Thanks for your reply. That would be an interesting debate. I would say that at best, the technology is only as beneficial, smart, and good as the people making and using it. We are going to need every bit of innovation there is, and any that can be devised, to deal with the challenges we face. Nothing wrong with technology per se, which is simply the practical result of the sciences. Quinn says that if we simply try to conquer outer space the way we have virtually enslaved the earth (and each other for that matter. An ever-expanding billion dollar corporation paying its workers $8 per hour?), we will get the same disastrous results. That is, if advanced human civilization as such is still functioning in the not-to-distant future.

About moral choices, no matter how much it may bug you, always choose the lesser of two weevils.

Regarding the question, the definite and extremely conclusive answer is absolutely and positively NO. It is matter-of-factly impossible and inconceivable. All scientific evidence ever studied and demonstrated by every brilliant mind ever proves this indisputable and undeniable fact! Unquestionably and in all circumstances. The answer can only ever be NO. NO,NO,NO. End of story and discussion. A lead-pipe cinch. Rarely is the answer so clear and universally agreed upon!

Unless... Except however though but maybe in the only unlikeliest outside impossibility it is very very extremely far-fetched that the answer might somehow under miraculous and incredible situations be in fact... possibly perhaps could be... MAYBE. Extremely unlikely, but at least theoretically possible. And since there is at least a millionth of a billionth of a chance of it possibly one day occurring, that then makes its eventual likelyhood practically guaranteed, so therefore it is overwhelmingly obvious that the only possible and logical answer is an unqualified YES! Everyone has known this since the beginning of time.

Thanks for your post! Welcome to the forum. Or welcome back if you were at the old PF, or if you are an alter-ego of a current member! :D j/k

This was my response to a similar thread awhile back. The expiration date on it is good for a couple more days, so what the hay.

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

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

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

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

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

Understood. I assumed as much, otherwise you might be correcting all the Infidels. :D

The "Muslim God" and the "Christian God" are just words (referents). They are obviously referents to the same entity, for there is One God only, there's not 50 Gods for that matter. Two different people may call me by a different name (my name as it corresponds to their language), and even describe me differently, it doesn't follow at all that I'm two different persons. So quit playing around. — Agustino

(Y) Yes, thank you, and amen. Living in the USA, I am so tired of hearing true patriots curse and revile Allah, and say "God bless 'Merica" in the same breath. It is so daft that I can't even argue. Now if someone wants to curse terrorists, or yell at a particular extremist Muslim or whatever, that is different.

No chance at all, in my opinion. — Cynical Eye

In advance of trying, that is. Good. Neatly done, and self-absolved. That leaves more time to do many other things. X-)

An organized society might be what some people have been yearning for but at the same time some people don't settle for comfort or mediocrity. — Cynical Eye

Is a culture that works for its members (at least as well as the people work for it) impossible in reality, impossible in theory, or both? If so, please share your thoughts if you would.

And why would such a society necessarily be "mediocrity"? Would it be some exaggeration of a communist werkers' paradise, with matching bland uniforms, easy-listening music playing nonstop, and no goofing off allowed? If that is what you are hinting at, can't we stretch our powers of imagination just a little more? And if that's not what you meant, please clarify (while excusing my wild, if well-intended, assumptions). Thanks!

Could be, but there's nothing altruistic about it in my case. I think I'm just fundamentally afraid of people. — Mongrel

Healthy self-skepticism is a rare and wonderful thing. I value it greatly because of its realness and ability to stay grounded. But on the other hand, i try to remember the ocean of wisdom flowing under the iceberg of fear, even when that ocean is a complete mystery.

What's your craziness? — Mongrel

Lol. :) Just the usual mixture of mistakes, greed, hatred, and delusion that I'm trying to detox from and attempting to stop the addiction.

Those that have abandoned the strategy of "stomp on those below your level, out-shine those on your level, and kiss up to those above" may very well have broken the chains of karma. Or at least one of the biggest chains. Finding replacement strategies isn't easy, but ditching the toxic ones is the critical step. (Y)

What's the meaning of your life? — Cynical Eye

(Y) Ahh, nicely worded! That "your" in the question makes a huge difference. Without it, it is a trite cliche, if not possibly trolling. With it, it has the makings of a very interesting and personal thread. And i shall share my answer to that question just as soon as I discover it!

And now back to the program...

About the difference in amount of work between this tribe and our civilization, two main differences come to mind. The role of money and the relationship with the earth.

Even when a tribe has a barter system or even a kind of money, it is used radically differently. It is as a placeholder for the materials of life, which are sacred. They are sacred in themselves because they were alive, or at least came from Mother Earth. And they are sacred because they sustain life among the tribe. There is a cohesion within the tribe which is almost an extended family. It has the quarrels and clashes of a family, but there is an deep connection. If one member of the tribe is in need, someone will pick them up. Even if they store up some extra food and possessions, it is in no way comparable to our system of inequality. Money not as food, clothing, shelter, art, medicine. Our way is money as leverage, as power. Someone could have 10 million dollars, and think that they need more to really do what they want, to really dominate the market, dominate everything.

Domination is the goal of our culture, written or unwritten. And to dominate others and gain status and goods, the most "successful" are generally those who dominate the living earth the most and turn it into "stuff", into consumables. And the primary product is food. Unlimited food to feed our population. The ever growing population needs ever growing food production. There is a close relationship to this. Notice how tribal cultures always seem to do two things very well? To not let their population grow out of control and to respect the earth, taking only what is needed. The two things are so close as to be one thing. And this is their law of life which has helped them thrive for hundreds of thousands, even millions of years.

Ok, cool. But what does this have to do with us? (One may ask). We are modern and civilized. The more humans on the planet, the less likely we are to becoming extinct, right? It shows that we are on the most successful path, the way of dominance. Right? We are a computerized and digital people. The only digits that a tribal person understands are on their hand. So what could these holdovers from prehistory possibly have to teach us? Not many things, really. Perhaps only one thing: How to avoid becoming extinct.

Thanks. I will have to readSex, Ecology, and Spirituality. Just saw Wilber has a new 800-page book out. For some fun beach reading! :D

(Y) From what I understand, even at the time the movie was made (1980), the San people were already being forced to live in settlements. So the tribal scenes are re-inactments in a way. This documentary about a African healer and the remaining San tribe is interesting:

Tribe of "Bushmen" are in this movie. I think the English language would be more interesting if clucks and clicks were added as in the African speech. :D

Regarding Agustino's eloquently worded original post, I would agree with (or at the very least not disagree with) nearly all of it. A person, taken in absolute isolation, is practically powerless. Like an astronaut floating in empty space, there is no up or down, nothing to stand on, and not much to do. People in a way are like a wonderfully powerfuI cell phone. Disconnected from the internet and having lost its electrical charge, even the best phone is about as useful as a brick. I believe it to be equally important for a person to both recognize their limits, and not despise themselves, nature, others, "God", for those limits. All the while improving one's mind, health, relationships, finances, etc.

(I apologize in advance for perhaps not directly further addressing the stated topic (Man's Weakness as Argument For God) in this post. But i am attempting to address it indirectly, at first. I am still sorting this out, and kind of thinking out loud. And i am certain that some philosophers have covered this much more completely. If someone could provide particular examples, it would be helpful. But anyway... )

In my particular spiritual search, i have attempted (as many have) to find ways to both:

• 1) Approach the Creator (or "Source", "Ground of Being", "God", though i try not to overuse that word. Perhaps it is my superstition or is simply over cautiousness).
  
  And
  
  
• 2) Approach the idea of the Creator. (Or "subject", or "potentiality", for lack of better words) of the Creator.

During my search a distinctive characteristic about the two approachs seems to have become evident. And it is just that... that there IS a subtle but significant difference and distinction between the two approaches. A difference between approaching God/Source directly, and thinking about the idea of God/Source and all that might entail. I will call the former "G-presence"; and call the latter "G-idea". (Probably awkward terms, but I'll use them for now.)

Now, I would like to note that, as i see it, the relationship between these two approaches is complementary. Not competitive and exclusive. More of a Yin/Yang dynamic. NOT right/wrong. NOT good/bad. Important distinction, i think. So i make some distinction between the two approaches, even though there is overlap between them. In a way that one sees the difference between yellow and blue, even though they can blend seamlessly into green, for example.

Approaching the "G-presence" would fall in the category of worship, religion (in the best sense), faith, devotion. The spirit, soul, transpersonal, and heart-centered aspects of a person (love and compassion) would take the lead here. The intellect is still being used, it is just taking more a supporting role, like drums playing during a guitar solo. (Of course, the intellect is needed to even understand or formulate beliefs.) In this approach, particular beliefs and practices are part and parcel of the whole effort. It can be a mixture or blending of beliefs and practices, but it has to be something in particular. For example, it has to be particular in the sense that someone can talk about physical exercise in general. But when it comes to doing exercise, it has to be a specific thing, like running or push-ups. Prayer, meditation, chanting, communal ritual, etc. are examples. And these practices are strongly associated with the beliefs that support and give rise to them.

(As an aside, I would say that this approach (religious and devotional) tends to work best imho when there is feedback between belief and practice. For example, a particular person has Roman Catholic beliefs, in general. As a expression of those beliefs, this person prays the Rosary. They enter a prayerful and contemplative state. This state in a way actualizes the belief into a deeply-felt experience. This "expanded" state of mind is then used to clarify and prioritize one's beliefs. Then this subtly changed belief affects further practice, and so on. Back and forth, belief and practice balancing and refining each other. Not entirely dissimilar to the scientific model of theory and experiment.)

About the second way, the approach of the "G-idea". This I suppose could be called the "God of the philosophers". Or to refer to the Tao Te Ching... it is "the Tao that can be spoken of" as opposed to the "eternal Tao" itself, which CANNOT be spoken of. (At least not turning it into a reflection or image, at best. Nonetheless, the Tao Te Ching doesn't say the eternal Tao cannot be experienced though. But this would fall in the G-presence category, according to my distinction.) In talking about God, the Creator, the Divine, etc, intellect and rationality are the main players. However, the spirit, soul, beliefs/practices, and experiences are still right there, even though taking a supporting role at the moment.

The approach of the G-idea, talking about the Eternal, because it is THINKING primarily, benefits from an open-ended, scientific experiment kind of attitude. Suppositions could be made that would be antithetical and counterproductive to the first approach, that of "G-presence". And these suppositions could be made "in good faith", meaning with the intent of curiousity or clarification, rather than simplistic and gross religion-bashing.

But in engaging in discussion and thought of the "G-idea", one's specific religious beliefs are perhaps best put aside for the moment. Not forgotten or denied, just put temporarily aside. Or if one wishes, a specific religious belief could be made into a general philosophical hypothesis. Whether or not it is then proven, or even if it is even possible to prove x,y, or z religious belief is another matter.

So for example, taking such particular tenets as the number or gender of (the) god(s) as absolute and obvious FACT, is to go against the scientific approach, the philosophical method, or at the very least it doesn't "approach the G-idea" fairly and openly. So to say with all certainty, that that the number of the gods is (...) and the gender of such is (...), simply because this is the "best belief", or it is in a particular scripture, or is just obvious, all this is begging the question, is presuming to know the answer of the question being asked. Thus it is acting in bad faith, so to speak (if not also committing some logical fallacy, such as arguing from authority). It like a stage actor breaking character for five minutes to send a text message... in the middle of a show. Nothing wrong with texting, but the circumstances strongly discourage it.

Perhaps these distinctions are all very obvious. And maybe they can be summed up as "the God of the Old/New Testament" as opposed to "the God of the philosophers." But are the two necessarily and completely different? I would say no. As i said above, i am just trying to work out the fine points about both, and how to get the most out of both approaches. Thank you. :)

Atomic powered flying cars will still be cars, and the morons driving them will still be morons. — Bitter Crank

This morning's traffic 'copter report... traffic is flowing smoothly, except for the backup at Center Rd and Ninth St. where a fender bender has caused a nuclear holocaust. Should delay things for at least 45 minutes, so please find alternate routes! :o

All true. — Bitter Crank

Thanks! (Y)

What would distinguish this practical utopia from modern society?
— Reformed Nihilist
Oh dear... :s — Agustino

I think i may know what you are getting at. But at second glance of RN's quote, i think it is actually a fair request to the original poster to define what he meant by "practical Utopia", before even discussing whether such a thing is possible or not, etc. That is at least how i interpreted it, fwiw.

Interesting thread for sure. Hopefully later i will contribute. But for now, may i offer an alternative to "Prutopia"? How about "Practopia", perhaps? For some reason, i somehow keep mis-reading Prutopia as prude-topia. :) Which it is not, of course! Just an off-the-wall suggestion to take or leave.

Thank you. Carry on! (Y)

Of course it depends on how you define and measure "progress". If "progress" is material developments that make a major difference in daily life, then I think much of what is considered "progress" today is at least a century old. Some of it two centuries old. Steam power and railroads; photography; telegraphy; civil engineering and sanitation -- water and sewer systems; the germ theory; electrical generation, lighting, and motors; telephone; radio; sound recording, internal combustion engines; and steel frame buildings made a great deal of difference, and continue to influence daily life.

Since 1917, the most important material progress event has been the discovery of sulfa drugs and penicillin (and similar antibiotics).

Though ubiquitous, Computers, television, rockets, satellites, cell phones, jets, CT and MRI machines, cassettes, CDs, MP3s, atomic weapons, plastics, and so on make less difference in the experience of daily life than earlier inventions. YouTube, FaceBook and Twitter capture attention in ways that telegraphs didn't, but that doesn't make them significant samples of progress. (Abraham Lincoln liked to hang around the Army's telegraph office near the White House to read the latest dispatches from the field as soon as they arrived.)

If "progress" is defined as cultural innovation, then there is far less to report on. For cultural innovation we have to look over millennia. The major innovation that Stephen Pinker talks about (centralized governmental authority) was implemented maybe 5,000 years ago. Writing is about 5,000 years old. Language is... don't know -- scores of centuries old. Philosophy is what... 3,000 years old. The major religions are at least 2,000 years old (with the exception of johnny-come-late-islam). Agriculture is around 8,000 years old. What have we done lately (in units of centuries or millennia)? Well, there's the printing press -- fairly big deal -- 500+ years ago. Gunpowder--progress or not? Science and technology developed over the last 700 years--things like better plows and better yokes for horses made a big difference.

So in the times that everyone here has been alive, really very little "progress" has occurred. — Bitter Crank

Interesting, thank you for sharing that.

Even though i might quibble somewhat about antibiotics being the top discovery in the last hundred years (I'd say it is in the top five. And that the combination of internet-computers-cell phones would be first. Though it is probably cheating to combine them into one!) I would agree that culturally or civilizationally not much has changed in terms of its foundations and institutions. It was about 100 years ago that the dark side of progress became evident for all to see, and impossible to ignore even if one wished to. Referring to WW1 of course. Before then, dissenters from the status quo (very broadly speaking) of various kinds were mostly on the fringes or in academia, or both. Nietzsche, Emerson, Thoreau, Malthus, Darwin, Marx, Dickens, and many others, for example. The fight to abolish slavery in the US also spurred much re-thinking of societal norms.

But much progress has been made. Skeptics might say that such progress as eliminating slavery or equal rights for women were correcting errors that should not have been made in the first place. In any case, any improvements are welcome, even if the specifics are arguable. Though it somehow feels all too precarious... like everything could be lost in a flash, or like the entire culture is in a game of high-stakes poker. We have climbed the icy mountain of progress one grueling inch at a time. It has taken the efforts of billions of people, from geniuses to laborers, stretching from the dawn of humanity until this moment, to get where we are now. But with one slip of the foot seemingly, we could tumble off our hard-won perch and onto the jagged rocks below.

Interesting, thanks! Could you possibly say more about Wilber in relation to the current ecological situation and related topics? I think i see what you mean, but don't wish to assume.

Like you, i think Wilber has much to offer, if for no other reason than he covers an incredible amount of subjects. One can dispute major or minor aspects of his work, but it simply cannot be all tossed aside. For instance, some feel he leans too heavily on the Perennial Philosophy or that he is too skimpy with citing scientific sources. Perhaps, but even despite these and other flaws, he is worth reading. (Not that I understand everything he wrote! :) )

I don't know who Campbell is. — Wosret

If you haven't seen any of Joseph Campbell's videos or lectures, you might like him.

About being in the flow, in the zone, and trying to stay there as much and often as possible... I think I know what you mean. Sometimes it just comes naturally. Sometimes it is like "where did it go???" The flow of energy in all its forms is very interesting. The fire of life. Music, sport, work, sexuality, inspiration, money, sunlight, on and on... These dynamic forces are always in some ways present, even when they seem a thousand miles away. To see the sun at night one looks at the moon reflecting it. When i happen to lose excessive self-consciousness, the flow usually starts to happen. That is why some like alcohol- to lose the excess baggage of mental constructions. I'm trying to figure out how to do that without the crutch of alcohol. Gotta assume it is at least possible.

(Y) gotcha!

Yes. Thank you for the correction — Rich

Taking Latin in high school finally comes in handy after many years. Wish i would have learned Chinese, though! X-)

He was talking about how he didn't want... — Wosret

Sorry... to whom are you referring? Who is "he"? Dostoevsky? Thanks. (Y)

The Greek myth of Pegasus. — Rich

Icarus, you mean to say maybe? Good point though! (Y)

In A Short History of Progress Ronald Wright shows how people in earlier civilizations such as Easter Island and the Maya saw red flags, tried to stave off ecological collapse, but were no match for the powerful in their society who had a vested interest in the status quo. Sound familiar? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

(Y) Thanks for your reply. Yes, those examples are eerily familiar. Have not read Wright's book, but i appreciated Jared Diamond's Collapse which seems similar. Arguably, Western civilization has become the new global civilization. Arguably (for some), we are headed for some tough times ahead- ecologically, economically, politically, population-wise, and otherwise-wise. The question is how to stave off the impending calamities. Daniel Quinn would say that "vision" is the compelling force of a culture. The Vision of our culture is headed for disasters.

The absolutist thinking that the Earth is naught but raw material for commerce is inherently unstable. Of course, the Earth (and Sun) provides materials, food, and everything that our bodies need. That is only natural. It is the absoluteness of that Vision which is the problem. It has gone way, way past any balance point. It is not even looking for a balance point. Quinn would say this has been slowing gaining momentum for thousands of years. Hunting and gathering slowly became hunting and gardening. Which became herding and gardening. Which became agriculture. Which became the currently dominant form of creating food: "totalitarian agriculture", in his words. Plow under any forest, wipe out any species that dares feed on any crop or herd. A poisonous theory using millions of tons of poison. The fact that this way of life has lasted this long doesn't guarantee that it will last much longer.

But, Wright says, while the ecological collapse of civilizations like the Roman Empire was destructive, the destruction was limited geographically. However, the ecological collapse of Western civilization today could be global in scope, Wright says.

I don't know enough about ecology to say if all humans will perish. My guess is that the people in the world who still have something close to agrarian life will survive the evolutionary cut while industrial society and its members who do not know how to provide their own food are both destroyed. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, i would agree with those statements. I do not know what the optimal world population is. But every life is precious. I have read those that say the population should be less than a billion, say. Which makes me think, "ok, great! are you volunteering to leave then?" :D The history of the Roman Empire is very instructive, though there are many interpretations. An even-handed study of "empire" as an entity can lead to potential insights into our situation. One best not put blinders on, and give unquestioning allegiance to a system. That would be in bad faith and unphilosophical. Even if one cannot spare much time to study the topic, the first and most important step is to not swallow the pill that your mind and heart know is BS. Because that BS is mental toxic sludge. It is not necessary to go around protesting, arguing, and blaming. Just don't swallow what is known to be false and unbalanced, at least for the sake of one's sanity and health, if nothing else.

Quinn makes the same point, that civilizations in the past were buffered from each other, and their destructiveness was contained. Now it seems that it's becoming a situation where we are all in the same boat. Whether that boat is a life raft, a pleasure cruise, the Titanic, the HMS Bounty, or something else entirely, remains to be seen.

Progress, or at least the idea of it, seems like a mixed bag. The old joke is "Q: Are things getting better or worse? A: Definitely!" Of course, technology and electronic products are getting better by the day. It's wonderful! We can be spied upon much, much better than in the past. :s Your cellphone is the spy in your pocket, telling whomever really wants to know where you have been, and what you have been doing. It is the closest thing to mind reading i can imagine. It does feel to me at that we are close to living in a dystopia, if we are not there already. One of my former jobs was as a manager in a virtual sweatshop, with people getting paid far less than they deserved. The experience has made me skeptical of capitalism ever showing any form of compassion or wisdom. It is against its programming, which is profit uber alles. How can we re-program the code of our civilization?

So it seems the general consensus is that philosophy as a whole (including logic) is NOT considered science, not even related. Though at one time it was closely linked. But science can have its own philosophy(s). Comments?

This quote from The Story of B by Daniel Quinn:

“Every creature born in the living community belongs to that community. I mean it belongs in the sense that your skin or your nervous system belongs to you. The mouse we saw didn’t just ‘live in’ the park community, the way you might live in an apartment in Chicago or Fresno. Every molecule in the mouse’s body was drawn from this community and eventually had be returned to this community. It would be legitimate to say that this mouse was an expression of this community the way Leonardo da Vinci was an expression of Renaissance Italy.
“The individual lives in dynamic tension with the community, withdrawing to burrow, hive, nest, lodge, or den for safety’s sake but never totally self-sufficient there, always compelled to return and make itself available, as this mouse did. This tension is a phrase of the law, inspiring the trapdoor spider to seal its burrow like a bank vault and inspiring the spider wasp to become a safebreaker.
“Nothing in the community lives in isolation from the rest, not even the queens of the social insects. Nothing lives only in itself, needing nothing from the community. Nothing lives only for itself, owing nothing to the community. Nothing is untouchable or untouched. Every life is on loan from the community from birth and without fail is paid back to the community in death. The community is a web of life, and every strand of the web is a path to all the other strands. Nothing is exempt or excused. Nothing is special. Nothing lives on a strand by itself, unconnected to the rest. As you saw yesterday, nothing is wasted, not a drop of water or a molecule of protein—or the egg of a fly. This is the sweetness and the miracle of it all, Jared. Everything that lives is food for another. Everything that feeds is ultimately itself fed upon or in death returns its substance to the community.”

(Excerpt From: Quinn, Daniel. “The Story of B.” Bantam Books, 2010-01-13. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.)

This is a poetic and elegant way to describe the inter-relatedness of all creatures. And as such, i am inspired by these words, and would agree.

Is this just happy talk? Mushy New Age teaching? Just a "circle of life" cliche? Applicable only to the physical and material dimension?

Somehow this is all counter to our mindset, which is that everything and everyone is at its core Individuals. That our nature is absolutely separate and independent and individual. Salvation is individual and damnation is individual. As is karma. We are like marbles in a bowl. In proximity, maybe even touching, but clearly separate. Our source is individual, as is our destiny. Inside and out, top to bottom, now and forever. Separate.

This belief, I propose, is one half of the problem that allows ignorance and evil (for lack of better terms) to spread. The other half is the belief that the entire planet belongs to Humans (the undisputed pinnacle of Creation) to use in any way that suits. Which boils down to turning anything and everything into human products and foods so that... there may be even more pinnacles of Creation walking around.

The first view is how we view ourselves, and how we relate with other people. The second view is how we view the living world. When absolute individualism meets absolute voracious-ness and insatiably, the result is what we as a species is rushing toward.

This is the theory and proposal. It may also qualify as a diagnosis, but that remains to be seen and proven.

(Y) yep, Barbara will do that to ya! X-)

I liked the article for the more neutral approach. Part of us is eternally five years old, asking "why? why? why?" That is ok. Just take it one breath at a time.

Actually, i was joking... it is not a quote from Witt. Humming the words might reveal the author.
Unless you were joking back, and got me! :D

Interesting article on the topic.

The Philosophmore proclaims:

I have reached the optimal point of all knowledge!
All that know less than me are dullards.
All that think they know more than me went to some fancy college that that Daddy paid for, and are brainiacs who need to get a life.

I have reached the perfect age!
All younger than me are smartass whipper snappers who need to turn off their iPhone for 10 minutes.
All those older than me are just out of it.

I am at the perfect financial level!
Anyone poorer than me is a slob, Anyone richer is a snob!

I am at the perfect center of the universe, the absolute balance point. For now, anyway.

...thus spoke the Philosophmore.
:D

Memories? — Mongrel

.... light the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories...
of the way
we were...
-Wittgenstein

The question of what is Buddhism and what are it's teachings is rather fluid with thousands of variations depending upon motivations of teachers and students. In this regard, there doesn't seem to be truths, rather interpretations of what Buddha might have said (everything about Buddhism is subject to various oral and written interpretations of translations).

When attempting to understand the essence of Buddhism, I look for similarities and differences been Buddhism and other cultural spiritualities developing at the same time (e.g. Daoism, Confucianism Hinduism). As sources, I prefer more neutral sources such as Alan Watts who shares with me the general feeling that Buddhism and Daoism to have a tendency toward continue evolution as a reaction to the more hierarchical and less mobile traditions such as Hinduism and Confucianism which have more appeal to truths. Over time, certain Buddhist traditions have adopted notions of truth (which are in conflict with the notion of impermanence) for practical, economic reasons.

There is no way to point to a single source, but rather it is an image I developed after much reading on the subject and discussions with practitioners. — Rich

(Y) Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply. This is making me research deeper, which is a good thing. I looked up the word "dogma", and "View (Buddhism)" from Wikipedia:


dog·ma ˈdôɡmə/noun noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the Christian dogma of the Trinity"
synonyms: teaching, belief, tenet, principle, precept, maxim, article of faith, canon; More
creed, credo, set of beliefs, doctrine, ideology
"a dogma of the Sikh religion"
Origin mid 16th century: via late Latin from Greek dogma ‘opinion,’ from dokein ‘seem good, think.’


View (Buddhism)
View or position (Pali diṭṭhi, Sanskrit dṛṣṭi) is a central idea in Buddhism.[1] In Buddhist thought, in contrast with the commonsense understanding, a view is not a simple, abstract collection of propositions, but a charged interpretation of experience which intensely shapes and affects thought, sensation, and action.[2] Having the proper mental attitude toward views is therefore considered an integral part of the Buddhist path.[3]

Views are produced by and in turn produce mental conditioning. They are symptoms of conditioning, rather than neutral alternatives individuals can dispassionately choose.[4] The Buddha, according to the discourses, having attained the state of unconditioned mind, is said to have "passed beyond the bondage, tie, greed, obsession, acceptance, attachment, and lust of view."[5]

The Buddha of the early discourses often refers to the negative effect of attachment to speculative or fixed views, dogmatic opinions, or even correct views if not personally known to be true. In describing the highly diverse intellectual landscape of his day, he is said to have referred to "the wrangling of views, the jungle of views."[6] He assumed an unsympathetic attitude toward speculative and religious thought in general.[7] In a set of poems in the Sutta Nipata, the Buddha states that he himself has no viewpoint. According to Steven Collins, these poems distill the style of teaching that was concerned less with the content of views and theories than with the psychological state of those who hold them.[8]

Those who wish to experience nirvana must free themselves from everything binding them to the world, including philosophical and religious doctrines.[9] Right view as the first part of the Noble Eightfold Path leads ultimately not to the holding of correct views, but to a detached form of cognition.[10][11]

Four wrong views Edit

Gyurme conveys the following 'four false views':[12][13]
seeing impurity as purity,
seeing selflessness as self,
seeing suffering as happiness,
seeing impermanence as permanence.
---FROM WIKIPEDIA

---------
Some interesting stuff here, hopefully helpful to this discussion. I hadn't realized the "dogma" comes from the Greek word for "opinion", derived from another word meaning "seem good, think". Compared to the way dogma is thought of currently, that seems kind of wishy-washy. Anyhow... beliefs, tenets, principles, precepts are all synonymous generally.

Basically, i am of two minds in regards to your post. On one hand, Buddhism has evolved and continues to do so. And in the Wikipedia article it says:
"In a set of poems in the Sutta Nipata, the Buddha states that he himself has no viewpoint. According to Steven Collins, these poems distill the style of teaching that was concerned less with the content of views and theories than with the psychological state of those who hold them."
So that is in the favor of the view expressed in your post. Can't disagree too much there. And i know that you are NOT saying "anything goes" either, of course.

I would just say that there are at least SOME tenets essential to Buddhism that makes it "Buddhism". In other words, someone is free to build on some the teachings of Buddha, and combine it with, say, Existentialism, to create a hybrid system that may happen to be full of insight. But at that point, it is more "Buddha-inspired" than "Buddhism", it seems to me anyway. This may just be splitting string cheese, but hopefully it is relevant. Now when it comes to the matter of "practice" (as opposed to beliefs or tenets), there may possibly be more open area for experimentation. Such as combining Tai Chi with chanting and zazen, or something. In any case, what you seem to be proposing doesn't seem wrong necessarily. It just seems, at best, advanced. Meaning that it might be more suitable for experienced practitioners, in order to avoid pitfalls. Then again, life is a learning experience. Just my two cents. Thanks again! :)

This is what happens when people claim that 1) There is truth 2) That someone lays claim to it.

Buddhism and Buddha probably initially held the vantage point that there is no immobility called truth (the concept of impermanence which also exists in Daoism at about the same time). However, over time, it appears Buddhism had morphed into thousands of goal oriented religions/philosophies which embrace truths if one sort it another and are often in conflict ft with each other. But at it's essence, I believe the philosophy embraces continuous evolution and impermanence which does not allow for truths. — Rich

If I'm understanding you correctly here, I would tend to disagree, or at least clarify. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any statements attributed to Buddha ever denying the existence of truth or truths, in general. This despite his assertion that all things are impermanent. I would take it that the laws of karma are outside of the category of "things". For example, it may be an issue of translation, but Buddha didn't name his core teaching "The Four Noble Helpful Hints". ;) But please give a reference if available. Now the "Two Truths" teaching posits both relative truths and ultimate truths. But that, I believe, is from a later Mahayana period, as helpful and enlightening as it may be.

Thanks for the reply. Interesting thought. I hadn't considered ghosts as a type of hologram, if that is what you meant. That would seem within the realm of researchable possibility, not that I understand quantum matter and such. (Y)