: )

Thank you. :victory:

zero excuse for Trump's concentration camps — Baden

With all due respect to conservatives, traditionalists, Republicans, etc... I (as a U.S. citizen) may share some of your views, and even many of your feelings. We are united, Left and Right, in the hope that any parallels to 1930’s Germany (avoiding the N-word label here) are most premature and completely unwarranted. And it may be politics as usual, the same old game.

But a well-known quote comes uneasily to mind: (forgive if it has been mentioned already)

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

- Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

In other words... Who’s next?

The apophatic approach mentioned by @boundless seems to be most helpful here. A useful device to have in the mental toolbox. At least to me, it is like the eraser for the blackboard or the brakes on a car. Going back to the uncarved block... at least once in a while.

We as humans may get glimpses of “unfiltered reality” or pure gnosis or the like. I think the (arguably) widespread view of mystics or maybe theologians is that we can’t handle it for very long. Which is completely and totally OK. No offense to the human mind, but Pure Isness blows our circuits within seconds. Maybe sooner. We think the summer sun at noon is intense. How about going beyond the earth’s atmosphere and then feeling and looking at the sun? A picture of a shadow of a reflection on the cave wall may disappoint Plato. But if it gives us the gist, and we keep in mind that it is a copy of a copy, then hopefully we will not go too far astray.

We take tiny nibbles of our dinner, which is made even smaller by the digestive system. We smile (or try to repress laughter) at the small child who tries to eat the PB&J sandwich in one bite, so they can go back outside to play. And when they then drop it on the floor and cry because now it is gone forever. And completely irreplaceable.

Could it be similar to a philosophical disclaimer that says “Please proceed with caution. Most or all of the following or preceding mentioned concepts are just that- concepts. They are made out of sentences made out of words, which are formed from letters. Consider them to be etched in Silly Putty. Even for as accurate, factual, or inspirational a statement as ever been made. This is not a pipe, the map is not the territory, and my doodlings may or may not be a very accurate map. For entertainment and educational purposes only. This password will only be valid for the next 15 minutes. Carry on. Keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars. Peace.” ?

Of course, this disclaimer applies to this particular post of free association. (Not too surprisingly).

Ahh, very nice! In the Synthwave or Tech Noir style, i think it’s called. I’ve listened to some of it. Very broodingly atmospheric and inspirational. Mostly, it inspires me to listen to music that influenced it. (And also to engage in nostalgia and pointless minutiae. :yum: )

The original score (as opposed to soundtrack, more about that below) from The Terminator (1984) by Brad Fiedel:




Some might be listening to the above video thinking “where are the other songs? Like the one in the Tech Noir scene? Or the song with the ironic lyrics: “it’s a machine... ya ya ya ya...” Well, AFAIK those would be on the soundtrack, as opposed to the score. Anyway the video below has two of the songs from the Tech Noir scene. Songs by Tahnee Cain and Tryanglz. One song is at beginning of video. The song Burnin in the Third Degree is the last song (about 32:35). Enjoy! And remember... if a naked man from the future asks for your clothes, do not argue with him! :snicker:

Many thanks are given by me every night to the Greek gods Hypnos (sleep) and his son Morpheus (dreams) for the existence of supplemental melatonin. Without which I was slowly and helplessly driving toward the zip code of Hypnos’s less humorous brother, Thanatos ( :death: ). I felt somewhat like Edward Norton’s character in Fight Club, minus the excitement, drama, and cool soundtrack. Just the water torture of energy-leaking, soul-crunching insomnia. Even real life seemed like a copy of a copy of a copy...

Besides the sleep issue though, I have long felt both the attraction AND the repulsion to pure, unfiltered awareness (for lack of a better description). In an attempt to know and to see, I have at times headed full-blast towards the light of consciousness. Like some kind of misguided astronaut trying to land a rocket on the surface of the sun. Not surprisingly, the rebound effect was a desire for darkness, quiet, and unconsciousness. Then back to more “moth to the flame” adventures. It took some blind guessing to find the “off button” for all this ping-ponging of the psyche.

To an observer, it is probably obvious that the extreme edges are not the goals. (Er... unless you’re playing football). And that no one permanently lives on the summit of Mt. Everest. That more is not often better. That the Buddha’s Middle Path is an extremely helpful template. “Slow and steady wins the race”, says Aesop’s Tortoise. (Which sounds like heresy in our Internet Age. Or should I say “hare-esy”? :blush:

Now, when faced with a problem, I don’t try to solve it. Rather, the goal now is to “dissolve” it. Disintegrating the problem by surrounding it and immersing it in strong liquid, so to speak. And ever so slowly digesting it, after much chewing. Even a snake that swallows its furry food whole relies on its stomach acid to avoid a very bad case of constipation! (Of course, the words “solve” and “dissolve” have the same root meaning. However, the current connotations of both are much more specific and farther apart in meaning).

So... When pondering the problems of daily life or even the eternal metaphysical questions... Consider not looking for solutions. Instead, be the dis-solution. Because having a constipated boa constrictor stuck in the middle of the road helps absolutely no one.

Other than a sizable dose of sugar, [about the same as orange juice] what is poisonous in a can of Coca Cola? What's not to like about it? Did you see the Australian movie, "The Coca Cola Kid?" Coca Cola will be preserved as an American Heritage Beverage after the Revolution. If you don't like it now, you will like it after the Revolution. A properly done hamburger, fries, and a coke has a eucharistic quality to it. — Bitter Crank

The meal combination you mentioned is indeed a tasty treat. Emphasis on the word “treat”. Unfortunately, a can of Coke or Pepsi can deliver a sizable percentage of RDA of empty-calorie carbs in about 5 seconds flat, the way most kids drink it. With the tooth-rotting power of the phosphoric acid, combined with the jolt of sugar and caffeine, in my opinion it’s practically meth lite in a can. Former cola and mountain dew addict speaking. Much happier and healthier without it. Just my two cents. Back to the discussion of the leader of the fast food world... :point:

That some people have the ability to talk out of an organ other than their mouth? :flower:

Population control!

The bigger our population grows, the more stresses of scale are placed on the population. We're so dependent on steady food, energy, and materials that if something goes wrong before we're ready then we might just come to disaster after-all! — VagabondSpectre

:up: Oh most definitely!

It seems though that the current odds favor a disaster(s) itself being that very population control, most unfortunately. I hope to God that is not the situation. I hope the Earth can indeed carry 10 billion people, even if uncomfortably so. However, I truly doubt the speculation some have put forward that a billion people could live in the desert states of the USA. Or that a couple billion could be housed on the lands within the Arctic Circle... once all of the ice melts! :gasp:

can current civilization be inspired by anything at all from tribal cultures?
— 0 thru 9

Child-rearing. — Pseudonym

:up: Interesting answer, with which I would tend to agree. Could you expand on that?

My thoughts on applying tribal cultures’ approach on raising children... First of all, a few words about some possible pitfalls. I would say that parents who are either too regimented/demanding or (on the other hand) too permissive/passive might be unintentionally pushing their kids into consumerism, and other addictive behaviors. (I will comment on that below). The tribal parent may have given their child a large zone of freedom to explore and even make some mistakes where the child would feel pain. There have always been dangerous situations and animals around (including other humans). And it is difficult to directly compare current circumstances with other places and times. But today, the hazards seem to be endless, even for an adult. The danger of road traffic alone for a child is immense. And of course, there are many other potential physical dangers for a child.

Let me note that each child is ultimately their own person, making important choices from almost day one. They create their lives. They do this from a combination of their choices, and the materials and “energies” (the mental and spiritual factors) around them. A mother or father cannot take the credit nor blame for the person their child grows into. The best and wisest parents can happen to have a child who eventually becomes a danger to others. It seems the most a parent can do (beyond keeping the child healthy) is give them a nudge in what the parent thinks is the “right direction”. The particulars of what constitutes the “right direction” is of course debatable. A parent cannot teach what they don’t know, nor give what they don’t have. Which might not actually be a problem, because oftentimes the child doesn’t follow in the exact footsteps of or career as the parent anyway.

However... if a parent can help their offspring avoid addictive and dysfunctional habits and relationships, they deserve the highest praise and most sincere admiration. What the natures of addiction and dysfunctional relationships are is probably another topic. But here I will roughly define addictive behavior as based on a belief that “more is ALWAYS better”. And I define dysfunctional relationships as ones with a master/slave basis and/or objectification of persons. How is a parent supposed to do that? Especially when they themselves are (hopefully) resisting addictions and toxic relationships? When there are purveyors of addiction and enslavement all around?

What purveyors of addiction and enslavement? (One may ask). Take for instance the subject of food. Let me say that if there is only “one right and correct diet” for all people, I would ABSOLUTELY NOT know what that would possibly be. Humanity seems to have evolved with an omnivorous nature perhaps surpassed only by other omnivores that will eat rotting meat (scavengers) or ones that consume a large variety of insects. So therefore, humans can survive on an extremely wide variety of nutritional sources. A great many species would go extinct for lack of food before humans would.

But not knowing the correct answer or the “correct diet” doesn’t mean that one is incapable of determining what a wrong answer or diet might be. A diet of sawdust and plastic pellets, for instance, could be rejected out of hand as being not even remotely nourishing. Not quite as bad, but far more dangerous (because of its prevalence) is the so-called typical American diet. This consists mainly of sugars, highly refined flours, and hormone, antibiotic, pesticide, and bacteria-tainted meats. (These meats are usually “ground” meats because such are more malleable and chewable. Plus, ground meats from several sources are easy to combine. These factors make ground meats the most marketable.)

If one were to allow that this typical American diet (or TAD) is a tad unhealthy (pun intended... sorry) despite its omnipresence, then one would probably wonder why it exists like it does. But one would probably only wonder for a moment before guessing an answer. Money! It’s cheaper and easier to create, package, ship, and sell food products which are mostly sugars, flours, and grinded meat. And if these food products (or as some have labeled them: “edible entertainment”) are somewhat addictive, then that simply means that there are more repeat customers. More money means more companies selling similar items. It’s a feedback loop. (No pun intended this time!) You gotta eat something. Good luck!

This example of addictive behavior being encouraged by our culture in general is far from being the only one. I am straining to think of any area of our lives that is not fully on its way to becoming a toxic product. Instead of sugar, flour, and meat the ingredients are... what? Sex, violence, and fantasy? (Or as the Buddha called them: desire, hatred, and delusion). Is it just “A Race To the Bottom”, as the marketing saying goes? This DESPITE the scientific knowledge or technical ability to do otherwise. Maybe this is all shocking, but not so surprising.

How many toxic and addictive products can you think of ten seconds? Ok... GO!!! Medicine and drugs (both legal and illegal)? Pornography? Music and music videos? Movies? Video games? News and other propaganda? Umm... semi-automati... BZZZTT!!!

TIMES UP! We have a winner!

So why do I feel like I have food poisoning?

The countless flora and fauna of the soul needs both the Yin and Yang. Sometimes the bustle and brightness of a summer day, sometime a cool dark night. The balance points, like sunrise or a mild autumn day are a pleasant relief. But win or lose, hot or cold, bland or spicy; it’s all fodder for the psyche.

Can you please show me where the story highlights that temporality and fragility makes everything more precious rather than less? I may be wrong, but I think this really is your own addition. There's nothing wrong if you believe this, but I see no indication for it in the story.

I can see indications in the story that you should be at peace when things and people break down because that is their nature - to ultimately break down. But there's nothing in there as far as I can see about the fact that things are temporal and fragile, that they are therefore more valuable rather than less. — Agustino

True, I suppose that would just be my take on it, which one could take or leave. :wink: And there is some rationalization there in forming an approach to the world of objects (even our bodies) that often don’t act the way we expect or want. Maybe the planned obsolescence of today’s plastic phones and other products can reflect this lesson or story.

Thanks @VagabondSpectre and @Pseudonym for your thorough discussion of the topic. Been following the back-and-forth keenly. (I think the match is tied and will have to be decided by penalty kicks! :grin: j/k). Seriously though, I appreciate the effort, ideas, and the cited references given. This issue/topic/question (about Western Civ and its strengths, weaknesses, and otherwise) seems to go to the marrow and to the core of our culture, our thinking, our very lives and future. And it covers a long timespan of thousands of years, possibly more. It is almost the primal “To Be, Or Not To Be” question of our society, in my opinion.

So I don’t think there are any easy or obvious answers. Even though there may not be one piece of evidence that will answer the question, the question persists. This topic and question not only uses the findings of archeology, but is almost as slow and laborious as archeology. Like digging slowly through rock while carefully examining and cataloguing. I think the only foolish (and perhaps most tempting) answer to this question about Western Civilization is “What a stupid question! Why even bother asking it!”. I haven’t seen anyone here take that stance, no matter where they stand on the issue, thankfully.

So... I happened to vote that WC was disastrous. Like I mentioned, if it were a choice, I would’ve voted “partial disaster”. Our world seems now such a mixed bag of extremes that to even conceptually visualize it strains my imagination, not just my intellect. (FWIW, I can imagine Bagend in Hobbiton. I can imagine the Death Star. I can imagine a Yellow Submarine from Pepperland floating in the Sea of Time. But I can’t imagine the real world. I can think about any of its aspects or parts. But as a whole, I can’t even imagine it for a second. Maybe because it is real. Or too big. Others may fare better. But back to the issue...)

Science and its offshoots and its ever-bountiful impact seems to be one of the consensus top things about WC. (Though as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the very term Western Civilization has always been fuzzy, and may be getting fuzzier. For example, is China now part of WC? Almost or partially? On the edge?) And there are very many other powerful examples of the wonderful “fruits of Western culture”. You and I probably are holding or using some of them at this moment. Or it is in the room with you now. Or you are traveling on one at the speed of sound. Or... etc. etc.

Let’s make a large assumption for the purpose of discussion: let’s say Western Civilization can never again go back to being a Hunter-Gatherer culture. (But for the moment I’m NOT directly comparing or judging current Western Civilization OR Hunter-Gatherer societies of the past). Let’s just say both have numerous strengths. And living in WC all of our lives (one would assume), we probably have seen some things that were painful, unpleasant, or unfair. Maybe that is just how life is, and always will be. Or maybe certain things could be changed. My question: can current civilization be inspired by anything at all from tribal cultures? Is there any way to improve WC, by following some certain examples of “Leavers” (as Daniel Quinn would call them).

Jared Diamond wrote a recent book called The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn From Traditional Societies? I am in the middle of reading it, so I don’t know his answer yet. But what would your answer be?

Did anyone ask for yet more maxims? (Well here they are anyway)

1. Honesty is always, always, always the best policy. At all times, places, and in all situations. (See #2)

2. Occasionally choosing an action that is NOT necessarily the best policy might help you live longer, and could turn out to be fun. (See #3)

3. If your Significant Other finds out that you are both a liar and a hypocrite, you may not WANT to live any longer. Honestly, that’s not fun. (See #1 and strongly consider staying there) :yum:

Yes. (But I won’t mention the heretical New Age story of Jesus traveling to the East. :zip: )

Ha! Fair enough and well played. Thanks for not dismissing my post despite the perhaps mild exasperation. I’ll try to do likewise. You are Christian? As mentioned, I am a Christian... who was later influenced by Buddhism, the Tao, the Hindu and yogic traditions, etc. Maybe they are oil and water and don’t mix. Maybe together they mix up one’s mind. Maybe oil and water is just salad dressing for a mixed salad. (By the way, I am not a big fan of this thread’s current title. But if Christianity went down in flames, you know the story of the Phoenix. And the book of Revelation, if you’d like.)

Excuse me if I politely decline a point by point discussion for now. It is not meant to be dismissive. However, you presented a mixed bag of quotes ranging from a helpful parable from acknowledged master Ajahn Chah (about the temporality and fragility of everything which makes it more precious, not less) to questions from Joe Schmo asking Jane Doe on Stack exchange who possibly answers “seeking Nirvana is selfish nihilism... blah blah... but you gotta crack some eggs to make an omelet... yada yada, etc... Then you toss in some comparisons with Christianity. If you are convinced, then good. If you’re happy, I’m happy! If you come across the Buddha on the road, give him a good kick in his unflatteringly tight yoga pants! The Zen masters would approve. :snicker:

There is nihilism and despair everywhere one turns in this world. It’s in the air! It’s in our bones. We probably bring it to our religions. Maybe that’s why were there in the first place. Let’s find a cure or cures for ourselves as soon as possible. That’s not selfish. It’s taking the splinter out of my eye first, to be able to see what’s going on...

And these answers make it clear how utterly nihilistic and devaluing Buddhism is of the world and its possibilities. Compare this, on the other hand with Christianity. Christianity, where God Himself comes into the world to live amongst human beings out of Love. Where He, being the King of Kings allows Himself to be mocked and humiliated, and ultimately killed in the name of Love. Behold One who was not afraid of suffering - who did not want to "escape" suffering, but rather plunged straight into the jaws of suffering. Jesus, apart from being God, was a real man. There is something mawkish and unmanly about the retreat from the world in order to avoid suffering. It is true that attachment is suffering (or rather has the potential for suffering in it) - but that's no reason to avoid it.

Only weak natures, who cannot bear the pressure of pain and suffering will give up on themselves. A strong nature, even if reality were different than its desire, would never renounce the said desire. That is the ultimate statement of its strength, will, and determination in front of the world. The fact that it chooses to stick with its nature, rather than surrender to external circumstances. As such, the faith proposed by Christianity is the ultimate rebellion, the ultimate scandal, man's determination that he will stick with himself, rather than with the world. Christianity does not devalue this world by postulating a Heaven when "All tears will be wiped away", but rather lifts up the world, makes it divine. What greater source of strength can be imagined, than this infinite faith, which burns up anything that stands against it, and remains true to one's nature and desires? — Agustino

Peace, brother. Forgive me please for skipping to your conclusions though, for it seems here is where we will most respectfully part on this matter. We may meet up at another time and subject. Until then... nostrovia! Please don’t think me “mawkish or unmanly” for retreating from this debate. I realize now that I initiated this discussion by asking you to clarify your stance on nihilism and Buddhism. Now we have it, and are thankful. Maybe I could have even guessed it. If you feel that Buddhism is somehow deficient compared to Christianity, who I am to argue? I don’t consider Buddhism to be nihilist, but what of it? If all living Buddhists took a vote on the matter, would it in deed matter? It would probably be interesting at least. But I find absolute comparisons and competitions relatively unhelpful. In a way, one person can be looking for a useful knife to cut some food with, while another may be searching for the One, True blade Excaliber. Both are noble. Or has Excaliber been found? Then good! Maybe I am searching for it too in a way. You have your beliefs. May they safely carry you wherever you need them to. (Please overlook my melodramatics and mild playful joking. It is less sour and tart than lemonade. This is definitely a serious subject. Carry onward please. Respond as you see fit! :up: )

Hi 0 thru 9, I appreciate your response. However, I don't see sufficient effort to answer the points I've brought up. — Agustino

Thanks for your thanks. Usually I tend to ramble on, so this may be the first time I’ve been asked for more. First of all, a little personal background, so any comments can be put in context. (Sorry if it is distracting or not to the point.) Having been raised Roman Catholic and attended Catholic schools, that is in my blood probably irrevocably. I don’t attend Mass, but have not forsaken Christianity. The Christian mystics and Gospels remain an influence and inspiration.

Perhaps I am like an eclectic packrat, with a patchwork of beliefs, ideas, theories, practices, rituals, and odds and ends. I came to Buddhism through the Tao Te Ching, which I consider perhaps the most helpful bundle of words that I’ve yet encountered. I am not an expert, scholar, or even official member of anything really. That is probably obvious, but just wanted to be clear. I am only speaking of my experiences, ideas, and opinions. Many factors were motivations in my search. My mind seeming like a wild and uncontrollable horse sometimes was the main reason to search for help at the time. The horse might be tamer now, but loves to try to escape.

As you said, you are quite familiar with the Buddhist tenets and sutras, and I had assumed as much from what you have mentioned in the past. So what more I could add beyond that is unknown to me. I will respond to your comment in detail, though.

Attachments are seen as the cause of suffering in Buddhism - you are not to be attached. — Agustino

Not in my opinion. Buddhism (and other Eastern traditions) have had almost the directly opposite effect on me. All is intertwined, all is connected. The universe is poetically said to be a net with countless jewels attached, each infinitely reflecting the light and image of the others. Anatta means (to me at least) no SEPARATE self. Not absolutely and completely separate. Relatively independent, but somehow linked with other things, beings, and energies. I think a forest analogy is helpful. The trees are clearly separate in one way. But look up and the branches of different trees intermingle with each other. Under the soil is probably an even more intricate web of roots, dirt, water, and insects. Is it one thing or many? Is light a wave or a particle. And who is it that is asking this question?

So how is it possible to love and care for your children, for example, without any form of attachment? Your children become, just like Buddha's children became for him, a stumbling block. So he left his palace and his children and his wife to find enlightenment alone in the forest. And that is applauded in the story. His loved ones represented nothing more than obstacles in his way. How can this not be selfish? — Agustino

Well, you have heard the tale and “origin story”. From my memory, Siddhartha (not yet the Buddha) did leave his wife and children. He wandered around and then trained with some extreme ascetics, almost starving himself to death. After which, he sought some way less life-denying. The so-called Middle Way. Later, his wife also forsook comfortable riches and became a nun and followed the path he had discovered. Sounds like a happy ending, I guess. I don’t think that there are any claims that he was completely without mistakes. It seems that he learned from any mistakes as well as humanly possible. That doesn’t seem like selfishness to me. YMMV.

It seems to me that Buddhism is, in its essence, built around this personal aversion to suffering, that sets one on a mission to end suffering for themselves, for their own sake. — Agustino

I honestly don’t know how one could come to this conclusion after studying the words and life of the Buddha, as well as what later traditions added. Such as the concept of the Bohdisattva, as @Erik mentioned above. Aversion is one of the “Three Poisons”, along with greed and hatred. And is therefore discouraged. So trying to reduce suffering, and coming up with an accurate psychological description of its causes and possible cures is a good thing, no? But Buddhism seems to not be seeking members or converts or even believers. And it is not entirely different from a skeptical and pragmatic Stoicism, IMHO. If one accepts the basics of Stoicism and Taoism, perhaps that is traveling towards Buddha territory. (Or perhaps not).

Hope this has been at least a little helpful. Since “more words count less” as said in the TTC, and I can’t think of more to say now... Please excuse the worn cliché, but what can one do except simply hold up a flower. :flower:

:pray:
Thanks for your reply. I’m just a seeker, but don’t know for sure if any book or lecture would describe Buddhism like it was in your post. But everyone can have their opinions. @Erik responded quite well with the questions that I have. Not sure how the doctrine of not having a permanent self (anatta) could directly foster selfishness. It seems exactly the opposite to me. Buddhism can help one begin to discard the two-sided coin of shame and pride, which comes from being locked in one’s identity and ego. It is in perfect accord with the Daoism, with which it combined to form the Cha’an tradition in China.

(edit- just saw your reply to Erik). I will say that whatever one has and brings to Buddhism (or other beliefs) is mostly what one will experience. We carry the thoughts and habit baggage until they are put down. If one is content with their current beliefs and practices, that is sincerely a wonderful thing. If is not broken, no need to fix it. Wisdom, compassion, mindfulness, equanimity, clear seeing, and the detoxification of mind-poisons are all qualities emphasized and developed by various Buddhist practices. That seems to be an urgently helpful thing much needed by many, definitely myself included. And beliefs are needed as long as they are useful, like using a boat to cross a lake.

The evils currently seen in the world are interpreted, by science and secular authority, as necessary. As the nature of existence. Hence the prevailing acceptance of a (misunderstood) nihilistic religion like Buddhism. — Agustino

Sorry... I realize this is the Shoutbox, but this statement might also need to be unpacked if you don’t mind. Are you perhaps saying that Buddhism is accepted only or mostly because it is misunderstood? If so, what does that mean? If not, what did you mean?

And as I understand it, Buddhism is mostly (though not always) non-theistic. But that doesn’t necessarily make it “nihilistic”. And as you probably know, Buddhism can function as a religion, a philosophy, or both.

I would agree with most of the rest of your post though. :up: Christianity (maybe just in the West) has lost vitality or at least something important (if difficult) to define. What the cause might be is up for debate. In my opinion and for whatever it may be worth, the long history of those in power using Christian beliefs as a pure white robe to parade around in is a large factor.

Ok, thanks for the reply. :up:

It’s just that the graph reminds of the quotation “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics”. (Popularized by Mark Twain, though of uncertain origin). Are car accidents considered violent? Heart attacks? Cancer? Suicide by gas or hanging? Slow suicide by substance abuse? One can dice a potato many different ways.

And to my eye, the graph seems to make tribal cultures as a whole appear almost blood-thirsty. The old ooga-booga bone in the nose thing. Like Saruman’s mutant hoard in the movie The Lord of the Rings the Uruk Hai were driven by a desire to kill and eat “man-flesh”. Though I won’t go into the nuances of that. :snicker:

Not to make a Supreme Court case out of it, but I have some trouble taking these graphs at face value, or even very seriously. At first I was confused why a city in 1840’s California called Kato was so darn violent? Murderous gold prospectors, perhaps? Upon further review, the Kato (also called Cahto) were/are a Native American tribe. Their current population is about 250 people. And according to Wikipedia, it was never more than a few thousand at any given time:

Population Further information: Population of Native California
Estimates for the pre-contact populations of most native groups in California have varied substantially. Alfred L. Kroeber put the 1770 population of the Kato at 500.[9] Sherburne F. Cook estimated the pre-contact populations of the Kato at 1,100.[10] James E. Myers thought the total might be 500.[11]
See also Cahto traditional narratives
...

So extrapolating the data over 100,000 people (who never existed simultaneously or even as a sum total) is very distorted and inaccurate because the original sample size is so small. The Kato may or may not have been particularly violent. They probably were. Many Native American tribe fought with each other and amongst themselves, very often lethally. They were humans obviously, not angels wearing beads and moccasins. Mostly the statistical evidence is anecdotal either way since they lived much of their existence away from statisticians and anthropologists, unfortunately. But this makes it seem like there rivers turned red by the blood of the dead. For that violent imagery made real, one need only look at little later in US history at the Civil War.

As for the rest of the first graph, almost a dozen of the examples are from (Papua) New Guinea, which is a well-known anthropological oddity. It is like the evolutionary fluke Madagascar of tribal culture, existing in small island(s) and producing bizarre (to me anyway) behaviors and beliefs.

And on the far right of the graph showing almost no visible marking in the graph for violent deaths in 20th century USA and 2005 (world population)? :chin: Let’s just say that I’m going to still keep my doors locked at night. :sweat: All just in my silly opinion...

Speculation time... If I had a time machine, would I rather live now in the USA... or back then with the Kato? Well, I’m kind of used to the present reality. But if I had to be born over? Either way would be fine, might even lean towards going back in time for the heck of it. (I’d make sure I brushed my teeth very well because of the lack of pain-free dentistry.)

Imperialist Metaphysical System Builders, with their water-cooled rapid-fire logical systems — Srap Tasmaner

:sweat: :up:
Wish I had come up with that one! A picturesque metaphor is worth a thousand words of explication, imo.

:sweat: Wise choice. Nothing like home cooking!

That’s a good strategy. Especially when sending back food might encourage the kitchen staff to add their own... erm... special sauce to the dish, like in the movie Fight Club. :zip:

No, not really. I think I once flagged a comment by someone who was just spamming or obviously trolling. Disagreed with comments numerous times of course, but not much of a flagger. Which seems odd to me, since I’m always sending food back in restaurants.

Sorry man, just a lame joke and a handful of assumptions on my part. No offense. Carry on. But several members have seemed to self-destruct recently. Glad to hear that you won’t be the next. :up:

Well... after much red tape I finally found out the # to call. It’s 1-800-BTT-HURT...

I have it on speed dial and call at least twice a week.

Sorry, bad joke. Hope you can work out the situation, if there is one. As for flagging, doesn’t one double click on the icon with the dots? A flag then appears. (If that’s what you’re referring to).

Also, hope you are not about to go down in flames and get banned. Happening kinda frequently lately, it seems. Your posts and insights are appreciated, whether I happen to agree or not with the particular point. Do what you think best, of course. Good luck. :victory:

...(and others)
:up:
A most interesting thread, in my opinion. Thanks for all of your insights, here and in other threads. Can Western Civilization continue as it is? Is it sustainable? Are there even any other options at this point? What is the way forward? Very tempting on this kind of topic for one (such as me, for instance :monkey: ) to exaggerate and over-dramatize. Absolute kinds of thinking are relatively dangerous, to put it mildly. I see little benefit in non-qualified use of such words as always, never, everyone, forever, no-one, etc, and attempt (sometimes successfully) to use them sparingly. By the way, I voted in the poll for WC as disaster. But probably would have voted “partial disaster, at least”, if that had been a choice... FWIW.

And the current political climate and discussion of this so-called Western Civilization is generally filled with drama, grandstanding, hyperbole, exaggerations, and absolutes. And that’s on a good day, excluding some of the nastier stuff. It is coming from all sides. Seemingly, people have to shout or make exorbitant claims to be heard or noticed. Maybe it is always been like this, or maybe it has been amplified of late. The presence and power of the internet seems to make everything amplified and accelerated.

Upon second thought, I am of at least two minds about using the term “Western Civilization”. Mostly because now China, Russia, Korea, Japan, etc. are so integral to the business, culture, news, and thinking of the Western countries. (That is probably the result of globalization, of which I am also of two minds about. But that is another can of fish bait.) But mostly, referring to Western Civilization is common and acceptable parlance, and that is fine. As a side point mentioned above, there is of course the Middle East, which still profoundly influences the Western world. And then there’s Africa and Greece, which might in some ways be referred to as the cradle of humanity and civilization.

Despite any polemic of mine to the contrary, I agree that there is much from WC that is commendable.
One would be somewhat foolish not to admit that, as well as biting the hand that feeds one (so to speak). Having an attitude of gratitude, as the proverb goes. And I do believe that, perhaps even more strongly when I fail to act upon it. Like one realizes that it is better not to speed on the highway after getting a ticket or having an accident.

So the science, industry, culture, democracy (such as it exists), invention, etc. are all to be applauded. Even while being critiqued and debated, hopefully in a fair and balanced manner. As @Bitter Crank noted above, civilization is a mixed bag of positives and negatives. Humans are not angels nor demons, despite all appearances to the contrary sometimes.

I feel that the general topic the recent thread found here about Self as illusion is quite central to this thread about the nature and fate of Western Civilization. I wish that I could neatly explain or prove this, but it is not so easy even if possible. One would have to demonstrate that our current civilization has inherent contradictions and problems. Not all would agree with that. Then one would have to successfully argue that Self is at least partially a construct or composite, having no definitive nature. This would be even trickier to demonstrate, especially to a skeptical audience. Then the two points would have to be shown to have some kind of cause and effect relationship.

I’ll just say that sometimes the sweetest and otherwise wholesome fruit can accidentally harbor deadly bacteria or virus. And sometimes that way forward involves going in reverse, and a tree grows up in proportion to its simultaneous growing downward. To quote a line spoken by Sean Connery as a wounded Holy Grail-seeking Dr. Jones in the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: “the penitent man will pass... the penitent man will pass”. Or as one high school teacher said, “Time will pass. Will you?”

While looking for more Sam Harris videos, found this movie which is in two parts. Haven’t watched it all, but looks interesting and well-made.







And a classic nugget from Alan Watts. Always loved the title of his book “Myself: A Case of Mistaken Identity”. Toward the end of this video, he has an interesting aside about different kinds of space travel, relative to the self.

Firstly, it must be said that the significant exceptions to the theory of “civilization gone wrong” would be the prolific discoveries of science, and the resultant advances in technology and the fabrication of tools and materials.

However... But... Nonetheless...

Do we live in 2018 AD (Absolute Domination)?

There is the strong unmistakable odor of disaster wherever Civilization has been implemented. Is there anywhere left on Earth untainted by this ominous cloud? Please tell me where so I can pack my bags and buy a plane ticket! Perhaps without too much facetious hyperbole we can call it “cEVILization” or “civilwarization”. :wink: I have only words left to play with.

Like many, I go over and over in my mind trying to imagine what has gone wrong with us, IF indeed something has gone amiss. Imagining the human timeline of evolution and growth and expansion. From small groups to tribes to villages to city-states to modern international cities. From tools made of bone and stone to tools made with quantum computing chips.

There is such a apparently seamless flow of growth that even if one is troubled by current Civilization, trying to pick out a decisive moment, or wrong choice, is like trying to tell where a river ends and where the ocean begins. Koyaanisqatsi is both a film and a concept. “Unbalanced life”, from the Hopi people’s language. Is this merely quaint? Is this just fear of progress? Fear of reaching our potential? Growing pains?

A way of living “out of balance” logically implies that there is a way to live “in balance”. The first difficulty lies in determining what that could be. Or perhaps even more basically, the first difficulty is seeing or believing that there IS such as thing as a balance point, a Golden Mean, a flow of energy between yin and yang. That may sound too New-agey or something, but it is a critical point in any discussion of Civilization. The opposite viewpoint is what could be termed “unlimited growth” or “more is always better”.

If one holds that any pausing to debate Civilization at all (or any thinking about possible improvements and alternatives) is wasting time and impeding progress, then the conversation ends there in a stalemate. If one says “damn the torpedoes (and naysayers), full speed ahead!”, further talking might be a waste of breath on all sides. If one says that not having the answers to the questions means that the questions are better not even spoken of... then that is quite an imposing impasse.

Thinking precedes, underlies, and re-inforces action, as a general rule. The flaw in the thinking (I propose) concerns domination. Humanity (arguably) being given dominion over the earth does not entail that absolute domination over every other species and every last resource is the logical end.

That bears repeating and emphasizing, I think.

Humanity being given dominion over the earth DOES NOT entail that absolute domination over every other species and every last resource is the logical end.

And yet...

Yet we live in the age of Absolute Domination. It may as well be what the “AD” stands for in the date 2018 AD. (Or if one prefers to use CE (in the Common Era), it could stand for Civilizational Empire). If Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” mutates into a manifesto to utterly and categorically conquer the earth, each other, and eventually the rest of the galaxy, our culture needs to be reprogrammed and rebooted. (The idea of culture as software program was expanded on in this post).

One cannot repair a jet’s engine in midair. But waiting for an accident until even considering a change in operating procedure is a dangerously poor strategy.

Just watched the movie The Prestige again recently. I am not exactly sure what films would make my top 10 metaphysical movies, but this one would be near the top. Ruining the surprises of this deep exploration of the psyche might be a ban-able offence, so I will not reveal any spoilers here lest I be sawed in half. The movie is technically about magicians and magic shows, but thematically goes deeper than magic (if such is possible). The nature of one’s identity, of sacrifice, of envy and competition, of illusion and “reality”, of obsession and madness, are all expertly explored. Like another brilliant film, The Lion in Winter, it has truly comic moments, and stops just short of being a tragedy... or perhaps on second thought it doesn’t.

Great acting performances by just about everyone on screen. Memorable lines, too. Like David Bowie (as Nikolae Tesla): “You see Mr. Angier, exact science... is not an exact science.” And the constant refrain by Christian Bale’s Alfred Bordan: “Are you watching closely?”

When one watches this movie for the first time, I wager the most common response at the end is to watch it again right away. And much more closely.

What I don't understand about this is how depersonalization is a more accurate depiction of reality? Consciousness is formed from various parts of the brain, correct? not outside of it. — Blake Kelson

Thanks for the reply. Not necessarily saying that I understand it either! Well, the Buddha refused to talk about certain questions. For a good and helpful reason, one could say. One was somewhat relevant here: “Is the self identical with one’s body?” (or the brain or even one’s mind, I would possibly add). So I will label anything I say here as speculation, but of helpful intention. I find too much “personalization” to be unbalanced. It seems to overlook the impersonal and transpersonal aspects of life and the universe. The Buddha recommended the Golden Mean, seeking the balance of yin and yang. Therefore in life, one can seek a balance of self and non-self, of the personal and the non-personal.

The self can be thought of as a “useful fiction”. For instance, the movie The Terminator is fictional, never happened... and hopefully never will. :cool: But it is an excellent movie, both exciting and thoughtful at the same time, imho. As a movie, it exists. And strangely, is more widely known than you or I, who are real people. As the koan goes... what did your face look like before your parents were born?

Well, it seemed like Sam Harris explained it fairly well himself in that video. But one could imagine that it brings up other points not covered there. The Transpersonal movement in psychology covers aspects of it, especially Ken Wilber. I posted on a similar topic here. It seems to be a favorite topic of Eastern traditions. But some Western philosophical writings approach it. Like David Hume, writing about his idea of the mind: “What we call a mind, is nothing but a heap or collection of different perceptions, united together by certain relations, and suppos’d, tho’ falsely, to be endow’d with a perfect simplicity and identity.”

Personally, I agree that there is much to gain from losing the self. Losing at least some of it anyway. Or rather maybe the word is loosing the self. Loosing up the claustrophobic self-identity. But it may be a balancing act. Too much self is solipsism. Having too little or no self can produce feelings that range from mild disorientation to terror. There is an article on the topic of depersonalization disorder here from Aeon.co. Perhaps it could be as Joseph Campbell said: 'The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight.'

My understanding isnt deep. It's like this.

A sense of self could be a by-product of receiving attention. Attention is like food to a developing ego. An ego that doesn't get a normal amount of attention becomes... what? — frank

:up: Ok, I see what you were referring to. Your food analogy is near perfect. The psyche/ego doesn’t simply enjoy attention or energy or feedback, it radically needs it and is constructed by it. Just as the body uses food as fuel, but is also built from food. Like a starving person eating tree bark or insects, sometimes you just take what you can get. @unenlightened‘s description of the pathology is it, in a nutshell. He probably described the angst or struggle of the greater majority of individuals.

And like with many things in life, there is some kind of ideal floating balance point, some possible “golden mean”. Too much attention, pressure, expectations, and praise can be damaging, though maybe not in exactly the same way as deprivation. (More or less, the stage-parent phenomenon). The person with a deficiency or toxic excess of attention early in life may need to deal with it eventually. Possibly in a crisis, depression, or breakdown scenario like has been the topic of several threads, and which was discussed in this post. One way or another, willingly or not, the need or imbalance will rise from the subconscious and demand attention and resolution. This seems to be approaching the territory of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell perhaps.