Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

I don't ascribe to Cartesian dualism. I think Descartes got it wrong. It should have been "I am an intelligent animal, therefore I think". The guy was so off-beam that used to cut up living dogs in public displays because he did not believe that they actually felt pain, due to lack of a human soul. A sad and appalling mistake by him.

Yes, I did mean "incomplete" as in "not in full focus". In terms of natural selection, brains are very expensive energetically. Our brains make up about 2% of our body mass but they draw about 20% of the energy we consume.

Further, imagine if you could perceive everything - every gas in the air, every magnetic wave, hearing insects and birds munching, seeing atoms and so forth. My guess is that, if we could see and hear everything around us, our eyes would be filled with blinding light and ears would be overloaded by a constant din. Interestingly, this is what some people describe after being brought back after almost dying - they find reality to be both blinding and deafening until their re-acclimatise. Thus, our senses only pick up that which had helped our ancestors to pass on their genes and our brain has its own limits.

As for no subjective experience, sure you can imagine it. You crave a lack of subjective experience every night and, if you don't get it, you will have physical and mental difficulties.

People love their nightly oblivion and, eventually, we all go to sleep and don't wake up, hence the term "Rest in peace". Oblivion is really, really peaceful! ;)

There may be some intense death dreams as the brain is dying but, once the brain oxygen goes, it does not appear that there is a future. After all, what the future after death for a blue-tongued lizard or a koala? I'd say, the same as us. The only way would be if there are other dimensions, and that these dimensions contain the ground for eternal life.

But would you really want eternal life, for your mind to keep continuing through all the death and loss and grief and illnesses and cruelty and suffering along the way until there's nothing solid left?

I suppose in an ontological sense, is there a stable existence of anything? I'm certain I love my brother, however, there are times when our relationship is strained to the point where empirical evidence would suggest the contrary. Nothing has yet broken our bond, despite some frustrations on the surface.

If I wanted to get to know you, and I don't believe you truly exist (as much as I think I exist), then I believe you are nothing but a character in my dream state. So, there needs to be some "leap of faith" in order for me to form a recognisable connection that would also align with my reasoning that there are "other minds". Does that resonate with you?

There are many things in our experience which we cannot control. If we have no free will, then who are we to say we actually exist, let alone "other minds". Based on evidence, there is simply continually changing experience.

Yes, we definitely do not wish to have full perception of our reality, as it's not needed for our survival on this planet. That is a good point.

If you are happy about dying when "you time is up", then it may become a self-fulfilling prophesy. I think "believers" desire eternal life, and so they by necessity have to form a relationship with the eternal.

Regarding the faith we have in other minds, this does not seem to be an exclusively human trait. Other species have no doubt about the reality of other minds, eg. squirrels being careful that no one is looking when they hide their nuts. Again, this would be natural selection. An animal that doubts the reality of another's sentience may come in for a rude shock; an animal that underestimates others will tend to breed less successfully than an animal with a more realistic view.

We humans increase the complexity of these interactions, as always, but the principle is the same. There is a natural assumption that others function similarly to you. Sometimes in humans this assumption goes too far, and people will not only assume similarity, but demand conformity, eg. homophobia is based in the idea that it's surely impossible for someone not to feel attracted to the opposite sex, and thus homosexuality is deemed invalid, a distortion. Politics is another example.

As for free will, I have never cared. It feels like I have free will and that will do me. Thanks to physics and other people's impositions, if I am free in an ontic sense, I am still only somewhat free.

I doubt that we have enough control to inflict self-fulfilling prophesies on ourselves at death. There's plenty of accounts of non-believers having amazing NDEs. Given that only about 15% of revived people report having an NDE, ie. they were completely unconscious as in deep sleep, and many more than 15% of people believe in God, it's clear that many believers were oblivious in near-death.

Whether we just let whatever happen when we die or try to influence the experience, would seem to make no difference, just as it doesn't matter what you do if you are standing near the caldera of a volcano when it explosively erupts and a boiling flow of gas rushes at you at 600 kph. You can run but ...

Most of life is out of our control - where we are born, when we are born, who our parents are, our parents' experiences, luck, etc - so I don't see how death will be any more controllable. Often, by then, dying people feel pretty cooked and NDE reports seem to suggest that the dying people at that point are simply going with the flow.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Assuming probability even exists in actual reality.

One could consider whether or not it's just the fact that there's billions of people, however. Maybe it's all just "perfectly realistic".

[Samana Johann]

Then, why not act accordingly and make desire for food, relay on own suffering and suffering of others and end, or stive at least for refined existance, nourishing on joy beyond sensuality, blamless, harmess? By only wishing and merely demanding, one still wouldn't see one's own outcome of deeds, eats. What does good householder rejoice on when touched by nephew and dog? Aren't they just his food for sensual joy. And when apart reason for suffering? What could he give them not taken from others at first place, real own? It requires right conceit to overcome conceit, and nothing then there to blame, if one has gained total release like the Arahats.

Whatever, young simian, I have made my point that human lives are not the only ones that matter.

The topic is about that, good householder, and wise if not sacrificing and associating downwardly, but upwardly.

Where could there be prosperity if only seeing equal and lower (easier to let one feel comfortable, sacrificing downwardly)? Who would even recognise the goodness of his first gods, ones parents?

Your issue, young simian, is that it is perfectly possible to appreciate that which is greater than you without spitting on those below, treating them as worthless. That, young simian, would be the approach of a tyrant.

Much more harmful for one and others, is to lack of right discerning, discrimination, in what ever mode of the three kinds of conceit, lower am I, equal, higher am I, good householder.

[Sy Borg]

Whatever, young simian, I have made my point that human lives are not the only ones that matter.

The topic is about that, good householder, and wise if not sacrificing and associating downwardly, but upwardly.

Where could there be prosperity if only seeing equal and lower (easier to let one feel comfortable, sacrificing downwardly)? Who would even recognise the goodness of his first gods, ones parents?

Your issue, young simian, is that it is perfectly possible to appreciate that which is greater than you without spitting on those below, treating them as worthless. That, young simian, would be the approach of a tyrant.

Much more harmful for one and others, is to lack of right discerning, discrimination, in what ever mode of the three kinds of conceit, lower am I, equal, higher am I, good householder.

Good householder thinks that young simian misses the point. One can be dominant without being callous or contemptuous towards those under one's control. It is not a lack of discernment that stops the dominant from treating those in their power with mercy. It is empathy and ethics.

[Samana Johann]

The topic is about that, good householder, and wise if not sacrificing and associating downwardly, but upwardly.

Where could there be prosperity if only seeing equal and lower (easier to let one feel comfortable, sacrificing downwardly)? Who would even recognise the goodness of his first gods, ones parents?

Your issue, young simian, is that it is perfectly possible to appreciate that which is greater than you without spitting on those below, treating them as worthless. That, young simian, would be the approach of a tyrant.

Much more harmful for one and others, is to lack of right discerning, discrimination, in what ever mode of the three kinds of conceit, lower am I, equal, higher am I, good householder.

Good householder thinks that young simian misses the point. One can be dominant without being callous or contemptuous towards those under one's control. It is not a lack of discernment that stops the dominant from treating those in their power with mercy. It is empathy and ethics.

No even oneself a little under control, total under the power of the six senses, the blind and pride thinks his actions are empathic and ethical, yet nothing but driven by craving and conceit, incapable to get even an idea of a pointing out, right, good householder.

It's because those are slaves to Mara (lure of sense), like follish children domain sand castles, rejoice on their power, that those having left house life wouldn't regard different as just common, are not even allowed to pay respect, how ever old, famous, powerful, rich, big, beautiful or learned.

It's most of value to gain right discernment, right discrimination, outside of the sand boxes. And it's not so that Gods, heavens, hells don't arise and decay as well. Good to go after the deathless.

[Sy Borg]

Your issue, young simian, is that it is perfectly possible to appreciate that which is greater than you without spitting on those below, treating them as worthless. That, young simian, would be the approach of a tyrant.

Much more harmful for one and others, is to lack of right discerning, discrimination, in what ever mode of the three kinds of conceit, lower am I, equal, higher am I, good householder.

Good householder thinks that young simian misses the point. One can be dominant without being callous or contemptuous towards those under one's control. It is not a lack of discernment that stops the dominant from treating those in their power with mercy. It is empathy and ethics.

No even oneself a little under control, total under the power of the six senses, the blind and pride thinks his actions are empathic and ethical, yet nothing but driven by craving and conceit, incapable to get even an idea of a pointing out, right, good householder.

It's because those are slaves to Mara (lure of sense), like follish children domain sand castles, rejoice on their power, that those having left house life wouldn't regard different as just common, are not even allowed to pay respect, how ever old, famous, powerful, rich, big, beautiful or learned.

It's most of value to gain right discernment, right discrimination, outside of the sand boxes. And it's not so that Gods, heavens, hells don't arise and decay as well. Good to go after the deathless.

It appears that young simian thinks that to show mercy is to show weakness, that mercy, ethics and empathy are mere conceits. As for appreciating gifted people, why not? It's a natural, and usual thing to do. Some idealistically posit a level playing field but I am yet to see evidence of a level playing field in history, or natural history for that matter.

You may be surprised to find that many people are actually sincere and accept their limitations. Anyone can act as if they are above it all - until the proverbial faeces hits the fan.

[Samana Johann]

Much more harmful for one and others, is to lack of right discerning, discrimination, in what ever mode of the three kinds of conceit, lower am I, equal, higher am I, good householder.

Good householder thinks that young simian misses the point. One can be dominant without being callous or contemptuous towards those under one's control. It is not a lack of discernment that stops the dominant from treating those in their power with mercy. It is empathy and ethics.

No even oneself a little under control, total under the power of the six senses, the blind and pride thinks his actions are empathic and ethical, yet nothing but driven by craving and conceit, incapable to get even an idea of a pointing out, right, good householder.

It's because those are slaves to Mara (lure of sense), like follish children domain sand castles, rejoice on their power, that those having left house life wouldn't regard different as just common, are not even allowed to pay respect, how ever old, famous, powerful, rich, big, beautiful or learned.

It's most of value to gain right discernment, right discrimination, outside of the sand boxes. And it's not so that Gods, heavens, hells don't arise and decay as well. Good to go after the deathless.

It appears that young simian thinks that to show mercy is to show weakness, that mercy, ethics and empathy are mere conceits. As for appreciating gifted people, why not? It's a natural, and usual thing to do. Some idealistically posit a level playing field but I am yet to see evidence of a level playing field in history, or natural history for that matter.

You may be surprised to find that many people are actually sincere and accept their limitations. Anyone can act as if they are above it all - until the proverbial faeces hits the fan.

Good householder, it's because being caught in seeing thing as real, which aren't, and unreal, which are, that people project their extremes in views toward others as well. It's total no weakness, but what denounces "realms of Gods (Brahmas/Sublime)", to dwell in goodwill, compassion, appreciation, equanimity. That's sublime virtue. Yet such as "mercy" and "ethic" are merely ideas of one blindly trying to define himself within the area of gross defilements, five senses. It requires a lot of either right or wrong conceit, to dwell either within the Sublime realms or actually on a heap of dung.

Right distinction is very useful and importand. Even if gained more Sublime stands, if caught by Mara, Gods are just like other foolish children, just out of conventions under blind, regarded as such. That is what distinguishes those living with Gods or just with Mara (leader of common Gods).

[Sy Borg]

Bleagh. Buddhist preaching. Yes yes, everything is Maya, mere illusion. Young simian, I am not a young simian, and have heard this line for the better part of half a century.

It's just meaningless sophistry. The fact is that our reality is thoroughly real. It's far from the only reality, but it sure is real at our scale and in our domain. Any claim to the otherwise is naive. As soon as such sophists are confronted by concentrated entropy, they fold as soon as anyone else. It's easy to sprout about the mere illusion of reality when that "illusion" doesn't put you under pressure.

Reality can be pretty nasty business, but that's no reason to live in denial of it. Rather, one is better off understanding the relative immaturity of the systems we judge.

[Samana Johann]

Bleagh. Buddhist preaching. Yes yes, everything is Maya, mere illusion. Young simian, I am not a young simian, and have heard this line for the better part of half a century.

It's just meaningless sophistry. The fact is that our reality is thoroughly real. It's far from the only reality, but it sure is real at our scale and in our domain. Any claim to the otherwise is naive. As soon as such sophists are confronted by concentrated entropy, they fold as soon as anyone else. It's easy to sprout about the mere illusion of reality when that "illusion" doesn't put you under pressure.

Reality can be pretty nasty business, but that's no reason to live in denial of it. Rather, one is better off understanding the relative immaturity of the systems we judge.

Don't good householder think that he ever really came in touch with the real teachings of the Sublime Buddha, since exactly this: "It's easy to sprout about the mere illusion of reality when that "illusion" doesn't put you under pressure." isn't at all of use, but called "householder-equanimity", simply driving toward more wrong and more stupidy.

And it's good to try to break through ones immature and ignorant system of thinking, not only to progress toward more Sublime but eventually go beyond, asking: what keeps me turning in circles restless?

It requires to get known the way, as well as right conceit. Wrong conceit and thinking secure, not even a vision of more sublime, but just befriend more and more with lower, feeding on that, leads just downwardly.

Only if one is able to see one's rightly discerned goodness, can rightly rejoice with oneself, one is able to walk on, not required to ever come back.

So the topic on abounding doubts in regard of possibilities toward higher is actually a very useful toward long term happiness and release. No progress for one associating with skeptical and doubters, not here, for this world, nor for the next. As long as suffering is still bearable, the doubtful nature sees no urgency at all and entertains himself with what merits might be left, hoping it will not be gone. That's the part of illusion, taking insecure as secure and secure as insecure.

Isn't pleasure, non of flesh, not in the sphere of sensuality, not much, much more Sublime, longer lasting? It does not even harm anybody, does not depend on the pain of others, the resistance and living in the Realm of the Brahmas.

[Sy Borg]

Bleagh. Buddhist preaching. Yes yes, everything is Maya, mere illusion. Young simian, I am not a young simian, and have heard this line for the better part of half a century.

It's just meaningless sophistry. The fact is that our reality is thoroughly real. It's far from the only reality, but it sure is real at our scale and in our domain. Any claim to the otherwise is naive. As soon as such sophists are confronted by concentrated entropy, they fold as soon as anyone else. It's easy to sprout about the mere illusion of reality when that "illusion" doesn't put you under pressure.

Reality can be pretty nasty business, but that's no reason to live in denial of it. Rather, one is better off understanding the relative immaturity of the systems we judge.

Don't good householder think that he ever really came in touch with the real teachings of the Sublime Buddha, since exactly this: "It's easy to sprout about the mere illusion of reality when that "illusion" doesn't put you under pressure." isn't at all of use, but called "householder-equanimity", simply driving toward more wrong and more stupidy.

And it's good to try to break through ones immature and ignorant system of thinking, not only to progress toward more Sublime but eventually go beyond, asking: what keeps me turning in circles restless?

It requires to get known the way, as well as right conceit. Wrong conceit and thinking secure, not even a vision of more sublime, but just befriend more and more with lower, feeding on that, leads just downwardly.

Only if one is able to see one's rightly discerned goodness, can rightly rejoice with oneself, one is able to walk on, not required to ever come back.

So the topic on abounding doubts in regard of possibilities toward higher is actually a very useful toward long term happiness and release. No progress for one associating with skeptical and doubters, not here, for this world, nor for the next. As long as suffering is still bearable, the doubtful nature sees no urgency at all and entertains himself with what merits might be left, hoping it will not be gone. That's the part of illusion, taking insecure as secure and secure as insecure.

Isn't pleasure, non of flesh, not in the sphere of sensuality, not much, much more Sublime, longer lasting? It does not even harm anybody, does not depend on the pain of others, the resistance and living in the Realm of the Brahmas.

I highlighted the bolded section, young simian, because it is the road to moral and spiritual oblivion. It is a mistake to think that kindness and empathy towards those weaker than you only brings you down. Rather, it is simply decency. The strong who routinely exploit the weak - who only show respect upwards - are deluded in their egoism, and squander their gifts.

Buddhists are actually well aware of the ego trap that you appear to have fallen into. The idea that a practitioner of a religion or worldview is inherently superior to others. Now that is delusion. When I was young I saw these types at yoga and meditation all the time. They wanted to be "above" everyone else and, in doing so, they simply thwarted their own development.

There is no upwards path for the strong that does pass through the need to show deference to the weak. Those who don't show kindness for fear of "tainting themselves" by associating with "untouchables" are not on a path upwards. Rather, they respond immaturely, like cavemen or toddlers, not yet capable of understanding empathy or mercy.

You talk about the realness of the Brahmas. Any Brahman today who refuses to interact normally with other castes is not superior, just a culturally primitive person. Metaphorically, those who suck up to the bosses and treat their staff with disrespect tend to be loathed for their selfishness and lack of respect.

[Samana Johann]

Bleagh. Buddhist preaching. Yes yes, everything is Maya, mere illusion. Young simian, I am not a young simian, and have heard this line for the better part of half a century.

It's just meaningless sophistry. The fact is that our reality is thoroughly real. It's far from the only reality, but it sure is real at our scale and in our domain. Any claim to the otherwise is naive. As soon as such sophists are confronted by concentrated entropy, they fold as soon as anyone else. It's easy to sprout about the mere illusion of reality when that "illusion" doesn't put you under pressure.

Reality can be pretty nasty business, but that's no reason to live in denial of it. Rather, one is better off understanding the relative immaturity of the systems we judge.

Don't good householder think that he ever really came in touch with the real teachings of the Sublime Buddha, since exactly this: "It's easy to sprout about the mere illusion of reality when that "illusion" doesn't put you under pressure." isn't at all of use, but called "householder-equanimity", simply driving toward more wrong and more stupidy.

And it's good to try to break through ones immature and ignorant system of thinking, not only to progress toward more Sublime but eventually go beyond, asking: what keeps me turning in circles restless?

It requires to get known the way, as well as right conceit. Wrong conceit and thinking secure, not even a vision of more sublime, but just befriend more and more with lower, feeding on that, leads just downwardly.

Only if one is able to see one's rightly discerned goodness, can rightly rejoice with oneself, one is able to walk on, not required to ever come back.

So the topic on abounding doubts in regard of possibilities toward higher is actually a very useful toward long term happiness and release. No progress for one associating with skeptical and doubters, not here, for this world, nor for the next. As long as suffering is still bearable, the doubtful nature sees no urgency at all and entertains himself with what merits might be left, hoping it will not be gone. That's the part of illusion, taking insecure as secure and secure as insecure.

Isn't pleasure, non of flesh, not in the sphere of sensuality, not much, much more Sublime, longer lasting? It does not even harm anybody, does not depend on the pain of others, the resistance and living in the Realm of the Brahmas.

I highlighted the bolded section, young simian, because it is the road to moral and spiritual oblivion. It is a mistake to think that kindness and empathy towards those weaker than you only brings you down. Rather, it is simply decency. The strong who routinely exploit the weak - who only show respect upwards - are deluded in their egoism, and squander their gifts.

Buddhists are actually well aware of the ego trap that you appear to have fallen into. The idea that a practitioner of a religion or worldview is inherently superior to others. Now that is delusion. When I was young I saw these types at yoga and meditation all the time. They wanted to be "above" everyone else and, in doing so, they simply thwarted their own development.

There is no upwards path for the strong that does pass through the need to show deference to the weak. Those who don't show kindness for fear of "tainting themselves" by associating with "untouchables" are not on a path upwards. Rather, they respond immaturely, like cavemen or toddlers, not yet capable of understanding empathy or mercy.

You talk about the realness of the Brahmas. Any Brahman today who refuses to interact normally with other castes is not superior, just a culturally primitive person. Metaphorically, those who suck up to the bosses and treat their staff with disrespect tend to be loathed for their selfishness and lack of respect.

My person does not think that good householder, Brahma of this realm here, ever asked himself why never really met more Sublime, never met Devas, Brahmas, and can't regard anything higher than what's seen in a mirror. It's because conceitful, caught in sensuality, without real virtues, are not pleasing to Devas, Brahmas, that only less will ever get in touch.

Even if such would come down, simply out of compassion, what different then harmful, without respect, without regards, a conceitful and demanding attitude, whould such met...

May he take care and maybe consider one day, that denying Sublime is just a foolish poors way to defent his lazy and greedy stand, non of those above would ever like to deprive him from.

So fast does one become just another common "Brahman", nurishing on low, no idea of ways and conducts to reach real Brahmas realms and beyond.

Good then. It wasn't that the most tiny change and "risk" wasn't well known in advanced. May good householder nevertheless don't waste his time by easy feeding on lower and maybe consider the releasing and prosperous effects of sacrificing upwardly. Toward the lane of release.

[Sy Borg]

No, young simian. Good householder sees plenty higher than what she sees in the mirror. Young simian is clearly not familiar with good householder's other discussions here.

Good householder does not deny the sublime, but she does notice the pride of those who believe they are more closely connected to the sublime. That is the real conceit. Good householder thinks that, if a sublime exists, it will prefer those who show mercy to the vulnerable over kowtowing bullies.

[Samana Johann]

No, young simian. Good householder sees plenty higher than what she sees in the mirror. Young simian is clearly not familiar with good householder's other discussions here.

Good householder does not deny the sublime, but she does notice the pride of those who believe they are more closely connected to the sublime. That is the real conceit. Good householder thinks that, if a sublime exists, it will prefer those who show mercy to the vulnerable over kowtowing bullies.

She obiviously doesn't know of what's worthy for veneration, hospitality, sacrifices. And sucess is not a Bring-Schuld but a Hohl-Schuld.

Anyway, my persons fault. It's not out of reason that the Buddha didn't allowed to talk on Dhamma when no signs of respect are shown, as well as to teach woman more then some words. And that's out of mercy, out of compassion, and harmlessness for all.

[Sy Borg]

Good householder does not venerate phantasms of others' imaginations. She will sacrifice aspects of herself but she will not volunteer others to be sacrificed. She is fairly hospitable but unsure whether a disrespectful young whippersnapper like young simian can teach her much, despite his inflated claims of esoteric knowledge.

[Samana Johann]

Good householder does not venerate phantasms of others' imaginations. She will sacrifice aspects of herself but she will not volunteer others to be sacrificed. She is fairly hospitable but unsure whether a disrespectful young whippersnapper like young simian can teach her much, despite his inflated claims of esoteric knowledge.

Good so. And, of course, it would require to leave house, stand, first. Nobody could force anybody to do anything. So giving ways, as well leave is just till here possible. And a guide.

Nothing to worry that small and large sacrifices and given had been not seen and taken on, and my good householder be always able to remember them, how ever dark it might come about, will lead with ease again to light.

mudita