insane
boink
and it all started when I read a quote about 'those transfixed in wonder
being blinded by a veil of light.' Have people gone crazy from zen
practice before? Is having a nervous breakdown normal in the course of
practice? I've realised the ideals I have erected, and the breakdowns
seem to be a direct reaction to their crumbling. But what now? Start
from square one again? I fear that I will fall into the same trap.
BTW around the same time as all this, pieces of early childhood memories
that I thought were forgotten have been resurfacing, at the oddest of
times and for no particular reason. Do they mean anything, are they
related?
alaya
occurs or is about to occur. The openings can be very subtle too sometimes
too - not many flashing lights and Buddhas at all - lol. Some people call it
Zen sickness, and others just plain makyo (illusion).
I used to burst into tears whenever I saw children or someone being kind to
their dog - lol. Sometimes something still pierces me right to the core -
lol.
Smells and all sorts of images from childhood came up for me too. It is
related, but isn't worth fusing over - It's just a net of images and
sensations that will draw you in more vividly than before. Walk on!
Don't be too concerned with it, just continue your practice - but if you're
really getting worried about it, go and see a teacher and let them set your
mind at ease and advise you. You posture might not be right and this might
be causing problems. If you're feeling particularily vunerable and
sensitive, it's a good idea to unburden your heart to a teacher that you
trust.
You're doing fine, just keep practicing forever with the rest of us. Even
the fear you feel of falling into the trap again, and the new perspective
that you're having should be incorparated into your practice. Repentance is
an important step though, and so feeling remorseful of your previous
mistakes isn't something to reject or indulge in. Take your vows again, and
train more sincerely so that you may not cause as much harm as before.
Be careful of attatching to your experiences - it's a subtle craving, but it
is there nonetheless and can waste your precious time.
What do you understand "those transfixed in wonder being blinded by a veil
of light" to be? Tell us when you can, and speak earnestly, witholding
nothing.
Good luck brave boink.
alaya
--
alaya
al...@iname.com
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/alaya/houseofmystery/
boink <bo...@tig.com.au> wrote in message
news:37636384...@tig.com.au...
Ali Hassan
>
> I think I am going crazy. This past week I have broken down a few times,
> and it all started when I read a quote about 'those transfixed in wonder
> being blinded by a veil of light.' Have people gone crazy from zen
> practice before? Is having a nervous breakdown normal in the course of
> practice?
Only if you're doing something right.
I've realised the ideals I have erected, and the breakdowns
> seem to be a direct reaction to their crumbling. But what now? Start
> from square one again? I fear that I will fall into the same trap.
keep on and forget about square one. You'll get used to it.
It's called freedom. You're very lucky.
> BTW around the same time as all this, pieces of early childhood memories
> that I thought were forgotten have been resurfacing, at the oddest of
> times and for no particular reason. Do they mean anything, are they
> related?
Yes and no. As your mind is shaking loose alot of garbage,
all sorts of stuff is liable to fall out. Don't pay a whole
lot of attention to any of it, in terms of wallowing in it.
But you may see how some cause and effects of your thinking
proceses result from the early memories.
Ben Tremblay
>
> I think I am going crazy. This past week I have broken down a
> few times, and it all started when I read a quote about 'those
> transfixed in wonder being blinded by a veil of light.' Have
> people gone crazy from zen practice before? Is having a nervous
> ideals I have erected, and the breakdowns
> seem to be a direct reaction to their crumbling. But what now? Start
> from square one again? I fear that I will fall into the same trap.
>
> memories that I thought were forgotten have been resurfacing, at
> the oddest of times and for no particular reason. Do they mean
> anything, are they related?
There's a great story about Gampopa (the "father" of Karma Kagyu)
training under Milarepa. Gampopa would have extraordinary visions and
such, and Milarepa would have a simple technical explanation (e.g. "Your
meditation belt is too tight. Loosen it, and go sit.") time after time.
That's usually taken to indicate: don't make a big thing of it.
Our meditation technique begins with stability (I mean Kagyu method) ...
just watching what arises ... neither pushing away nor clinging.
There has been quite a bit written about the adverse effects of
loosening ego constructs adventurously [sp?] ... stability and
compassion have to come before vision; how else to resist the urge to
ego-gratification and catastrophizing?
take care
ben
p.s. It wouldn't be a bad idea to find a roshi or meditation instructor.
Ho Hum
boink:
> I think I am going crazy. ...
> ... Have people gone crazy from zen ...?
From my objective point of view as a non believer, everyone involved in any
religion is crazy.
michael m.
>> From my objective point of view as a non believer, everyone involved in any
>> religion is crazy.
Maybe someone never had the chance to realize the truth.
On the other hand yeah, I suppose you can say someone is
crazy when he/she believes to some *fixed* things that'll bring
"happiness".
All these religious things is exactly like magic! "Do that without
knowing the *real* meaning and you'll be sent to paradise".
That's crap man...
- michael m.
Visit my site of experimental/original heavy music at
http://listen.to/progmetal
Musfaad
>I think I am going crazy. This past week I have broken down a few times,
>and it all started when I read a quote about 'those transfixed in wonder
>practice before? (Yes)
I've realised the ideals I have erected, and the breakdowns
But what now? Start
>from square one again? (Start from square one every time you sit)
I fear that I will fall into the same trap.
>
>BTW around the same time as all this, pieces of early childhood memories
>that I thought were forgotten have been resurfacing, at the oddest of
are they related? (Yes, It is the direct result of mindfulness, Continue to
remember and you may even go back to before this life)
Oh Yes!
>
* * *
Sufi Musfaad Wali
"Without moving, he detaches from the two extremes"
http://www.angelfire.com/md/sufimusfadharidas/index.html
michael m.
> By your definition of *real* do you mean as in reference to yourself
> or what you think is real for everyone ?.
> If *you* really believe you know what is *real* for everyone else,
> then who's crazy ?.
(sorry for my poor english, it's not my native language..)
I can't answer to that question as it is. I can only explain *how*
I *receive* the 'real for everyone'. That I think will answer to the question
by itself.
Well, I believe in a *basis* which everyone can *see* when it's in a 'calm'
condition. That is simply ... being 'truly' kind, independently. That is my "real"
for everyone.
I wrote before that, by explaining *how* I 'see'(or 'receive') the real, I'll show
the 'truth' of my *real*. Well, it's almost what I said before a few lines. Being
*calm* and
*open* make everyone able to compare two things. From the point of view of
a truly 'open' person(at that time), "real" is obvious.
I'll end my words by saying what I believe it's real, it's the basis for every
*truth*.
In fact, I really think finding the basis is much easier than deriving 'truths' from
it...
- michael m.
from Greece, the country of Socrates/Platon but now the land of obscurity...
Segfault
> and it all started when I read a quote about 'those transfixed in wonder
> being blinded by a veil of light.' Have people gone crazy from zen
> practice?
Your work has paid off...the dam has burst. That's wonderful!
> I've realised the ideals I have erected, and the breakdowns
> seem to be a direct reaction to their crumbling. But what now? Start
> from square one again? I fear that I will fall into the same trap.
There is no destination and no starting point. The only traps are those set
by your mind... one trap being that the illusion of a start and
destination.
Great quote by the Buddha:
"The past is ungraspable. The future is ungraspable. The present is
ungraspable."
Don't focus on time or place, start or destination. Just focus on what is,
here & now (as trite as that sounds, it's still true), and you'll be fine.
> BTW around the same time as all this, pieces of early childhood memories
> that I thought were forgotten have been resurfacing, at the oddest of
> times and for no particular reason. Do they mean anything, are they
> related?
Probably things that have been suppressed but continued to be sources of
anxiety and frustration have now come to the foreground. You are learning
about yourself. Don't fear them, don't obsess over them, just observe them.
Let them come & go on their own accord.
FWIW. Nothing that you experience could even approach the craziness that
goes on in this group and absfg on a daily basis!
Gassho!
dotcom
>
> Buddhism is not a religion, not a philosophy......it is an art of living, an
> education essential for current times.
>
> Read for yourself at http://www.amtb.org.sg/audio_taiwan.htm
>
> Misunderstanding and false accusation will also lead to one's own dismay.
> Benefits come from proper understanding and practice.
>
> Venerable Chin Kung mentioned about the two definition of superstition:
> 1) Accepting something without proper understanding
> 2) Rejecting something without proper understanding
And who gets to decide what is "proper understanding"?
dotcom, off...
yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about jeeezus
There is no god worth our worship.
Martin Schlottmann
> Please reconsider your statements.
>
> May all be well and happy.
>
> Metta,
> A learner
> Ho Hum <nos...@forme.please> wrote in message
> news:FNP83.3993$N3.1...@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > boink:
> > > I think I am going crazy. ...
> > > ... Have people gone crazy from zen ...?
Ho Hum
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest madness --
'Tis the Majority --
In this, as All, prevail --
Assent -- and you are sane --
Demure -- you're straightway dangerous --
And handled with a chain --
Emily Dickinson
boink <bo...@tig.com.au> wrote in message
news:37636384...@tig.com.au...
> I think I am going crazy. This past week I have broken down a few times,
> and it all started when I read a quote about 'those transfixed in wonder
> being blinded by a veil of light.' Have people gone crazy from zen
> practice before? Is having a nervous breakdown normal in the course of
> practice? I've realised the ideals I have erected, and the breakdowns
> seem to be a direct reaction to their crumbling. But what now? Start
> from square one again? I fear that I will fall into the same trap.
>
Ho Hum
Segfault:
> Great quote by the Buddha:
>
> "The past is ungraspable. The future is ungraspable. The present is
> ungraspable."
Ho Hum:
Great quote from Bubba:
Yesterday is memory
Tomorrow is a dream
Today is a bitch!
Ho Hum
Gautama of Borg <da-...@inter-log.com> wrote in message
news:7k217d$egk$1...@news.interlog.com...
> In article <FNP83.3993$N3.1...@news.uswest.net> Ho Hum
(nos...@forme.please) writes...
> >
> >
> >boink:
> >> I think I am going crazy. ...
> >> ... Have people gone crazy from zen ...?
> >
> >From my objective point of view as a non believer, everyone involved in
any
> >religion is crazy.
>
I don't believe so. But If it will make you happy I will abandon objectivity
and reword it:
To a non believer,
everyone involved in any religion seems to be crazy. --ho
>
> (And to those of you who are going "humph" at reading that, I rest
> my case.)
>
> --
> Gautama of Borg Prepare to be enlightenated!
> To email me, remove the dashes. http://www.interlog.com/~daryl/rel/
>
Ho Hum
I would prefer to take a vote and let the majority rule.
Then Chen Kung will have to convince at least 51% of us
that he knows what it is.
LCWee <lc...@mbox3.singnet.com.sg> wrote in message
news:7k1n4n$h00$1...@coco.singnet.com.sg...
> Buddhism is not a religion, not a philosophy......it is an art of living,
an
> education essential for current times.
>
> Read for yourself at http://www.amtb.org.sg/audio_taiwan.htm
>
> Misunderstanding and false accusation will also lead to one's own dismay.
> Benefits come from proper understanding and practice.
>
> Venerable Chin Kung mentioned about the two definition of superstition:
> 1) Accepting something without proper understanding
> 2) Rejecting something without proper understanding
>
> Please reconsider your statements.
>
> May all be well and happy.
>
>
> Metta,
> A learner
> Ho Hum <nos...@forme.please> wrote in message
> news:FNP83.3993$N3.1...@news.uswest.net...
> >
alaya
> training under Milarepa. Gampopa would have extraordinary visions and
> such, and Milarepa would have a simple technical explanation (e.g. "Your
> meditation belt is too tight. Loosen it, and go sit.") time after time.
> That's usually taken to indicate: don't make a big thing of it.
>
> Our meditation technique begins with stability (I mean Kagyu method) ...
> just watching what arises ... neither pushing away nor clinging.
>
> There has been quite a bit written about the adverse effects of
> loosening ego constructs adventurously [sp?] ... stability and
> compassion have to come before vision; how else to resist the urge to
> ego-gratification and catastrophizing?
>
> take care
> ben
>
> p.s. It wouldn't be a bad idea to find a roshi or meditation instructor.
lol - I'm not in the position to guess about Milarepa's advice, but I've
found that even the slightest problem with posture and breath can make all
sorts of trouble. Sinking, flying, colours, panic all sorts of stuff.
whatever
"michael m." wrote:
> Ho Hum wrote:
> >> From my objective point of view as a non believer, everyone involved in any
> >> religion is crazy.
>
> Maybe someone never had the chance to realize the truth.
>
> On the other hand yeah, I suppose you can say someone is
> crazy when he/she believes to some *fixed* things that'll bring
> "happiness".
>
> All these religious things is exactly like magic! "Do that without
> knowing the *real* meaning and you'll be sent to paradise".
Quantum theory (magic) has no meaning to someone that lacks basic
mathematics, yet quantum theory has meaning, real mean is another
question as it suggest absolutes to me.
By your definition of *real* do you mean as in reference to yourself
or what you think is real for everyone ?.
If *you* really believe you know what is *real* for everyone else,
then who's crazy ?.
>
>
LCWee
education essential for current times.
Read for yourself at http://www.amtb.org.sg/audio_taiwan.htm
Misunderstanding and false accusation will also lead to one's own dismay.
Benefits come from proper understanding and practice.
Venerable Chin Kung mentioned about the two definition of superstition:
1) Accepting something without proper understanding
2) Rejecting something without proper understanding
Please reconsider your statements.
May all be well and happy.
Metta,
A learner
Ho Hum <nos...@forme.please> wrote in message
news:FNP83.3993$N3.1...@news.uswest.net...
>
> boink:
> > I think I am going crazy. ...
> > ... Have people gone crazy from zen ...?
>
Gautama of Borg
>> I think I am going crazy. ...
>> ... Have people gone crazy from zen ...?
>
>From my objective point of view as a non believer, everyone involved in any
>religion is crazy.
Objectivity is a religious notion.
(And to those of you who are going "humph" at reading that, I rest
Gautama of Borg
attention to the newsgroups line. It appears that the poster
known as "Ho Hum" added a bunch of newsgroups to the header
that weren't in the thread before, including sci.psychology.theory
and alt.atheism I've trimmed all but alt.zen from the followups
to THIS article. If you see any more articles with this
subject, and you aren't reading alt.zen, you'll why...
In article <7k217d$egk$1...@news.interlog.com> Gautama of Borg
(da-...@inter-log.com) writes...
twang
Ho Hum wrote in message ...
>Chen Kung gets to define proper understanding?
That's Chun King, dummy.
now eat your noodles.
>I would prefer to take a vote and let the majority rule.
>Then Chen Kung will have to convince at least 51% of us
>that he knows what it is.
Chun King knows his sauce and don't you forget it.
Twang!
>
>
>LCWee <lc...@mbox3.singnet.com.sg> wrote in message
>news:7k1n4n$h00$1...@coco.singnet.com.sg...
>> Buddhism is not a religion, not a philosophy......it is an art of living,
>an
>> education essential for current times.
>>
>> Read for yourself at http://www.amtb.org.sg/audio_taiwan.htm
>>
>> Misunderstanding and false accusation will also lead to one's own dismay.
>> Benefits come from proper understanding and practice.
>>
>> Venerable Chin Kung mentioned about the two definition of superstition:
>> 1) Accepting something without proper understanding
>> 2) Rejecting something without proper understanding
>>
>> Please reconsider your statements.
>>
>> May all be well and happy.
>>
>>
>> Metta,
>> A learner
>
>> Ho Hum <nos...@forme.please> wrote in message
>> news:FNP83.3993$N3.1...@news.uswest.net...
>> >
KSS
michael m. wrote in <37641656...@coolmail.net>...
>I wrote before that, by explaining *how* I 'see'(or 'receive') the real,
I'll show
>the 'truth' of my *real*. Well, it's almost what I said before a few lines.
Being
>*calm* and
>*open* make everyone able to compare two things. From the point of view of
>a truly 'open' person(at that time), "real" is obvious.
Actually this has interesting connections to a very old topic called
"aesthetics". If everyone's sense of "reality" was purely subjective or
personal, there would be no aesthetics. And of course "aesthetics"
is a 100% Greek work which is etymologically related to the _senses_
as well as _feelings_ (Greek word for sense=Aesthesis, Greek word
for feeling=Aesthanomai, and so on).
Tang Huyen in these newsgroups is a Buddhist scholar who can read
ancient Greek authors in the original, so he can perhaps comment on
the fascinating deep connections between aesthetics, aestheses (the
senses), and feelings (aesthimata). Tang believes that Buddhism is
a philosophy of direct perception, which eliminates the clouds of all
preconceived ideas and images (which are called "mentations"). He
believes that the uninterrupted flow of sensations without mentations,
being open to the world without building castles in the sand of one's
mind (which is "ego"), can lead to a kind of enlightenment. (Briefly
summarising Tang's philosophy a bit simplistically for your benefit).
Tang would agree with our old friend Herakleitus who proclaimed
"Ta panta rei" (everything flows). About aesthetics I dont know what
he would say, but it's bery interesting. If there were was no common
ground between the way human beings experience the world, then
there would be no aesthetics. So does aesthetics, arising from a state
of sensation without "mentation", lead to a _refutation_ of what we call
"simplistic relativism" or "simplistic subjectivism"? Perhaps Tang can
tell us, ( both Greeks and non-Greeks ), what he thinks. :-)
I live alone and yesterday spent ALL day in music and programming work.
I woke up in the morning feeling ashamed of how... negligent I've been to
ordinary housework piling up. Anyone walking into this apartment would
not think of my "creative work:" very highly!!!! Aesthetics is in
everything...
>In fact, I really think finding the basis is much easier than deriving
'truths' from
>it...
>
>- michael m.
>from Greece, the country of Socrates/Platon but now the land of
obscurity...
Not reallty obscurity. Perhaps confusion!!! :-))))
Another Greek? Incredible!!!
Yeia sou megale (Greek greeting literally translating
to "hello oh great one" -we use this almost every day
the megalinaniacs that we are)
Yorgos (George)
KSS
Ο Ho Hum έγραψε στο μήνυμα ...
>
>boink:
>> I think I am going crazy. ...
>> ... Have people gone crazy from zen ...?
>
>From my objective point of view as a non believer, everyone involved in any
>religion is crazy.
From a subjective point of view as a non believer in belief as well as
a non believer in "behaviour", EVERYONE is crazy! :-)
The few who pretend not to be crazy try to clutch themselves from a
certain "objectivity" derived from knowledge. Knowledge is beautiful,
although too much of it can infantilise us, given the vast information
we are simply unable to absorb, but this is also a lesson in humility.
Actually our belief systems differ a lot. I was raised to take freedom and
free will for granted, and you were raised differently. Even though we
disagree strongly, you do have a point, that it's wrong to take freedom
and free will for granted.
Among the people who engaged themselves in debate with you, perhaps
Dirk Bruere is the most objective. He recognises the fact that free will is
probably quite rare, in a highly conditioned world. You don't seem to see
how precious freedom and free will actually are, as a result.
Methinks that perhaps by asking your questions differently, you can can
get better answers. And if science is your favourite knowledge-game,
do look into the role of the observer in contstructing reality. There is no
such thing as 100% predictable reality. It's the observer who creates
the illusion of predictability. Perhaps the old Beatles song, "Let it be",
is also metaphysically right, since by letting the world (and Others) be,
we learn a different type of knowledge than by attempting to predict
and control everything.
Regards
George
piet...@my-deja.com
boink <bo...@tig.com.au> wrote:
> I think I am going crazy. This past week I have broken down a few
times,
> and it all started when I read a quote about 'those transfixed in
wonder
> practice before?
short answer: YES
long answer: it's all relative :)
longer answer: this is why traditionally seekers are severely beaten
to discourage them from entering the monastery.
a practice unfortunately forgotten and dropped in the West.
i have an, ahem, personal interest in this peculiar question and
have gathered over the years a few references reading between the lines
in various books:
- Red Pine's book about contemporary Chinese mountain hermits
quotes one woman nun on the dangers of developing severe
headaches and insanity if the 'short path' is followed
- discussing this with a Vietnamese friend, revealed that
it is well known in their culture that some Buddhist monks go
bonkers
- book 'Hard Travel to Sacred Places' describes encounter between
a monk who feared he was going insane, and his abbot,
desiring to leave the monastery
- book 'Crooked Cucumber' describes at least 2 cases of temporary
'insanity' in early S.F. Zen days, both recovered afaik
- book 'A Path With Heart' describes instances of temporary
insanity during vipassana practice, but does not take it too
seriously, (why i dont know)
- Lama Alexandra David-Neel describes a comment from a Tibetan
abbot circa 1930's that is worth remembering:
'Didnt your Lama tell you that you must be willing to risk
madness and death if you follow the short path?'
- 'Magic and Mystery in Tibet'
- Louis A. Sass's book 'Madness and Modernism' illuminates all this
by describing schizophrenia as an emerging species transformation
bringing with it various aspects of 'higher functioning', at
the present time in our species evolution, though, it is largely
dysfunctional, but that may change.
- Meher Baba's career with the Masts in India as described in
'The Wayfarers' is relevant to the extremes of the spectrum
of religious madness.
- Christian revivals have been known to induce various forms of
dementia, beyond the Benny Hinn garden-variety twitching.
- and, of course, the whole literature on shamanic
transformation via sickness and psychosis is quite relevant as
it describes latent transformational possibilities we all have
and might experience, if we start down the road of sloughing off
the consensus dream-world.
> Is having a nervous breakdown normal in the course of
> practice?
no, but not uncommon either
> I've realised the ideals I have erected, and the breakdowns
> seem to be a direct reaction to their crumbling. But what now? Start
> from square one again? I fear that I will fall into the same trap.
>
> BTW around the same time as all this, pieces of early childhood
memories
> that I thought were forgotten have been resurfacing, at the oddest of
> times and for no particular reason. Do they mean anything, are they
> related?
yes, it is a sign that the structures of consciousness are loosening.
imho, a lot of the problem is just the fear associated with falling
down the rabbit hole. it helps to have a firm trust in the Buddha's
insight into the ultimate dreamlike ephemeral nature of phenomenal
reality, imho.
also, it helps to be in a good dharma environment while this is going
on.
reading John Lilly's 'Center of the Cyclone' might be a good
orientation. as well as Lex Hixon's 'Mother of the Buddhas'
cheers
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
piet...@my-deja.com
which is why, perhaps, ye olde hermits found mountain
caves the ideal place in which to go through the crazinesses.
fwiw, just read how even the yakima indians have legends of medicine
men climbing to the top of mt. rainier, whereas the yakimas in
general had taboos about mountain climbing evidently.
cheers
"Ho Hum" <nos...@forme.please> wrote:
> 435
> Much Madness is divinest Sense --
> To a discerning eye --
> Much Sense -- the starkest madness --
>
> 'Tis the Majority --
> In this, as All, prevail --
> Assent -- and you are sane --
> Demure -- you're straightway dangerous --
> And handled with a chain --
>
> Emily Dickinson
>
> boink <bo...@tig.com.au> wrote in message
> news:37636384...@tig.com.au...
> > I think I am going crazy. This past week I have broken down a few
times,
> > and it all started when I read a quote about 'those transfixed in
wonder
> > being blinded by a veil of light.' Have people gone crazy from zen
> > practice before? Is having a nervous breakdown normal in the course
of
> > practice? I've realised the ideals I have erected, and the
breakdowns
> > seem to be a direct reaction to their crumbling. But what now? Start
> > from square one again? I fear that I will fall into the same trap.
> >
> > BTW around the same time as all this, pieces of early childhood
memories
> > that I thought were forgotten have been resurfacing, at the oddest
of
> > times and for no particular reason. Do they mean anything, are they
> > related?
> >
>
>
Dirk Bruere
>
> To a non believer,
> everyone involved in any religion seems to be crazy. --ho
>
This applies to *anything*.
Oh... and vice versa.
Generalities so wideranging as to be useless, just like Ho Hum's
statement.
Gassho
Dirk
Don James
dot...@navix.net wrote:
> > Venerable Chin Kung mentioned about the two definition of
superstition:
> > 1) Accepting something without proper understanding
> > 2) Rejecting something without proper understanding
>
Don: ah that's the beauty of religion and Buddhism is a religion. If
you are a Buddhist you trust Buddha as having "proper understanding"
until you are Buddha yourself, then you will have it, according to
Buddha. I swear to Buddha!
>
> dotcom, off...
> yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about jeeezus
Don: Taking a strong position on something unfathomable makes no sense.
>
> There is no god worth our worship.
> Martin Schlottmann
Don: There is no man large enough to understand.
>
--
Send me your scans for the photo op at:
http://www.ntr.net/~oak/altzen/altzen.html
Ho Hum
Don James <dja...@raychem.com> wrote to
talk.religion.buddhism,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,alt.zen,alt.buddha.shor
t.fat.guy
in response to
> dot...@navix.net who wrote to:
talk.religion.buddhism,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,alt.zen,alt.buddha.shor
t.fat.guy,sci.psychology.theory,alt.atheism
dotcom stipulated that she was an atheist. How do you expect her to read
your response if you cut alt.atheism from the newsgroups? Maybe you want it
to appear that she has no response?
Ho Hum
Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3764EB01...@kbnet.co.uk...
That which is empty is not useless, it is just empty, as a bowl is empty. It
can contain some delicious insight pudding! Thanks for adding to it. --ho
Antoine van Gelder
>news:37636384...@tig.com.au...
>> I think I am going crazy. This past week I have broken down a few times,
>> and it all started when I read a quote about 'those transfixed in wonder
>> being blinded by a veil of light.' Have people gone crazy from zen
>> practice before? Is having a nervous breakdown normal in the course of
>> practice? I've realised the ideals I have erected, and the breakdowns
>> seem to be a direct reaction to their crumbling. But what now? Start
>> from square one again? I fear that I will fall into the same trap.
>>
>> BTW around the same time as all this, pieces of early childhood memories
>> that I thought were forgotten have been resurfacing, at the oddest of
>> times and for no particular reason. Do they mean anything, are they
>> related?
Don't sweat it, after all - you're supposed to be watching the thing that's
freaking out while it's watching reality go berserk...
- antoine
Ho Hum
KSS:
>
> From a subjective point of view as a non believer in belief as well as
> a non believer in "behaviour", EVERYONE is crazy! :-)
You don't believe in behavior? What do you call all that stuff you do all
the time?
>
> The few who pretend not to be crazy try to clutch themselves from a
> certain "objectivity" derived from knowledge. Knowledge is beautiful,
> although too much of it can infantilise us, given the vast information
> we are simply unable to absorb, but this is also a lesson in humility.
>
> Actually our belief systems differ a lot. I was raised to take freedom and
> free will for granted, and you were raised differently. Even though we
> disagree strongly, you do have a point, that it's wrong to take freedom
> and free will for granted.
Thanks for attributing that point to me. I wish I had actually made it!
All I am saying is let's not be afraid to discuss our worst fears.
One of my wort fears used to be that I didn't have any self control.
I drank too much, smoked a lot of anything available,
went from Honor Student to Failure almost overnight,
and words came out of my mouth I had no idea were in there!
>
> Among the people who engaged themselves in debate with you, perhaps
> Dirk Bruere is the most objective. He recognises the fact that free will
is
> probably quite rare, in a highly conditioned world. You don't seem to see
> how precious freedom and free will actually are, as a result.
Oh but I dooooo! I think we will be much better equipped to defend ourselves
if we have some idea who or what is manipulating us and with what
mechanisms, be it
reward, punishment, or the promise of freedom.
>
> Methinks that perhaps by asking your questions differently, you can can
> get better answers. And if science is your favourite knowledge-game,
> do look into the role of the observer in contstructing reality. There is
no
> such thing as 100% predictable reality. It's the observer who creates
> the illusion of predictability. Perhaps the old Beatles song, "Let it be",
> is also metaphysically right, since by letting the world (and Others) be,
> we learn a different type of knowledge than by attempting to predict
> and control everything.
>
> Regards
> George
I spend most of my time just sitting and letting it be. Too lazy to do
anything else.
Sometimes I get fired up though. The Cascade Pipeline that runs right
through our city
sprung a leak last friday, contaminated about five miles of prime salmon
habitat and parkland along the creek with 80,000 gallons of gasoline, which
then exploded (killing three young boys) in a fireball that sent a mushroom
cloud 30,000 feet in the air, which rained unburnt gasoline down on us for
three days.
The CEO of Cascade is in town today, telling us how sorry they are, but
these things happen, and WHEN THE PIPELINE IS RESTARTED they will try to
make it more safe. See how he is trying to manipulate us into accepting the
inevitable restart of the pipeline? The nerve of some of these big
corporations!
Story and pictures:
http://www.seattleinsider.com/news/1999/06/10/bellingham.html
Ben Tremblay
> Ho Hum wrote:
> > To a non believer,
> > everyone involved in any religion seems to be crazy. --ho
> To a non believer everyone who believes seems to be crazy.
> This applies to *anything*.
> Oh... and vice versa.
Ya sure? Lessee: "All who believe non-believers go crazy." .... humph.
> Generalities so wideranging as to be useless, just like Ho Hum's
> statement.
"Ho Hum is so wideranging as to be useless, just like Ho Hum's statement."
nonononono *Meds! Blues, _now_!* "... just like Ho Hum." Yes, there.
> Gassho
> Dirk
KaChö
*'scuse me! Did I get any on you?*
Ben Tremblay
> Ho Hum wrote in message ...
> >Chen Kung gets to define proper understanding?
> That's Chun King, dummy.
> now eat your noodles.
> >I would prefer to take a vote and let the majority rule.
> >Then Chen Kung will have to convince at least 51% of us
> >that he knows what it is.
I can! I can!! I know what "it" is!! Me me me me!!
Ooooowoooohh! There "it" goes again! QUICK: Be there _now_!
> Chun King knows his sauce and don't you forget it.
> Twang!
*plunk* Next?
Would you like your tapioca in ... wha? Noodles? K.
Would you like your noodles Obaku or Nyorai? Nyorai? Ok.
It's harder to be pretentiously authentic than to be authentically pretentious.
*phew* I wasn't faking there, sports fans ... skeered my li'l self!
__{*}__
Ben Tremblay
> Ho Hum wrote:
> > > To a non believer everyone who believes seems to be crazy.
> > > This applies to *anything*.
> > is empty. It can contain some delicious insight pudding! Thanks
> > for adding to it. --ho
full_. Don't spill the tapioca, Ho!
> The essence of the problem is that it is intractable.
Lemme see that problem fer a sec. *breaks problems other leg* There; one
tractable problem. Wha? Oh ... ya mean like, "non-trivial". Yikes. I didn't open
that can of tapioca. I mean jar of tapioca. I mean bowl. Of worms. Bowl of
worms. Why is everyone talking about bowling?! and how come I wasn't invited!!
> For example, I believe in 'God' (let's forget about defining the term
> for now).
Oh, for sure you're crazy!! You believe in something that _just happens to be
undefined_? _skur_ nononono _alut_ nononono _slut_ yes, there.
*passes Ho can of tapioca c/w straw*
Oh gawd no don't use that straw it's a worm!!
> i believe because I have experienced 'God'.
And did it experience you back? or was it a masturbatory experience?
If there's no one there to get hurt, would god bother zotting anything?
> Now, the other side, the unbeliever in God. I have (say) just
> experienced an abnormal neural state such as temporal lobe epilepsy
> that accounts for the experience.
*pulls fingers out of socket* Oooooo! Uck, boring!
> I would retort that undoubtedly the states and experiences are
> correlated, but say that claiming the neural state is more
> fundamental than the experience is purely a question of aesthetic
> choice ie 'faith',
Yaaaaaaa shure! *Dirk! what the hell ya sayin'?!*
Neural state supervenes or is supervened by ... place your bets, laddies and
Ho's ... yes, hoes too ... rien ni va plus!
> whether it be in God or no God.
ummmm ... "in" contra "no"? What law school did you skip classes at, Dirk?
> The brain is Minds way of explaining itself.
Shit! _Mind_ PLURAL now?! GEEEEESH! Blaggard! Villain! Sadist! Worse!! This
man is a _philosopher_!!
QUICK: Plural or Possessive?!
QUICK: Supervenes or is supervened upon?!
KAWTZ: face down in that bowl of worms. I mean straws. I mean tapioca.
> The gap, as far as I can see, is unbridgeable.
*pffffft* what else are bridges for?!
And what the hell were the Tibetans doing smelting way back then anyhow
[speaking of bridges, folks ... tibetan bridges using steel links ... *sigh* ...
try to keep up, now, K?]
> Gassho
> Dirk
Oh! Ya
__{*}__
Ho Hum
pecker up!"
alaya <al...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:7k4a72$qra$1...@m2.c2.telstra-mm.net.au...
> ah shut up Ho Hum.
> Ho Hum <nos...@forme.please> wrote in message
> news:2Ge93.84$eI.1...@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3764EB01...@kbnet.co.uk...
> > > Ho Hum wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To a non believer,
> > > > everyone involved in any religion seems to be crazy. --ho
> > > >
> > > To a non believer everyone who believes seems to be crazy.
> > > This applies to *anything*.
> > >
> > > Oh... and vice versa.
> > >
> > > Generalities so wideranging as to be useless, just like Ho Hum's
> > > statement.
> > >
> > > Gassho
> > > Dirk
Ho Hum
Ben Tremblay :
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
> > Ho Hum wrote:
> > > To a non believer,
> > > everyone involved in any religion seems to be crazy. --ho
> > To a non believer everyone who believes seems to be crazy.
> > This applies to *anything*.
>
> > Oh... and vice versa.
> Ya sure? Lessee: "All who believe non-believers go crazy." .... humph.
>
> > statement.
Ouch.
> "Ho Hum is so wideranging as to be useless, just like Ho Hum's statement."
> nonononono *Meds! Blues, _now_!* "... just like Ho Hum." Yes, there.
>
> > Gassho
> > Dirk
>
> KaChö
> *'scuse me! Did I get any on you?*
HorseShoe!! Craps. now I think I've caught it. This alt.zen is a nasty
place. Full of disease.
Ho Hum
Make me one with everything!
Ben Tremblay <ab...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:376572FF...@chebucto.ns.ca...
Don James
"Ho Hum" <nos...@forme.please> wrote:
>
> Don James <dja...@raychem.com> wrote to
>
talk.religion.buddhism,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,alt.zen,alt.buddha.
shor
> t.fat.guy
>
> in response to
> > dot...@navix.net who wrote to:
>
talk.religion.buddhism,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,alt.zen,alt.buddha.
shor
> t.fat.guy,sci.psychology.theory,alt.atheism
>
> dotcom stipulated that she was an atheist. How do you expect her to
read
> your response if you cut alt.atheism from the newsgroups? Maybe you
want it
> to appear that she has no response?
Don: I did no such thing! If that happened, I have no idea how. Computer
glitch maybe?
Dirk Bruere
>
> > To a non believer everyone who believes seems to be crazy.
> > This applies to *anything*.
> can contain some delicious insight pudding! Thanks for adding to it. --ho
The essence of the problem is that it is intractable.
For example, I believe in 'God' (let's forget about defining the term
for now). i believe because I have experienced 'God'.
Now, the other side, the unbeliever in God. I have (say) just
experienced an abnormal neural state such as temporal lobe epilepsy that
accounts for the experience.
I would retort that undoubtedly the states and experiences are
correlated, but say that claiming the neural state is more fundamental
than the experience is purely a question of aesthetic choice ie 'faith',
whether it be in God or no God.
The brain is Minds way of explaining itself.
The gap, as far as I can see, is unbridgeable.
Gassho
Dirk
alaya
--
alaya
al...@iname.com
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/alaya/houseofmystery/
Ho Hum <nos...@forme.please> wrote in message
news:2Ge93.84$eI.1...@news.uswest.net...
>
> Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3764EB01...@kbnet.co.uk...
> > Ho Hum wrote:
> > >
> > > To a non believer,
> > > everyone involved in any religion seems to be crazy. --ho
> > >
> > To a non believer everyone who believes seems to be crazy.
> > This applies to *anything*.
> >
> > Oh... and vice versa.
> >
> > Generalities so wideranging as to be useless, just like Ho Hum's
> > statement.
> >
> > Gassho
> > Dirk
Ali Hassan
>
> Ho Hum wrote:
> >
> > To a non believer,
> > everyone involved in any religion seems to be crazy. --ho
> >
> To a non believer everyone who believes seems to be crazy.
> This applies to *anything*.
>
> Oh... and vice versa.
>
Ahh, there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx
John Timothy Hall
"This can't be taught."-the Buddha after his awakening-
John
****************************************************************************
--
Ecology: the last fad.
Gautama of Borg
(nos...@forme.please) writes...
>
>> >From my objective point of view as a non believer, everyone involved in
>> >any religion is crazy.
>>
>> Objectivity is a religious notion.
>
>and reword it:
>
> To a non believer,
> everyone involved in any religion seems to be crazy. --ho
Well maybe, but we'll find those non-believers in the same place we
find pink unicorns.
KSS
>
>KSS:
>> From a subjective point of view as a non believer in belief as well as
>> a non believer in "behaviour", EVERYONE is crazy! :-)
>
>You don't believe in behavior? What do you call all that stuff you do all
>the time?
Not "believing in behaviour" means not believing in the primacy of
behaviour to define our essence.
In fact reducing activities like writing to forms of "behaving" is one of
the unfortunate side-effects of interactive written dialogue. Gradually
humanity is training itself to abandon essence and worship behaviour.
In the old days, writing was pretty much a sacred activity. It was only
practised by the few. And correspondence was used to share thoughts
and ideas and feelings that had little to do with behaviour. But the Net's
incessant blathering and bickering is bound to change that, and turn
one more manifestation of our deeper essences into "behaviour".
Not believing in behaviour doesn't mean to abandon behaving.
Is music composition "behaviour"? Or is it a more profound level
of expression which can't be reduced to mehaviour? What about
other forms of art? Is meditation a form of behaviour? Or is it not
relinquishing the primacy of behaviour for something deeper?
>> Actually our belief systems differ a lot. I was raised to take freedom
and
>> free will for granted, and you were raised differently. Even though we
>> disagree strongly, you do have a point, that it's wrong to take freedom
>> and free will for granted.
>
>Thanks for attributing that point to me. I wish I had actually made it!
This is probably the positive effect of your points of view on my
own point of view.
>All I am saying is let's not be afraid to discuss our worst fears.
>One of my wort fears used to be that I didn't have any self control.
>I drank too much, smoked a lot of anything available,
>went from Honor Student to Failure almost overnight,
>and words came out of my mouth I had no idea were in there!
So is it correct to assume that believing in behaviourism gave
you some comfort by lessening these fears? If your greatest fear
is losing self-control, you're creating a philosophy of control as
an antidote.
One of my greatest fears is the exact opposite. That I wouldn't
be able to lose self-control as creatively as I have done in the
past. As a result, perhaps in retaliation to an exactly opposite
kind of fear to yours, my philosophical views are also opposite.
>I spend most of my time just sitting and letting it be. Too lazy to do
>anything else.
>
>Sometimes I get fired up though. The Cascade Pipeline that runs right
>through our city
>sprung a leak last friday, contaminated about five miles of prime salmon
>habitat and parkland along the creek with 80,000 gallons of gasoline,
which
>then exploded (killing three young boys) in a fireball that sent a mushroom
>cloud 30,000 feet in the air, which rained unburnt gasoline down on us for
>three days.
>
>The CEO of Cascade is in town today, telling us how sorry they are, but
>these things happen, and WHEN THE PIPELINE IS RESTARTED they will try to
>make it more safe. See how he is trying to manipulate us into accepting the
>inevitable restart of the pipeline? The nerve of some of these big
>corporations!
>Story and pictures:
>http://www.seattleinsider.com/news/1999/06/10/bellingham.html
Actually we are totally in agreement here.
And if our more important goal is to cut through all this
manipulation and conditioning, perhaps we ought to
be asking ourselves different kind of questions than
"if there is a free will". The world's shrewd manipulators
and advertisers would be very happy if we had no free
will, and if we could be manipulated totally. Fortunately
there are some cracks in the ice, so to speak.
Meanwhile, Europe is outraged by the latest food scandal,
of chickens being fed machine-oils and other poisons
containing dioxine.
I used to think "it can't happen here again", after the mad cow
disease but it did.
The only country in Europe where one can still eat meat without
chemical pollution is apparently Greece, because the local
farmers have been too lazy to apply "cost optimisation experts"
telling them to buy cattle-foods from big companies.
But then, there is fishing... ;-) What an un-buddhist thing to say.
Regards
George
alaya
--
alaya
al...@iname.com
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/alaya/houseofmystery/
Ho Hum <nos...@forme.please> wrote in message
news:Fym93.696$eI.7...@news.uswest.net...
Brian Drummond
wrote:
>Sometimes I get fired up though. The Cascade Pipeline that runs right
>through our city
>sprung a leak last friday, contaminated about five miles of prime salmon
>habitat and parkland along the creek with 80,000 gallons of gasoline, which
>then exploded (killing three young boys) in a fireball that sent a mushroom
>cloud 30,000 feet in the air, which rained unburnt gasoline down on us for
>three days.
>
>The CEO of Cascade is in town today, telling us how sorry they are, but
>these things happen, and WHEN THE PIPELINE IS RESTARTED they will try to
>make it more safe. See how he is trying to manipulate us into accepting the
>inevitable restart of the pipeline? The nerve of some of these big
>corporations!
>Story and pictures:
>http://www.seattleinsider.com/news/1999/06/10/bellingham.html
>
Now corporations are certainly subject to contingent reinforcement.
Especially petrochemical corporations, and they are abnormally
vulnerable while the oil price is fairly low. (But it's recovering, so
don't wait long)
If you want supporting evidence, try a web search on "Brent Spar".
If enough people stopped buying gasoline, they wouldn't spend money
trying to re-open it.
If that sounds extreme, ... a more moderate version would be "stopped
buying _their_ gasoline".
But that misses the point - this gasoline pipeline isn't any worse than
any other. They all run through prime ecological habitat. The only
difference is how many people are watching. But if it's in Alaska or
Nigeria, who cares?
- Brian
Ben Tremblay
> ah shut up Ho Hum.
Dirk Bruere
>
> > For example, I believe in 'God' (let's forget about defining the term
> > for now).
> undefined_? _skur_ nononono _alut_ nononono _slut_ yes, there.
I didn't say that. You seem rather short on logic. So, a concise
definition.
God = Underlying unity which has the characteristic of Mind.
> > i believe because I have experienced 'God'.
> And did it experience you back?
One and the same.
> > Now, the other side, the unbeliever in God. I have (say) just
> > experienced an abnormal neural state such as temporal lobe epilepsy
> > that accounts for the experience.
> *pulls fingers out of socket* Oooooo! Uck, boring!
Yes. It's the little details that screw you.
> > I would retort that undoubtedly the states and experiences are
> > correlated, but say that claiming the neural state is more
> > fundamental than the experience is purely a question of aesthetic
> > choice ie 'faith',
> Yaaaaaaa shure! *Dirk! what the hell ya sayin'?!*
That ultimately there is no proof one way or the other.
> > whether it be in God or no God.
> ummmm ... "in" contra "no"? What law school did you skip classes at, Dirk?
Natural law. Theoretical physics.
> > The brain is Minds way of explaining itself.
> Shit! _Mind_ PLURAL now?! GEEEEESH! Blaggard! Villain! Sadist! Worse!! This
> man is a _philosopher_!!
More an Apostrophe of the Saviour.
> > The gap, as far as I can see, is unbridgeable.
> *pffffft* what else are bridges for?!
Bridging bridgable gaps.
gassho
Dirk
Ho Hum
matter. As you point out, a pipeline by any other name would smell the same.
You solution sounds a lot like the RayGun "Just say no" campaign as a
solution to the drug prob.
Moral suasion would work, if free will actually determined human behavior,
wouldn't it?
If free will actually determined human behavior, gasoline sales here would
be close to zero now. This explosion was a major traumatic event in this
town. Very punishing. Very awakening.
Only a few citizens of this town were even aware that a gasoline pipeline,
as well as a river, runs through it. Some of us protested construction in
the first place, and my question since before pipeline construction began
has been, "Are we free to choose pipeline any more than we can choose
river?" The answer from Gasoline Inc., and City, State, and Federal
Government is always, "No, it is legal, inevitable, and will be as safe as
it can be built." Not safe enough, apparently, but now they are reassuring
us that when the pipeline is restarted, it will be safer.
I would rather look for the big picture, if possible. I will continue to
practice walking and bike riding, and hope others imitate. But some of us
also get a lot of reward from questioning the supply side of our petroleum
powered culture.
Selling determines buying. We can, as might be expected in a society
systematically trained to buy that which is sold by the sellers, cling to
the idea of free will so that we can continue to blame the buyer. This
allows the gasoline sellers freedom to continue selling, because they are
only giving us what we allegedly want, and (allegedly) freely buy.
Brian Drummond <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:376c552d...@news.demon.co.uk...
Dirk Bruere
>
> be close to zero now. This explosion was a major traumatic event in this
> town. Very punishing. Very awakening.
Somewhat less awakening than being mugged, I would guess, just
interesting and slightly inconvenient.
> river?" The answer from Gasoline Inc., and City, State, and Federal
> Government is always, "No, it is legal, inevitable, and will be as safe as
> it can be built." Not safe enough, apparently, but now they are reassuring
> us that when the pipeline is restarted, it will be safer.
Why don't you blow it up then? there's nothing like a terrorist threat
to make things *really* safe.
> Selling determines buying. We can, as might be expected in a society
> systematically trained to buy that which is sold by the sellers, cling to
> the idea of free will so that we can continue to blame the buyer. This
> allows the gasoline sellers freedom to continue selling, because they are
> only giving us what we allegedly want, and (allegedly) freely buy.
What's any of this to do with free will? It's a cost-benefit analysis.
The same one you made when you read about blowing it up.
Gassho
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> >What's any of this to do with free will? It's a cost-benefit analysis.
> >The same one you made when you read about blowing it up.
> My reading of Ho Hum's statement is that it's quite profound, and at the
> heart of a saner approach to free will, when free will is used as an excuse
> for insane decisions based on illusory or faulty cost-benefit analyses.
Free will can only be applied (if at all) to *correct* cost/benefit
analyses, although one might also apply free will to what is factored
into those equations.
...
> Where I inevitably still differ a lot from Ho Hum's views is where he
> thinks that MORE conditioning or better-designed conditioning can
> actually bring benefits to a highly conditioned world.
The old Socialist fallacy of 'systems so perfect that nobody has to be
good'.
> These questions are ultimately open anyway. Good points about
> random events, made by you, have been totally missed.
That doesn't matter particularly.
I've been through much the same territory with DT.
Gassho
Dirk
KSS
>Selling determines buying. We can, as might be expected in a society
>systematically trained to buy that which is sold by the sellers, cling to
>the idea of free will so that we can continue to blame the buyer. This
>allows the gasoline sellers freedom to continue selling, because they are
>only giving us what we allegedly want, and (allegedly) freely buy.
Actually I agree with you totally now, and my suspicion that there
is hidden positivity in your (mostly obnoxious views) is now clearer
than ever.
Any idiot can call you all kinds of things, but I prefer to take a more
practical and relative view.
Reconstructing now, more wisely, who "Ho Hum" is, it might turn out
that he is not a staunch behaviourist attempting to control human
freedom and eliminate free will, but on the contrary, a sensitive human
being who loathes conditioning and control and seeks to demystify
what is effectively, a collective illusion of free will.
Phrase your ideas differently, reveal your motives more openly,
and open-minded people are obdlidged to treat you differently.
I am enthused by your recent statements. Perhaps you contain the
exact opposites of your stated views.
We have to go through a critique of known illusions about free will
before restoring a saner kind of free will within ourselves.
You've hit the hammer on the nail by talking about the illusion of
free will being one of the most deplorable fallacies of present-day
political and social systems. It's the opposite evil to the Soviet evil
of "total control". Take into account conditioning, however, and
the whole big hot air balloon of a "perfectly regulated free market"
completely breaks down. And all kinds of radical answers emerge,
one of which is to look into brainwashing and conditioning as a
most potent hidden variable within free market forces.! -Well done!
But I sitll think Dirk Bruere's suggestion to treat conditioned
reinforcement as a _partial_ answer, and not a total answer,
to "what causes behaviour", is the most balanced and sane
open-minded answer to your rantings, that I ever read. Think
about it!!!
Let the dialogue continue, now that we've kicked Mara out of it! :-)
Regards
Georgie Porgie
KSS
Ho Hum wrote:
>> Selling determines buying. We can, as might be expected in a society
>> systematically trained to buy that which is sold by the sellers, cling to
>> the idea of free will so that we can continue to blame the buyer. This
>> allows the gasoline sellers freedom to continue selling, because they are
>> only giving us what we allegedly want, and (allegedly) freely buy.
>
>What's any of this to do with free will? It's a cost-benefit analysis.
>The same one you made when you read about blowing it up.
Interesting how people read the same statements totally differently.
My reading of Ho Hum's statement is that it's quite profound, and at the
heart of a saner approach to free will, when free will is used as an excuse
for insane decisions based on illusory or faulty cost-benefit analyses.
It's the first time I begin to like Ho Hum's views, and suspect that there
is
a hidden anti-behaviourist lurking in his consciously behaviourist mind.
Or, at least, there is someone aware of the fallacy of free will,
sufficiently
aware of its role within free market economies, that the accompanying
hidden role of conditioned reinforcement (rather than free will and
free choice) can be criticised openly.
This doesn't invalidate free will as such, BTW. I am convinced that
(like your statement about free will being very rare) it makes it even
more precious, as opposed to conditioning.
Where I inevitably still differ a lot from Ho Hum's views is where he
thinks that MORE conditioning or better-designed conditioning can
actually bring benefits to a highly conditioned world.
These questions are ultimately open anyway. Good points about
random events, made by you, have been totally missed.
Regards
George
KSS
>> >What's any of this to do with free will? It's a cost-benefit analysis.
>> >The same one you made when you read about blowing it up.
>
>> Interesting how people read the same statements totally differently.
>
>> My reading of Ho Hum's statement is that it's quite profound, and at the
>> heart of a saner approach to free will, when free will is used as an
excuse
>> for insane decisions based on illusory or faulty cost-benefit analyses.
>
>Free will can only be applied (if at all) to *correct* cost/benefit
>analyses, although one might also apply free will to what is factored
>into those equations.
I am not sure how you can do this, perhaps because I am not an
economist. My naive understanding of the role of free will in
economics comes from endless discussions with my father
(who _was_ an economist, and a good one I think).
My naive understanding of the illusory role of free will in economics
is that human beings are assumed to make rational choices, not to
mention the other assumption of information flowing freely and with
no amount of conditioning.
So Ho Hum seems to have said something like: "If people knew
all the facts and acted of free will rather than conditioning, they
would choose differently". It is simple, and I agree.
In fact if people acted out of true free will rather than conditioning
they wouldn't vote for such silly leaders almost in every country.
We'd be in paradise, "if only" the majority had true free will.
Well, I guess this is the third Utopia in the list, after the capitalist
one and the socialist one. It's the anarchist one, and it too doesn't
really work. ;-)
Regards
George
Dirk Bruere
>
> >Free will can only be applied (if at all) to *correct* cost/benefit
> >analyses, although one might also apply free will to what is factored
> >into those equations.
> all the facts and acted of free will rather than conditioning, they
> would choose differently". It is simple, and I agree.
I disagree. If people knew all the facts and acted rationally, there
would be no free will. However, we can never be sure we have all the
facts, or how to weight them (how much is a tree worth?), and acting
rationally is not the same as making the right choice.
> In fact if people acted out of true free will rather than conditioning
> they wouldn't vote for such silly leaders almost in every country.
I think free will is fairly meaningless when it comes to masses of
people.
> We'd be in paradise, "if only" the majority had true free will.
Or maybe Hell.
> Well, I guess this is the third Utopia in the list, after the capitalist
> one and the socialist one. It's the anarchist one, and it too doesn't
> really work. ;-)
There are other alternatives.
Gassho
Dirk
KSS
>KSS wrote:
>> So Ho Hum seems to have said something like: "If people knew
>> all the facts and acted of free will rather than conditioning, they
>> would choose differently". It is simple, and I agree.
>
>I disagree. If people knew all the facts and acted rationally, there
>would be no free will.
In another sense of the term, yes, in the sense you continue to
explain in your next sentences.
But in the simplest possible reading of "free will", which can be
just the resistance towards conditioning, it's true that people are
conditioned to act irrationally. Given more free will, perhaps they
would act more rationally. However, it's correct and very crucial
of you to point out that rational choice and free will are NOT the
same thing, and can even be incompatible, as follows:
>However, we can never be sure we have all the
>facts, or how to weight them (how much is a tree worth?), and acting
>rationally is not the same as making the right choice.
Actually these three lines say a lot about free will being a mystical
or esoteric kind of process. What appears logical is not always "the
right choice". Mystical and esoteric in the sense of appearing
irrational, or in the sense of not arising out of logic but out of
intuition and other factors impossible to categorize at the present
time. Perhaps free will is more the realm of alignment with the
"correct feelings" than the realm of (logical) "recognition of
necessity" (as Sartre put it). And this is yet another reason why
free will is rare (if it was easy to trust one's inexplicable feelings
wihout any conditioning and without any logic predictability either,
it would not be so rare).
George
KSS
>> they wouldn't vote for such silly leaders almost in every country.
>
>I think free will is fairly meaningless when it comes to masses of
>people.
Yes, because it ends up as massive unpredictability. But the
opposite of free will, which is conditioning, is fairly meaningful
when it comes to masses of people.
>> We'd be in paradise, "if only" the majority had true free will.
>
>Or maybe Hell.
Interesting point. I thought of this often. and wondered why nobody
brought it up in this thread, even as a joke.
We already have such a hell, and it's called Usenet. Evidence that
your speculation might be correct.
Actually religions have tried to subdue free will, for both good and
bad reasons. A good reason is that free will implies a departure from
a "given order" of reality, or a moral order perhaps. A bad reason is
simply to keep human beings under authoritarian control.
I wonder how much free will exists anyway, or is associated with
terror of the void, or all kinds of hidden fears. If it exists it must be
latently or potentially existent within every human being, and the
supression of its manifestation doesn't mean it's not lurking under
the (rational) surface controlled by conditioning.
The myth of the "fall from grace" as a result of free will is well known.
As a result only when confronted with injustice and/or authority does
practising free will make good sense. Some said "freedom is the
final slavery".
>> Well, I guess this is the third Utopia in the list, after the capitalist
>> one and the socialist one. It's the anarchist one, and it too doesn't
>> really work. ;-)
>
>There are other alternatives.
Have been working on them. Nothing on a mass scale however. ;-)
George
Brian Drummond
wrote:
>I didn't say that. You seem rather short on logic. So, a concise
>definition.
>God = Underlying unity which has the characteristic of Mind.
>
Has Tang called you a Hindu lately?
<duck>
>> *pulls fingers out of socket* Oooooo! Uck, boring!
>
>Yes. It's the little details that screw you.
Like forgetting it's 240V over here...
(context? what context? :)
- Brian
Brian Drummond
wrote:
>You solution sounds a lot like the RayGun "Just say no" campaign as a
>solution to the drug prob.
Ayup! (the way you put this had me puzzzled until the last paragraph)
>Moral suasion would work, if free will actually determined human behavior,
>wouldn't it?
(hmmm... can't resist this one :) Let's apply the contrapositive rule...
if free will didn't determine human behaviour, then moral "suasion"
wouldn't work!
So when there is a public outcry against a major bank who signs a major
deal with a right-wing bigot, and the bank's directors cancel the deal,
what does that prove?
(there _was_ some contingent reinforcement, but only to the tune of a
few hundred bank accounts, essentially zero compared with the profits)
>If free will actually determined human behavior, gasoline sales here would
>be close to zero now.
If disgust wins over laziness. I'm not sure that it does...
>"Are we free to choose pipeline any more than we can choose
>river?" The answer from Gasoline Inc., and City, State, and Federal
>Government is always, "No, it is legal, inevitable, and will be as safe as
>it can be built."
And did you believe them? :)
>I would rather look for the big picture, if possible. I will continue to
>practice walking and bike riding, and hope others imitate.
Good for you! (I keep saying I'll learn to drive one day, but... )
>Selling determines buying. We can, as might be expected in a society
>systematically trained to buy that which is sold by the sellers, cling to
>the idea of free will so that we can continue to blame the buyer.
ouch! Blame the buyer?
"Blame" sounds like a symptom of too much exposure to the wrong sort of
Christian doctrine as a young child ... (I may be off beam here but if
you know the Scottish psyche you'll understand). Now *this* might
account for your antagonism to "free will" as a concept. It certainly
can be used inappropriately, both as a weapon, and as a smokescreen to
cover the manipulation that *does* take place.
One of the refreshing things about buddhism for me has been the fact
that it has no use for blame or guilt or any of that sort of
self-flagellation. Instead I find it empowering, in its suggestion that
we can choose the moral alternative for ourselves. Not with any
expectation that it'll make any difference (attachmment to results) but
for its own sake, and for the difference it'll make in my own mind.
>This
>allows the gasoline sellers freedom to continue selling, because they are
>only giving us what we allegedly want, and (allegedly) freely buy.
Excellent point about the illusion of free will.
George left me nothing to say here. <prolly a good thing!>
- Brian
Brian Drummond
wrote:
>KSS wrote:
>> So Ho Hum seems to have said something like: "If people knew
>> all the facts and acted of free will rather than conditioning, they
>> would choose differently". It is simple, and I agree.
>
>I disagree. If people knew all the facts and acted rationally, there
>would be no free will. However, we can never be sure we have all the
>facts, or how to weight them (how much is a tree worth?), and acting
>rationally is not the same as making the right choice.
"acting rationally is not the same as making the right choice"
Crucially...
Hey, I _almost_ have a sig file!
TV programme about the Jack Kevorkian trial last night, at which it was
pointed out to the jury that the facts of the case were beyond dispute,
and that the law precisely stipulated the definition of murder, with no
room for variance even when the murder victim begged for death.
The jury acted rationally.
- Brian
alaya
where are the clowns?
-don't bother they're here
KSS <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:7k6dlb$l3s$1...@newssrv.otenet.gr...
> Ho Hum wrote:
> >Selling determines buying. We can, as might be expected in a society
> >systematically trained to buy that which is sold by the sellers, cling to
> >the idea of free will so that we can continue to blame the buyer. This
> >allows the gasoline sellers freedom to continue selling, because they are
> >only giving us what we allegedly want, and (allegedly) freely buy.
>
>
alaya
Send in the clowns.... send in the clowns.......
...don't bother they're here
Brian Drummond <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3779f4fd...@news.demon.co.uk...
alaya
where are the clowns?
Ho Hum <nos...@forme.please> wrote in message
news:mDy93.323$lZ....@news.uswest.net...
> I got it wrong. It is Olympic Pipeline, Inc., but that probably doesn't
> matter. As you point out, a pipeline by any other name would smell the
same.
>
> You solution sounds a lot like the RayGun "Just say no" campaign as a
> solution to the drug prob.
>
> Moral suasion would work, if free will actually determined human behavior,
> wouldn't it?
> If free will actually determined human behavior, gasoline sales here would
> be close to zero now. This explosion was a major traumatic event in this
> town. Very punishing. Very awakening.
>
> Only a few citizens of this town were even aware that a gasoline pipeline,
> as well as a river, runs through it. Some of us protested construction in
> the first place, and my question since before pipeline construction began
> has been, "Are we free to choose pipeline any more than we can choose
> river?" The answer from Gasoline Inc., and City, State, and Federal
> Government is always, "No, it is legal, inevitable, and will be as safe as
> it can be built." Not safe enough, apparently, but now they are reassuring
> us that when the pipeline is restarted, it will be safer.
>
> I would rather look for the big picture, if possible. I will continue to
> practice walking and bike riding, and hope others imitate. But some of us
> also get a lot of reward from questioning the supply side of our petroleum
> powered culture.
>
> Selling determines buying. We can, as might be expected in a society
> systematically trained to buy that which is sold by the sellers, cling to
> the idea of free will so that we can continue to blame the buyer. This
> allows the gasoline sellers freedom to continue selling, because they are
> only giving us what we allegedly want, and (allegedly) freely buy.
>
>
> Brian Drummond <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:376c552d...@news.demon.co.uk...
alaya
where are the clowns?
-don't bother they're here
Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3766EAAE...@kbnet.co.uk...
> KSS wrote:
> >
> > >Free will can only be applied (if at all) to *correct* cost/benefit
> > >analyses, although one might also apply free will to what is factored
> > >into those equations.
>
>
> > So Ho Hum seems to have said something like: "If people knew
> > all the facts and acted of free will rather than conditioning, they
> > would choose differently". It is simple, and I agree.
>
> I disagree. If people knew all the facts and acted rationally, there
> would be no free will. However, we can never be sure we have all the
> facts, or how to weight them (how much is a tree worth?), and acting
> rationally is not the same as making the right choice.
>
> > In fact if people acted out of true free will rather than conditioning
> > they wouldn't vote for such silly leaders almost in every country.
>
> I think free will is fairly meaningless when it comes to masses of
> people.
>
> > We'd be in paradise, "if only" the majority had true free will.
>
> Or maybe Hell.
>
> > Well, I guess this is the third Utopia in the list, after the capitalist
> > one and the socialist one. It's the anarchist one, and it too doesn't
> > really work. ;-)
>
> There are other alternatives.
>
> Gassho
> Dirk
alaya
where are the clowns?
-don't bother they're here
KSS <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:7k6jgs$noa$1...@newssrv.otenet.gr...
> Dirk Bruere wrote in <3766C8A9...@kbnet.co.uk>...
>
> Ho Hum wrote:
> >> Selling determines buying. We can, as might be expected in a society
> >> systematically trained to buy that which is sold by the sellers, cling
to
> >> the idea of free will so that we can continue to blame the buyer. This
> >> allows the gasoline sellers freedom to continue selling, because they
are
> >> only giving us what we allegedly want, and (allegedly) freely buy.
> >
> >What's any of this to do with free will? It's a cost-benefit analysis.
> >The same one you made when you read about blowing it up.
>
>
> Interesting how people read the same statements totally differently.
>
> My reading of Ho Hum's statement is that it's quite profound, and at the
> heart of a saner approach to free will, when free will is used as an
excuse
> for insane decisions based on illusory or faulty cost-benefit analyses.
>
KSS
>send in the clowns
>where are the clowns?
>-don't bother they're here
Look it's probably the fifth or sixth time you decide to reply to my...
most precious idiotic thoughts in this way. Sending your three lines
automatically by a certain software arrangement will be of benefit
to you, since you tire your fingers out. Have a look also to see how
you can use a certain software which automatically creates such
sentences on your behalf and much more. In my URL:
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/6572/ai_bigot.html
you will see some examples of automatically generated bigot-like
sentences.
If you insist, I can start running this program too, after upgrading it,
and after asking some hacker friends how to generate entirely new
e-mail addresses each time.
The reason I didn't do this in the case of someone else who bloody
well deserved it, is because I still respect other people who read these
newsgroups.
But you might as well know, that the technology of blowing up and
destroying completely these public newsgroups with highly advanced
robot-like spammers, impossible to even trace out or filter out in any
meaningful way is WELL within our grasp of technical feasiiility.
So keep using your fingers, and when you come to Greece prepare
yourself to receive bowls of yogurt with honey on your face, as minimum
punishment for your serious usenet misdeeds against Dharma-kindness.
George the Greek
PS.
The "revolutionaries" will never come to power, BTW. It was a joke,
if in your bigotry you didn't notice.
KSS
>send in the clowns
>where are the clowns?
>-don't bother they're here
So why not?
Since there is no eternal, dead-serious, permament self,
we might as well do some clowning around.
Our clowning around is judged both by its motives as well
as its results.
If the results include lessening a human being's personal
sense of alienation, or extreme views expressed via the net
(case of Ho Hum), I don't see how this clowning around can
be other than positive action, however small.
Still yours in dharma
George the geek ;-)
piet...@my-deja.com
> Don James (dja...@raychem.com) writes:
> > In article <IAd93.61$eI.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> > "Ho Hum" <nos...@forme.please> wrote:
> >> Don James <dja...@raychem.com> wrote to
talk.religion.buddhism,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,alt.zen,alt.buddha.
> > shor
> >> t.fat.guy
> >> in response to
> >> > dot...@navix.net who wrote to:
talk.religion.buddhism,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,alt.zen,alt.buddha.
> > shor
> >> t.fat.guy,sci.psychology.theory,alt.atheism
> >> > > yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about
jeeezus
ok, how about L. Ron Hubbard? :)
> "This can't be taught."-the Buddha after his awakening-
> John
heh.
"Please try" - God/Brahman after Buddha's awakening
> Ecology: the last fad.
yep
'The Forests precede civilisation, the deserts follow.'
-anon
'Soon, contempt for oneself and others will be the highest emotion
humans are capable of.'
-Fritz N. more or less
cheers
posted via www.feh.com:
this post has been sanitized for your protection
share what you think you know.
learn what others think you dont.
make up the rest.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dirk Bruere
>
> send in the clowns
> where are the clowns?
> -don't bother they're here
>
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
Dirk Bruere
>
> Send in the clowns.... send in the clowns.......
>
So?
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> send in the clowns
> where are the clowns?
So?
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
Bagwan Adi Satch
:-)
--
Send me your scans for the photo op at:
http://www.ntr.net/~oak/altzen/altzen.html
alaya
lol - fair enough and being serious all the time is a pain - but I'm just
concerned you might drag someone in to it without them understanding that it
is just a laugh. Some poor bastards come here to really find help. One poor
guy was thinking of killing himself the other day, and some would be jokers
advised him to do the job well. This is a bit sad. I hope you realise, that
for all my flame and stick, I'm having a laugh when I'm all wrath and fury.
Personally, I open my big mouth so much on this newsgroup offering advise
and so forth, that I don't want to seem like I'm a cool calm and collected
smartarse, so me chucking a wobbly is my way of avoiding that trap.
--
alaya
al...@iname.com
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/alaya/houseofmystery/
KSS <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> >where are the clowns?
> >-don't bother they're here
>
>
alaya
Tang Huyen
alaya wrote: <<Personally, I open my big mouth so much on this newsgroup
offering advise and so forth, that I don't want to seem like I'm a cool calm and
collected smartarse, so me chucking a wobbly is my way of avoiding that trap.>>
Nobody takes you for one. Anybody who takes somebody else on Usenet for a cool,
calm and collected whataver is in for a big fall.
Tang Huyen
Jackie
>offering advise and so forth, that I don't want to seem like I'm a cool calm and
>collected smartarse, so me chucking a wobbly is my way of avoiding that trap.>>
>Nobody takes you for one. Anybody who takes somebody else on Usenet for a cool,
>calm and collected whataver is in for a big fall.
collected all the time. Don't look down! ;-)
Looking at me standing still. The dragonflies come to rest in my
shade.
Jackie.
Dirk Bruere
>
> >God = Underlying unity which has the characteristic of Mind.
> Has Tang called you a Hindu lately?
Words. Shall I translate to zenspeak and start rambling on about the
unconditioned, voidness etc, which is identical?
> >> *pulls fingers out of socket* Oooooo! Uck, boring!
> >Yes. It's the little details that screw you.
> Like forgetting it's 240V over here...
Been bitten by the mains recently? As an EE I suggest that if you are
going to electrocute yourself you do it in winter, and don't sweat.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> TV programme about the Jack Kevorkian trial last night, at which it was
> pointed out to the jury that the facts of the case were beyond dispute,
> and that the law precisely stipulated the definition of murder, with no
> room for variance even when the murder victim begged for death.
> The jury acted rationally.
Then his defence should have said that the law is what a jury says it
is.
Gassho
Dirk
alaya
Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3767906A...@kbnet.co.uk...
> alaya wrote:
> >
> > Send in the clowns.... send in the clowns.......
> >
> > ...don't bother they're here
>
> So?
>
> Dirk
alaya
lol - fair enough and being serious all the time is a pain - but I'm just
concerned you might drag someone in to it without them understanding that it
is just a laugh. Some poor bastards come here to really find help. One poor
guy was thinking of killing himself the other day, and some would be jokers
advised him to do the job well. This is a bit sad. I hope you realise, that
for all my flame and stick, I'm having a laugh when I'm all wrath and fury.
and so forth, that I don't want to seem like I'm a cool calm and collected
smartarse, so me chucking a wobbly is my way of avoiding that trap.
alaya
hope you are too. lol
alaya
Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:3767BDA8...@bu.edu...
>
>
> alaya wrote: <<Personally, I open my big mouth so much on this newsgroup
> offering advise and so forth, that I don't want to seem like I'm a cool
calm and
> collected smartarse, so me chucking a wobbly is my way of avoiding that
trap.>>
>
> Nobody takes you for one. Anybody who takes somebody else on Usenet for a
cool,
> calm and collected whataver is in for a big fall.
>
> Tang Huyen
>
Ho Hum
KSS:
> Reconstructing now, more wisely, who "Ho Hum" is, it might turn out
> that he is not a staunch behaviourist attempting to control human
> freedom and eliminate free will, but on the contrary, a sensitive human
> being who loathes conditioning and control and seeks to demystify
> what is effectively, a collective illusion of free will.
>
> Phrase your ideas differently, reveal your motives more openly,
> and open-minded people are obdlidged to treat you differently.
>
> I am enthused by your recent statements. Perhaps you contain the
> exact opposites of your stated views.
>
> We have to go through a critique of known illusions about free will
> before restoring a saner kind of free will within ourselves.
>
> You've hit the hammer on the nail by talking about the illusion of
> free will being one of the most deplorable fallacies of present-day
> political and social systems. It's the opposite evil to the Soviet evil
> of "total control". Take into account conditioning, however, and
> the whole big hot air balloon of a "perfectly regulated free market"
> completely breaks down. And all kinds of radical answers emerge,
> one of which is to look into brainwashing and conditioning as a
> most potent hidden variable within free market forces.! -Well done!
Word, George! You da man.
Ho Hum
> Objectivity is a religious notion.
>
Why? Just because you don't believe in it?
That is certainly not a logical deduction. If objectivity had anything to do
with religion, then faith, and belief in unproven assertions would be
required.
>
> (And to those of you who are going "humph" at reading that, I rest
> my case.)
>
No evidence of any kind of "case". Just a ridiculous, illogical, groundless
assertion.
Ho Hum
Ben Tremblay <ab...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:376C1F1F...@chebucto.ns.ca...
> Borg, acknowledge it: Ho Yawn has just turned you into an object!
Trembler Ben may turn himself into an object of derision. Objectivity isn't
about turning people into objects. The nature of objectivity is expressing
or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by
personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
Ho Hum
Gautama of Borg:
>
> Rubbish. The dictionary and common usage say otherwise. "the
> thing independent of perceptions" is what "objective" means.
>
Your dictionary didn't think "things" through. How could one know of any
thing independent of perceptions? What appear to be things are just webs of
relationships. There are no objective things independent of perceptions. The
human perceptual process is part of the web of relationships that make up
what appear to be things.
Objectivity is attained by describing or dealing with webs of relationships
perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or
interpretations. This is almost impossible to do alone, but becomes easier
as a group effort in a community of peers looking at the same things and
comparing what they perceive. In the end, the majority decides.
Colin R. Day
>
> Objectivity is a religious notion.
>
No.
>
> (And to those of you who are going "humph" at reading that, I rest
> my case.)
>
What case?
>
> --
> Gautama of Borg Prepare to be enlightenated!
> To email me, remove the dashes. http://www.interlog.com/~daryl/rel/
--
Colin R. Day cd...@ix.netcom.com alt.atheist #1500
What Linux and atheism have in common, that which their
advocates most energetically embrace and their detractors
most vociferously vilify, is that they both encourage
an independent view of the world.
Ben Tremblay
> Gautama of Borg:
> That is certainly not a logical deduction. If objectivity had
> anything to do with religion, then faith, and belief in unproven
> assertions would be required.
> > my case.)
> >
Gautama of Borg
In article <376C3903...@ix.netcom.com> Colin R. Day
(cd...@ix.netcom.com) writes...
>
>Gautama of Borg wrote:
>
>> Objectivity is a religious notion.
>
>No.
Yes. It is the (metaphysical) idea that things have a true nature
independent of the mind(s) that perceive them. It is an attractive
notion because it promises the possibility of certainty (or at
least increasing degrees of it) and because employing it produces
enjoyable results. Like the main theistic religious ideas, it
seeks to stave off chaos. It is believed in because it is
comforting to have something that feels reliable.
>> (And to those of you who are going "humph" at reading that, I rest
>> my case.)
>>
>
>What case?
So you went "humph"?
>> --
>> Gautama of Borg Prepare to be enlightenated!
>> To email me, remove the dashes. http://www.interlog.com/~daryl/rel/
>
>--
>Colin R. Day cd...@ix.netcom.com alt.atheist #1500
>
>What Linux and atheism have in common, that which their
>advocates most energetically embrace and their detractors
>most vociferously vilify, is that they both encourage
>an independent view of the world.
Independence is another religious notion. ("worldview" is
on the agenda of virtually every religious institution, BTW)
Neither Linux nor atheism need it, and in the case of Linux
at least, it's a joke, because with Linux all you're really
doing is choosing one dependency over another, the commune
over the great entrepreneur or corporation.
Gautama of Borg
In article <376C1F1F...@chebucto.ns.ca> Ben Tremblay
(ab...@chebucto.ns.ca) writes...
>
>Ho Hum wrote:
>> Gautama of Borg:
>> > Objectivity is a religious notion.
>> Why? Just because you don't believe in it?
>> That is certainly not a logical deduction. If objectivity had
>> anything to do with religion, then faith, and belief in unproven
>> assertions would be required.
>> > (And to those of you who are going "humph" at reading that, I rest
>> > my case.)
>> >
>> No evidence of any kind of "case". Just a ridiculous, illogical,
>> groundless assertion.
>
>Objectivity works!
>Borg, acknowledge it: Ho Yawn has just turned you into an object!
With his feeble definition of religion above and absolutely hollow
detraction below it, I should say so. My simpler statement at least
had the value of pointing to the subject matter, "humph" being an
obvious (though apparently too subtle for some) indicator of
clinging to a believed ideal. Ho Yawn merely ripped the copyrights
off the mumblings of a few Randi worshippers and pasted them in as
his own. Yeah, objectivity works alright. Objectify and conquer;
religious fanatacism at it's height...
Gautama of Borg
In article <ZgZa3.110795$uo1.3...@news.uswest.net> Ho Hum (nos...@forme.please) writes...
>
>
>Ben Tremblay <ab...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
>news:376C1F1F...@chebucto.ns.ca...
>> Ho Hum wrote:
>> > Gautama of Borg:
>> > > Objectivity is a religious notion.
>> > Why? Just because you don't believe in it?
>> > That is certainly not a logical deduction. If objectivity had
>> > anything to do with religion, then faith, and belief in unproven
>> > assertions would be required.
>> > > (And to those of you who are going "humph" at reading that, I rest
>> > > my case.)
>> > >
>> > No evidence of any kind of "case". Just a ridiculous, illogical,
>> > groundless assertion.
>>
>> Objectivity works!
>> Borg, acknowledge it: Ho Yawn has just turned you into an object!
>
>Trembler Ben may turn himself into an object of derision. Objectivity isn't
>about turning people into objects. The nature of objectivity is expressing
>or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by
>personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
Rubbish. The dictionary and common usage say otherwise. "the
thing independent of perceptions" is what "objective" means.
KSS
>[followups trimmed to alt.atheism and alt.zen]
Bravo, to such a bold step on Information Explosion Ecology
Management! No sarcasm, I mean it.
>In article <376C3903...@ix.netcom.com> Colin R. Day
>(cd...@ix.netcom.com) writes...
>>
>>Gautama of Borg wrote:
>>> Objectivity is a religious notion.
>>No.
>
>Yes. It is the (metaphysical) idea that things have a true nature
>independent of the mind(s) that perceive them. It is an attractive
>notion because it promises the possibility of certainty (or at
>least increasing degrees of it) and because employing it produces
>enjoyable results. Like the main theistic religious ideas, it
>seeks to stave off chaos. It is believed in because it is
>comforting to have something that feels reliable.
An interesting and concise summary of a theory I heard before.
We might discuss it endlessly, and it never ceases to fascinate
me. But alas...
I can no longer discern if the trees outside my window will be
there after I die, but have a great certainty that they will be there
anyway.
So, since I am not dead yet, I might as well be certain that those
trees are already here NOW.
Conclusion:
It's a gift to be able to enjoy NOW what will exist after my death.
I told those guys at the bank I needed no pre-payment, but they
said that a free preview was part of the package deal I bought.
Very religious. You're so damn right!!! :-)
>>> (And to those of you who are going "humph" at reading that, I rest
>>> my case.)
>>>
>>
>>What case?
>
>So you went "humph"?
No, he said "Om Ma Ni Pad Me HUMPH". (or something like that)
I can no longer hear properly. My ears have been cut to human
size by superhuman ghools.
>>Colin R. Day cd...@ix.netcom.com alt.atheist #1500
>>
>>What Linux and atheism have in common, that which their
>>advocates most energetically embrace and their detractors
>>most vociferously vilify, is that they both encourage
>>an independent view of the world.
>
>Independence is another religious notion. ("worldview" is
>on the agenda of virtually every religious institution, BTW)
>Neither Linux nor atheism need it, and in the case of Linux
>at least, it's a joke, because with Linux all you're really
>doing is choosing one dependency over another, the commune
>over the great entrepreneur or corporation.
GREAT stuff, you guys.
I'm torturing myself with difficult things like Assembly Language
and Prolog. And relaxing with other difficult things like MIDI and
music stuff.
I'm humiliating myself with arguing Buddhist-wisely against
behavioural capitalism and as a result can't even see properly
the tree-wood for the tree-forest.
The tree-wood, the one religiously closer to my values, is Linux,
apparently. SO I will change my difficult ways.
May the Spirit of the Lean Ox within the Forest, be with you
Georgie Porgie Pudding and Pi Squared
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/6572/asm/index.html
twang
Ho Hum wrote in message ...
>
>Gautama of Borg:
>>
>> Rubbish. The dictionary and common usage say otherwise. "the
>> thing independent of perceptions" is what "objective" means.
>>
>
>Your dictionary didn't think "things" through. How could one know of any
>thing independent of perceptions? What appear to be things are just webs of
>relationships. There are no objective things independent of perceptions.
The
>human perceptual process is part of the web of relationships that make up
>what appear to be things.
>
>Objectivity is attained by describing or dealing with webs of relationships
>perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or
Brian Drummond
>Gautama of Borg:
>> Objectivity is a religious notion.
>>
>Why? Just because you don't believe in it?
>That is certainly not a logical deduction. If objectivity had anything to do
>with religion, then faith, and belief in unproven assertions would be
>required.
And yet you say:
>Objectivity is attained by describing or dealing with webs of relationships
>perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or
>interpretations. This is almost impossible to do alone, but becomes easier
>as a group effort in a community of peers looking at the same things and
>comparing what they perceive. In the end, the majority decides.
"Concensus eliminates distortion", in effect.
Nice assertion. Prove it.
- Brian
Tim Harris
KSS wrote:
> Good work Brian. :) Well, I can disprove it.
>
> The majority once believed the earth is flat, and so on.
>
> Truth is not decidable via democracy.
>
> The people cannot elect a theorem as true.
>
> Neither can the scientific community.
>
> In fact the truth is quite different. The troubles that Einstein went
> through to prove his initially rejected theory indicate that scientific
> truth is mostly the result of pioneers running against the tide of
> their times, and demonstrating to the bozo-majority that their
> bozo-theories (such as that the earth is flat) are wrong.
>
> Nothing could be more individualistic than science.
>
> Even if established majority opinion in our time "supports"
> behaviourism, this still doesn't **prove** behaviourism. Only
> when all counter-examples and opposite theories are totally
> disproved, will behaviourism be "proved". And there are
> plenty of rival theories at the moment, but alas not liked by
> our neophyte-convert_into_Science Station Master Ho Hum.
>
> Actually, I'd propose a deal (if I were a psychologist): Support
> behaviourism, but extent behaviour also in the field of the
> so-called "para-normal". Then we would be even. ;-)))
>
> But it was a joke anyway :)
> George
Some very good 'points' here George. I do not presume to speak for you but
please allow me to share my perspective to these points.
In addition, it is also very important to note that, as with the example of
Einstein used above, his 'theories' were quantum leaps in imaginatioin and
thought as well. It was the logic and rational behind the theory that made it
plausible and for 'no' other reason. In this sense math, logic, physics, etc..
would have to create new 'laws' in order to contain the idea for the ones they
had first of all did not allow for this computing and many 'old' theories that
had been gererally accepted as correct; not to mention the theories that stemmed
off from these flawed theories. Therefore, the sciences had to rewrite itselves
in many areas which, up to that point, we considered truth beyond doubt...
Regards.
Tim Harris
Dirk Bruere
> In fact the truth is quite different. The troubles that Einstein went
> through to prove his initially rejected theory indicate that scientific
> truth is mostly the result of pioneers running against the tide of
> their times, and demonstrating to the bozo-majority that their
> bozo-theories (such as that the earth is flat) are wrong.
I am not aware that Einstein proved anything. He created a theory that
encompasses the known facts better than his rivals. Part of the
acceptance of his theory was on aesthetic grounds.
> Nothing could be more individualistic than science.
Tell that to CERN
> Even if established majority opinion in our time "supports"
> behaviourism, this still doesn't **prove** behaviourism. Only
No theory can be proved.
Gassho
Dirk
Ho Hum
Gautama of Borg <da-...@inter-log.com> wrote in message
news:7kkfld$453$1...@news.interlog.com...
> In article <YO%a3.111158$uo1.3...@news.uswest.net> Ho Hum
> (nos...@forme.please) writes...
> >
> >
> >Gautama of Borg:
> >>
> >> Rubbish. The dictionary and common usage say otherwise. "the
> >> thing independent of perceptions" is what "objective" means.
> >>
> >
> >Your dictionary didn't think "things" through.
>
>
OK, the writers of your dictionary. And common sense is neither.
>
> > How could one know of any
> >thing independent of perceptions? What appear to be things are just webs
of
> >relationships. There are no objective things independent of perceptions.
The
> >human perceptual process is part of the web of relationships that make up
> >what appear to be things.
>
> Okay then, if ya don't wanna fight just say so!
>
>
> >Objectivity is attained by describing or dealing with webs of
relationships
> >perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or
> >interpretations. This is almost impossible to do alone, but becomes
easier
> >as a group effort in a community of peers looking at the same things and
> >comparing what they perceive. In the end, the majority decides.
>
> Well, I don't think that most folks in these here parts would accept
> that "objective" meant "distorted only by communal feelings, prejudices,
> or interpretations". That's a new definition you're proposing there,
No, thats a twisted straw man you have fabricated out of what I said in the
preceeding paragraph. Easier for you to deal with a straw man than what I
actually said?
KSS
>On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:29:03 -0700, "Ho Hum" <nos...@forme.please> wrote:
>
>>Gautama of Borg:
>>> Objectivity is a religious notion.
>>>
>>Why? Just because you don't believe in it?
>>That is certainly not a logical deduction. If objectivity had anything to
do
>>with religion, then faith, and belief in unproven assertions would be
>>required.
>
>And yet you say:
>
relationships
>>perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or
>>interpretations. This is almost impossible to do alone, but becomes easier
>>as a group effort in a community of peers looking at the same things and
>>comparing what they perceive. In the end, the majority decides.
>
>
>Nice assertion. Prove it.
Good work Brian. :) Well, I can disprove it.
The majority once believed the earth is flat, and so on.
Truth is not decidable via democracy.
The people cannot elect a theorem as true.
Neither can the scientific community.
In fact the truth is quite different. The troubles that Einstein went
through to prove his initially rejected theory indicate that scientific
truth is mostly the result of pioneers running against the tide of
their times, and demonstrating to the bozo-majority that their
bozo-theories (such as that the earth is flat) are wrong.
Nothing could be more individualistic than science.
Even if established majority opinion in our time "supports"
behaviourism, this still doesn't **prove** behaviourism. Only
KSS
>KSS wrote:
>
>> In fact the truth is quite different. The troubles that Einstein went
>> through to prove his initially rejected theory indicate that scientific
>> truth is mostly the result of pioneers running against the tide of
>> their times, and demonstrating to the bozo-majority that their
>> bozo-theories (such as that the earth is flat) are wrong.
>
>encompasses the known facts better than his rivals. Part of the
>acceptance of his theory was on aesthetic grounds.
You are right, actually. My use of the word "proof" was wrong,
I should have said "demonstrated the validity of-" instead. But
it seemed like economy in typing. ;-)
Demonstrating the validity of something in the sense that it
encompasses the known facts than rival theories is not proof,
you are right.
>> Nothing could be more individualistic than science.
>
>Tell that to CERN
Good poiint. Times have changed, haven't they?
We live in difficult times for Princes (like Edisson).
Sometimes the bureaucracy is too overwhelming.
But on the whole teamwork rules.
>> Even if established majority opinion in our time "supports"
>> behaviourism, this still doesn't **prove** behaviourism. Only
>
>No theory can be proved.
Another point missed by non-scientists, as well as bad scientists.
Actually I believe this 100%, but did't feel the confidence to spell
it out as bluntly as you just did. I am not a physicist anyway.
The only proofs are mathematical proofs, and these reduce
to tautology, which is a simple distinction within Void.
Truth is thus ex nihilo.
George
KSS
>In addition, it is also very important to note that, as with the example of
>Einstein used above, his 'theories' were quantum leaps in imaginatioin and
>thought as well. It was the logic and rational behind the theory that made
it
>plausible and for 'no' other reason. In this sense math, logic, physics,
etc..
>would have to create new 'laws' in order to contain the idea for the ones
they
>had first of all did not allow for this computing and many 'old' theories
that
>had been gererally accepted as correct; not to mention the theories that
stemmed
>off from these flawed theories. Therefore, the sciences had to rewrite
itselves
>in many areas which, up to that point, we considered truth beyond doubt...
Absolutely right. Or... even worse (for those who forget all this). ;-)
I had actually forgotten, so thanks for the reminder.
My strong guess towards you, in particular, is that one day Science
will have to be rewritten to include those things you mention in your
site, since your concept of Death and Rebirth being comparable
to 'Big Bang' is quite probably correct. Nothing un-Buddhist about it,
and much more Buddhist than all the mechanistic mumbo-jumbo
which believes in total stupor after physical death (annihilationism).
I had once written a long posting validating your theory using the story
of a friend but it was lost due to my flame war with someone else at the
time.
>Regards.
>Tim Harris
Regards
George (who wonders if he can make it, in the Big Bang hehe)