Deaf
peterr
chosen bring two deaf children into the world. They approached
numerous sperm banks with the request for sperm from deaf males,
so that the child would also be deaf. These requests were refused.
Eventually they obtained sperm form of a fifth-generation deaf man
who 'fathered' their two children. (paraphrased)
Deafness "is not a disability but a culture", explained Alto Charo,
a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin.
In pre-selecting a donor for deafness, she said, the couple had
pronounced its desire for "a child that is part of the same
minority group."
Source: SAPA-AFP, April 18 2002
Good, bad?
Right, wrong?
--
Namo Amito Fo
Peter Reber
"Life knows its needs"
Angelo
Are you asking about the deafness, or the lesbian bit. I'll presume
the deaf part as I don't really think the lesbian part is an ethical
issue.
These categories (good/bad right/wrong) don't apply in Buddhist
ethics. That's the short answer.
The long answer is...
that there is such a thing as deaf culture - it is rich and vibrant.
And it is also under threat by things like cochlear implants - deaf
children with implants are not taught to sign, and are therefore
excluded from deaf culture, but they seldom have 100% hearing either
and tend to find the hearing world difficult. So you'd have to weigh
up whether not hearing, was offset by being a part of deaf culture.
Many deaf people say that deaf culture more than makes up for lack of
hearing - many refuse cochlear implants for instance. It's not at all
clear though even amongst deaf people. But I think most would say that
being deaf shouldn't necessarily to be seen as a handicap. As the
professor points out it is a cultural question as much as anything -
and as such it's very difficult to sort out ethicality.
So is it wrong for deaf parents to want deaf children? I don't know
that we are in a position to judge. I have read about deaf culture,
and met some deaf people - but I have no real conception of what it's
like to be deaf. I think the important thing is more like would they
love a child who was born with hearing? Or would they love the child
fullstop?
It's difficult, and probably unproductive to try to squeeze ethical
dilemma's into categories such as right and wrong. Indeed notions of
right and wrong are so variable in different situations and locations
that there can be no categorical answer to your question. If we move
to the Buddhist categories of skillful and unskillful things become a
lot less black and white. The motivations of the people involved and
the consequences are far more important - or they are the only things
that are important. We can only speculate about these people's motives
and the consequences of their actions - so any conclusions we might
come to about the ethicality of the action can at best be provisional.
To do a thorough ethical analysis requires time and reflection. I must
sort out what are the ethical principles which I am going to base my
analysis on. Then decide which of them apply to the problem at hand. I
need to spell out what the actions actually are, and how the ethical
principles might apply (remembering that I don't have full knowledge
of the situation, just a newspaper report). Only then can I make a
stab at deciding whether or not I think the action is ethical. To
short circuit the process is usually just to express some pre-existing
prejudice, and that has nothing to do with ethics.
And then if you decide that the action is unethical it doesn't end
there. Because if you apply the same analysis to yourself then you
must decide whether you are prepared to sit by and see an unethical
action take place and not respond to it. And if you do then what are
the implications for choosing not to act? The ethical analysis is a
can of worms! Inevitably it comes back to you and what you are
prepared to do. What is the point of considering ethics if you decide
not to act on what you decide? In Buddhism ethics is not an abstract
discipline - it is a supremely practical one. One soon learns that
every action, of body, speech and mind, has consequences - and that to
not act in the face of unskillfulness is itself unskillful Now we
really have a dilemma. So maybe one shouldn't even go there if one is
not prepared to live by the conclusions one comes to.
If find it difficult to play this game, because as I say I believe
that to judge these things means taking responsibility for the
conclusions one comes to. Perhaps we are better off remaining
non-judgemental where other peoples actions are concerned, unless we
are directly affected, or in possession of all the facts? Even then we
are likely to end up simply acting out of pre-existing prejudice,
becoming hypocrits by condemning the actions of others but being
unprepared to do anything about it. But then ignorance is never really
bliss either so it's kind of a catch 22.
That's the long answer.
aadarena
Michael
Brian Mitchell
> > A US lesbian couple, both partners are deaf, have deliberately
> > chosen bring two deaf children into the world. They approached
> > numerous sperm banks with the request for sperm from deaf males,
> > so that the child would also be deaf. These requests were refused.
> > Eventually they obtained sperm form of a fifth-generation deaf man
> > who 'fathered' their two children. (paraphrased)
> >
> > Deafness "is not a disability but a culture", explained Alto Charo,
> > a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin.
> > In pre-selecting a donor for deafness, she said, the couple had
> > pronounced its desire for "a child that is part of the same
> > minority group."
> > Source: SAPA-AFP, April 18 2002
> >
> > Good, bad?
> > Right, wrong?
a great deal, <snipped>, which I found to be highly equivocal. A
refusal, on high Buddhist principle, to play the game.
The question as put invites us to imagine we are a judge holding
court at the City Gate and this case has been brought to us for
judgement. Which way do we rule? Refusing the case is not an option.
For me, it is wrong, abysmally so.
If it were a question of adopting a congenitally deaf child to give
it the richest, most rewarding life experience possible --and of
actively choosing a deaf child to adopt-- then I would be full of
praise and good wishes. But to propose to MAKE a child deaf simply to
bolster your own cultural ideology I find staggeringly vile.
True, the loss of a sense does not make us any the less human, for
good or ill, and need not seriously limit anyone's potential for
self-realisation. But I think of the child grown up, having come to
understand that it has been willfully denied a whole dimension of
experience, of delight, of communication.
Deaf culture is only a reactive culture-in-defence. Would anyone who
had experienced the world of sound willingly give it up in order to
take advantage of "rich and vibrant" deaf culture? I doubt it very
much. But that's the "choice" this couple want to impose on a future
child by breeding for deafness.
I can't quote Buddhist scripture on the proper relation to the
senses; probably something to the effect that they are not to be
identified with, that they are contingent and of dependent origin.
But it would be easy to make a facile assertion about that without
really understanding sense-consciousness. The human psyche is surely
both the vehicle and the locale of any experience of
self-realisation, and if one investigates the individual and
collective, conscious and subconscious levels of the psyche one sees
how profoundly informed by the senses the psyche is. To be without a
sense may not be a huge functional handicap, but daily functionality
is not the whole of what we are.
> . . . In Buddhism ethics is not an abstract
> discipline - it is a supremely practical one. One soon learns that
> every action, of body, speech and mind, has consequences - and that to
> not act in the face of unskillfulness is itself unskillful Now we
> really have a dilemma. So maybe one shouldn't even go there if one is
> not prepared to live by the conclusions one comes to.
Isn't that what you've tried to do in this post? Not go there? It
can't be done. Unless you are already dead, the actions of others
*take* you there.
Are there any Buddhist scriptural examples/anecdotes of how to deal
with moral dilemmas, along the lines of "Jesus and the woman taken in sin"?
> If find it difficult to play this game . . . it's kind of a catch 22.
Moral dilemmas usually are. In the Jesus episode mentioned above, the
apparent conflict between legality and compassion, culpability and
blame, was transformed into something else --a teaching and healing--
by being addressed from a more profound vision. But, alas, we can't
wait for Buddhas to solve all our moral dilemmas on the ground. We
*have* to play the game, and our efforts at spiritual actualisation
(or whatever we wish to call it) ought to make us more fit to do so.
(That's an argument about recuperating the world rather than
abandoning it. I'm not wholly convinced by it, but I thought I should
represent it)
Brian Mitchell
*******************************************
The rogue state is America
Vizion Communication
> Deaf culture is only a reactive culture-in-defence. Would anyone who
> had experienced the world of sound willingly give it up in order to
> take advantage of "rich and vibrant" deaf culture? I doubt it very
> much. But that's the "choice" this couple want to impose on a future
> child by breeding for deafness.
>
So why seek happiness rather than place equal emphasis on all states of
being?
peterr
Brian Mitchell <bmit...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200204240...@zetnet.co.uk...
| a great deal, <snipped>, which I found to be highly equivocal. A
| refusal, on high Buddhist principle, to play the game.
|
| The question as put invites us to imagine we are a judge holding
| court at the City Gate and this case has been brought to us for
| judgement. Which way do we rule? Refusing the case is not an option.
|
| For me, it is wrong, abysmally so.
I posted an identical message in a number of newsgroups. The result:
Healing Group: No response
Interfaith Group: No response
Spirituality Group: Three respondents. One refusing to take a stand,
venturing the view that (possibly) "there are souls that need this
experience."
One person, involved in healing, expressing reservations. The third
speculating that "maybe their deafness has brought them some level
of telepathy or some other gift that their deafness has given them that
we do not have and that this is the culture they are interested in
creating."
This group: One sitting on the fence. One outright condemnation.
The question I have is "what kind of world are we "spiritual" people
creating if we refuse to look at, and evaluate behaviour?" Are we now
at a state where we cannot even distinguish anymore between
judging a person and judging behaviour?
| If it were a question of adopting a congenitally deaf child to give
| it the richest, most rewarding life experience possible --and of
| actively choosing a deaf child to adopt-- then I would be full of
| praise and good wishes. But to propose to MAKE a child deaf simply to
| bolster your own cultural ideology I find staggeringly vile.
"Staggeringly vile", what an wonderfully appropriate term for this.
Do we now approve of the practice of crippling children to make
them better beggars, as it happen sometimes in India? Do we
approve of female genital mutilation (also called female circumcision)
as practiced in many cultures throughout the world?
Child abuse, and deliberately crippling a child would certainly be that,
is a criminal act. To select a disability to be inflicted on an child, even
if not yet born or even conceived, is equally criminal.
What does it say about us when we are prepared to accept such
things based on speculation (a soul needing or selecting the experience)
or ideological beliefs?
All over the world there are thousands of partners who expend great
effort and spend huge sums of money to prevent passing on some
genetic abberation to their children. Are they fools?
John Arkle
and abusive behaviour and cannot be excused by talking of 'deaf culture'. To
deliberately seek to inflict a disability on another sentient being is not
in accord with Buddhism in any way.
Genryu
Angelo
> refusal, on high Buddhist principle, to play the game.
It's a bit rough to accuse me of standing on "high Buddhist principle"
when that is exactly what the questioner was asking for! What was I
supposed to do - give a liberal humanist answer? The short answer is
that buddhism teaches me not to play the blame game!
>
> The question as put invites us to imagine we are a judge holding
> court at the City Gate and this case has been brought to us for
> judgement. Which way do we rule? Refusing the case is not an option.
I think an even more pertinent question is how qualified are we to
judge? Clearly I found myself lacking and, like any good judge would,
excused myself.
> For me, it is wrong, abysmally so.
For you yes. But for them?
What I ask you is this: what makes you qualified to judge the actions
of others, and on what basis do you do this? What is the basis, the
philosophical basis, the ethical basis? How can we be sure that you
aren't just expressing prejudice? What experience of deaf culture do
you have?
> I can't quote Buddhist scripture on the proper relation to the
> senses; probably something to the effect that they are not to be
> identified with, that they are contingent and of dependent origin.
Yep. I'd agree with that. So whay are you doing it?
<snip>
> To be without a sense may not be a huge functional handicap, but daily
> functionality is not the whole of what we are.
So?
> Isn't that what you've tried to do in this post? Not go there? It
> can't be done. Unless you are already dead, the actions of others
> *take* you there.
Where was it that I wasn't going? I certainly have not, to the best of
my knowledge, brought any babies into the world - deaf or hearing - in
fact I have specifically avoided bringing any children into the world.
So I think I can hardly be said to be equivocal on that point! Am I
prepared to morally judge the actions of others - well since you seem
to be more conversant with Christian than Buddhist scripture I would
suggest that "Judge not, lest thou wilt be judged" kind of sums it up
for me.
The actions of others call for forebearance, not blame - this is a
very 'high' Buddhist principle.
> Are there any Buddhist scriptural examples/anecdotes of how to deal
> with moral dilemmas, along the lines of "Jesus and the woman taken in sin"?
Well there is the the saying that even if robbers were to saw your
limbs off with a wooden saw, that if you experienced even the
slightest thought of blame or hatred, then you could not be considered
to be a follower of the buddha. (The Dhammapada I believe). I think
the best thing with moral dilemmas is not to polarise out into right
and wrong, but to look at the causes and conditions. To see it as an
opportunity for insight into the nature of samsara.
In the end what good is your moral indignation, or even moral outrage?
Isn't that just adding more negativity to the situation?
> But, alas, we can't
> wait for Buddhas to solve all our moral dilemmas on the ground. We
> *have* to play the game, and our efforts at spiritual actualisation
> (or whatever we wish to call it) ought to make us more fit to do so.
Well again it depends what "game" you would have me play. I refuse to
play the game of moral outrage at the actions of others - although I
am apalled by some of my own actions and try to experience genuine
remorse when I do something unskillfull. If my efforts towards
spiritual growth have taught me anything it is that I am better not to
waste my time getting indignant about things that I have absolutely no
control over, nor any influence either!
A better way to view the unskilfulness of others, better that is that
getting all red in the face at it and denouncing it as wrong, is to
see how the greed, hatred and delusion of that person have lead them
to cause pain for themsleves and others. Then to reflect on the
universal nature of this suffering and to resolve to be skillfull in
oneself.
In a sense the "game" of assigning blame and guilt for actions is just
fuel for the fire of hatred. The conflict in the Middle East is an
extreme manifestation of the game you would have me play, and frankly
that frightens me!
Another aspect of this is that *if* you accept the doctrine of karma,
then there is no need for intervention on our parts, except to point
out, in the spirit of compassion and kindness, that some actions may
have painful consequences. I am, probably to your continud annoyance,
agnostic about this.
If by not playing the blame game I manage to avoid adding to the
negativity in the world then I have made a valuable contribution. Of
what value is your condemnation?
Regards
Michael
Angelo
> The question I have is "what kind of world are we "spiritual" people
> creating if we refuse to look at, and evaluate behaviour?" Are we now
> at a state where we cannot even distinguish anymore between
> judging a person and judging behaviour?
Well what kind of "spiritual people" are we who go around judging the
behaviour of others at all? What is the value in doing this? I can see
how as a spiritual practice, evaluating my own behaviour is very
efficacious, but others?
If we practice this or that spiritual excercise does that give us some
sort of "right" to judge, be it behaviour or person? What is your
definition of "spiritual" anyway?
> "Staggeringly vile", what an wonderfully appropriate term for this.
Sounds filled with hatred to me!
> Do we now approve of the practice of crippling children to make
> them better beggars, as it happen sometimes in India? Do we
> approve of female genital mutilation (also called female circumcision)
> as practiced in many cultures throughout the world?
This is quite a leap to make. Do we now make appeals to the worst
excesses of other humans to excuse our own?
> Child abuse, and deliberately crippling a child would certainly be that,
> is a criminal act. To select a disability to be inflicted on an child, even
> if not yet born or even conceived, is equally criminal.
What has criminality got to do with Buddhist ethics? Or with morality
even? You requested a Budhist viewpoint, but now seem bent on
enforcing your own prejudices!
> What does it say about us when we are prepared to accept such
> things based on speculation (a soul needing or selecting the experience)
> or ideological beliefs?
What does it say about us when we characterise other people in this
way? No one has said that they accept anything, and to characterise my
ethical stand point as either involving a soul, or as ideological is
nonsensical - and all because I won't play the blame game? You
obviously consider that you have the "right" to judge, and to condemn
- I wonder where such authority comes from? What is your ideology?
> All over the world there are thousands of partners who expend great
> effort and spend huge sums of money to prevent passing on some
> genetic abberation to their children. Are they fools?
Why this obsession with judging the actions of others? If you want to
talk about Buddhist ethics, on a Buddhist newsgroup, then I am happy
to oblige by giving you my interpretation of what Buddhist ethics are
about - but to just write of Buddhist ethics as ideological, and then
spout your own prejudice and hatred as some sort of gosspel is just a
big wank.
Michael
Hatred is never overcome by hatred
Hatred is overcome by Love
This is an ancient Law
- Dhammapada 5.
Brian Mitchell
from " Vizion Communication" <viz...@ixpres.com> contains these words:
This is a bit too elliptic for me. Who is supposed to be seeking
happiness? And how does this relate to the subject under discussion?
For those of us still earthbound, communication is made easier if the
*whole* train of thought is revealed.
Brian MItchell
Brian Mitchell
> It's a bit rough to accuse me of standing on "high Buddhist principle"
> when that is exactly what the questioner was asking for! What was I
> supposed to do - give a liberal humanist answer? The short answer is
> that buddhism teaches me not to play the blame game!
The accusation was actually one of equivocation, not one of being a
principled Buddhist --which I have no doubt that you are.
> > The question as put invites us to imagine we are a judge holding
> > court at the City Gate...
> I think an even more pertinent question is how qualified are we to
> judge? Clearly I found myself lacking and, like any good judge would,
> excused myself.
No-one is wholly and supremely qualified to judge anything, but
judgements have to be made. The question --re-phrased-- is: how could
you bring your Buddhist understanding and experience to bear in
making a decision on such a case as this? Your answer seemed to be
that you would not make a decision and that, by implication, no
Buddhist should.
All the reasons you gave for *not* deciding I agreed with: we cannot
know beyond any doubt the inner states and experiences of those
involved; we dare not assume that our own morals are in better state
than those over whom we propose to exercise judgement; and so on. But
in the end, the effect of your reasoning is to --as you say-- excuse
yourself and pass the buck to someone else.
> What I ask you is this: what makes you qualified to judge the actions
> of others, and on what basis do you do this?
Words and language become important here. To judge is not to censor,
certainly not to blame. To judge is to examine cause and effect in a
situation as far as that is possible; to determine the truth of
something. We're all here together on this orbiting dung heap, the
actions of all of us effect all of us, so we all have to come to the
best understanding we can about the actions of ourselves and others.
We simply cannot absent ourselves from the play of karma.
> . . . What is the basis, the
> philosophical basis, the ethical basis?
The philosophical basis is that we are the world and the world is us.
You spoke rightly about taking responsibility for our decisions, of
the need for integrity, but we are also responsible for others. The
suffering of others is not "nothing to do with me", in either cause
or effect. In other words, I have helped to make the world what it
is; it is, in small part, my effect. We are culpable if we "sin", to
use a Christian term, but we are also culpable if we allow others to sin.
> . . . How can we be sure that you
> aren't just expressing prejudice?
We can't. But I can examine that and be open to discovering whether I
am or not.
> . . . What experience of deaf culture do
> you have?
None, but that is not at all relevant to the issue. This is about an
act of genetic limitation perpetrated on another who is unable to
consent. The Deaf Culture argument is an argument about minority
politics rather than morals or ethics, and in this case I believe it
is merely offered as a justification.
> > I can't quote Buddhist scripture on the proper relation to the
> > senses; probably something to the effect that they are not to be
> > identified with, that they are contingent and of dependent origin.
> Yep. I'd agree with that. So whay are you doing it?
Not quite sure of your point here (tho' you seem to be writing with
some degree of heat). My point, clearly not fully expressed, was that
a spiritual doctrine about the unreliability of the senses as media
of truth would be grossly misused as a mitigating argument in this case.
> > To be without a sense may not be a huge functional handicap, but daily
> > functionality is not the whole of what we are.
> So?
Because, I suspect, you are responding somewhat defensively, you are
not dealing with the whole argument given. When talking about the
senses and how they inform the human psyche I was trying to widen the
judging perspective, from that of minority politics to something more
psycho-spiritually inclusive.
> > Isn't that what you've tried to do in this post? Not go there? It
> > can't be done. Unless you are already dead, the actions of others
> > *take* you there.
> Where was it that I wasn't going?
The phrase was yours. You said: "perhaps we shouldn't go there",
meaning, perhaps we shouldn't presume to pronounce on the actions of
others. I'm saying: if you are alive, you are in relationship with
everything that happens. You can only not be in relationship if you
actively resist it, and even then you're still related via that very
resistance.
> The actions of others call for forebearance, not blame - this is a
> very 'high' Buddhist principle.
Forbearance OK, understanding better. And a part of understanding is
a willingness to look at the destructive, self-serving motives that
are sometimes the root of the actions of others --and, of course, our
actions as well..
On blame, I think you have only half of it. Blame is commonly defined
as making others wrong, but in fact it is making others wrong *in
order* to hide (primarily from yourself) your own sense of being
wrong. Blame is taking your evil and displacing it onto others --the
opposite of responsibility. (Don't worry too much about the term
'evil' here; that's another long discussion).
I agree we should forbear to condemn, to blame, to punish, and all
those. But I don't agree that we should forbear to regulate human
behaviour. There's a lot of karmically enmired people out there doing
a lot of awful things to each other. You don't help them by washing
your hands of the whole affair, floating on your personal lotus cloud
of non-involved forbearance. And that, I have to say, was the overall
message I got from your post.
> . . . I think
> the best thing with moral dilemmas is not to polarise out into right
> and wrong, but to look at the causes and conditions. To see it as an
> opportunity for insight into the nature of samsara.
Once again, you ring-fence yourself. There is such a thing as wrong
action; action that causes harm and suffering to self and others.
Your insight into the nature of samsara may benefit you, but how is
it going to benefit those performing wrong action? I say that you
*do* have a responsibility to them also, and that for the benefit of
all beings, wrong action needs to be limited as much as possible.
> In the end what good is your moral indignation, or even moral outrage?
> Isn't that just adding more negativity to the situation?
Not necessarily. If it were blame or hypocrisy, then yes. But I would
suggest that there is also such a thing as moral energy which is a
life-force. Whether that's actually what has motivated my response, I
couldn't say. I'll leave that for you to judge.
In your other post you said you thought my characterisation of
"staggeringly vile" was full of hatred. I don't think there is any
hatred, but certainly shock. That anyone would conceive of such a
thing shocks me. And you? Do you have no response at all? Does it not
touch you?
> > But, alas, we can't
> > wait for Buddhas to solve all our moral dilemmas on the ground. We
> > *have* to play the game, and our efforts at spiritual actualisation
> > (or whatever we wish to call it) ought to make us more fit to do so.
> Well again it depends what "game" you would have me play...
That of acknowledging that the world has to be governed, and doing
what you can to ensure it is goverend according to the highest ethic.
> Another aspect of this is that *if* you accept the doctrine of karma,
> then there is no need for intervention on our parts, except to point
> out, in the spirit of compassion and kindness, that some actions may
> have painful consequences. I am, probably to your continud annoyance,
> agnostic about this.
There was some bloke said: "Because thou wert neither hot nor cold, I
shall spew thee from my mouth" but not me. I don't mind if you're
agnostic about karma. I think I do accept it, or a version of it, but
my understanding of karma doesn't sanction a do-nothing withdrawal
from events. There is karmic effect from not-doing as well.
> If by not playing the blame game I manage to avoid adding to the
> negativity in the world then I have made a valuable contribution...
Have you? There are six billion of us, so you will have dammed up a
six-billionth of the negative flow. Is that enough to be considered
'valuable'? I just don't know that retreating into our own private
monasteries and cultivating equanimity is enough. What do you propose
to do about the world?
Brian Mitchell
Angelo
> No-one is wholly and supremely qualified to judge anything, but
> judgements have to be made.
Why? Why do we *have* to judge others? There is an assumption here
that I don't agree with.
> Your answer seemed to be that you would not make a decision and that, by
> implication, no Buddhist should.
What decision?
> All the reasons you gave for *not* deciding I agreed with: <snip> But
> in the end, the effect of your reasoning is to --as you say-- excuse
> yourself and pass the buck to someone else.
What buck am I passing? What is the nature of this buck? What would
you have me do?
> > What I ask you is this: what makes you qualified to judge the actions
> > of others, and on what basis do you do this?
>
> Words and language become important here. To judge is not to censor,
> certainly not to blame.
But isn't this exactly what you are asking me to do? Isn't this the
crux of your attempt to get me to "decide"; to "accept the buck"; to
"judge"?
> To judge is to examine cause and effect in a
> situation as far as that is possible; to determine the truth of
> something.
The "truth"? Define truth.
> We're all here together on this orbiting dung heap, the
> actions of all of us effect all of us, so we all have to come to the
> best understanding we can about the actions of ourselves and others.
Ourselves yes. Others? What is your justification?
> We simply cannot absent ourselves from the play of karma.
Exactly my point. If their is karma and it's fruit then why do we need
to intervene?
> The philosophical basis is that we are the world and the world is us.
This is bunk! Ad hoc, new-age bunk. What is the basis for believing
this?
> You spoke rightly about taking responsibility for our decisions, of
> the need for integrity, but we are also responsible for others.
In what way are we responsible for others? What makes you think this?
> The suffering of others is not "nothing to do with me", in either cause
> or effect. In other words, I have helped to make the world what it
> is; it is, in small part, my effect. We are culpable if we "sin", to
> use a Christian term, but we are also culpable if we allow others to sin.
The word "sin" has no meaning in Buddhist ethics since their are no
rules, just consenquences. How can we stop anyone whose mind is
afflicted with greed, hatred and delusion from being unskilful?
Everything they do, say and think will be unskilful. If we try to
prevent the unskilful actions of others we would very quiickly
collaspe, becuase most people, most of the time, are afflicted with
greed, hatred and delusion, and therefore most of the things people do
are unskilful - are you going to take this on? You're basically
looking at everything that 6 billion people do, say or think - every
minute of the day. You are welcome to try to take on this
responsibility, but I am more realistic than that.
> > . . . How can we be sure that you aren't just expressing prejudice?
>
> We can't. But I can examine that and be open to discovering whether I
> am or not.
I believe the Budda said: that it is better to remain like a block of
wood, than to act unskilfully! Until you are sure that you are not
expressing prejudice it is better to do nothing, than to add more
negativity to the situation as you would undoubtably do.
> This is about an act of genetic limitation perpetrated on another who is
> unable to consent.
Every conception is an act of genetic limitation! God, if only my
genetically defective parents had not bred then I wouldn't have half
the problems that I do. Most people I know have some genetic
limitations. You see the other end of what you are suggesting is
eugenics! This is why I remain to be convinced that judgement should
be exercised! It is a dangerous weapon.
> The Deaf Culture argument is an argument about minority politics rather than
> morals or ethics, and in this case I believe it is merely offered as a
> justification.
And of course your justification for judging people is better :-)
> My point, clearly not fully expressed, was that
> a spiritual doctrine about the unreliability of the senses as media
> of truth would be grossly misused as a mitigating argument in this case.
Agreed. I am not really interested in justifying the actions of these
two women. However neither am I interested in condemning them on the
basis of what I know - which lets face it is next to nothing.
<snip>
> Forbearance OK, understanding better. And a part of understanding is
> a willingness to look at the destructive, self-serving motives that
> are sometimes the root of the actions of others --and, of course, our
> actions as well..
> I agree we should forbear to condemn, to blame, to punish, and all
> those. But I don't agree that we should forbear to regulate human
> behaviour.
I don't think that you can do the latter, without doing the former.
> There's a lot of karmically enmired people out there doing
> a lot of awful things to each other. You don't help them by washing
> your hands of the whole affair, floating on your personal lotus cloud
> of non-involved forbearance. And that, I have to say, was the overall
> message I got from your post.
I never said I was washing my hands of the whole affair. After all I
have said that I have taken a strong personal stand on the issue of
children per se. And I have taken a strong personal stand against
expressing prejudice by judging the actions of others - and I think
this strong stand will add more positivity to the situation than a lot
of judgement and condemnation such as you seem to promote.
Compassion is something you have *for* other beings, it is not
something you *do to them*.
> Once again, you ring-fence yourself. There is such a thing as wrong
> action; action that causes harm and suffering to self and others.
Yes indeed. This is my point. There is such a thing as action
motivated by greed, hatred and delusion - and you have yet to convince
me that you are not acting in this way! I am fenced in by my own
unskilfulness, but at least I am prepared to admit it.
> Your insight into the nature of samsara may benefit you, but how is
> it going to benefit those performing wrong action? I say that you
> *do* have a responsibility to them also, and that for the benefit of
> all beings, wrong action needs to be limited as much as possible.
I've already comented on the scope of suffering and unskilfulness in
samsara -not truely infinite, but uncountable for practical purposes.
Now the Buddha was pretty clear on how we could benefit other beings
in samsara - and at the risk of becoming even more ponerously verbose
than I already have been, I must point you in the direction of the six
perfections. One makes a positive impact through generosity, through
being ethical oneself, through practicing forebearance towards the
unskilful actions of others, through having energy in pursuit of the
good (via the previous three perfections), and through purifying the
mind in meditation culminating in wisdom. Even in the expanded list of
10 perfections there is no hint of the perfection of judgement, or of
the type of approach that you suggest.
So my contrubution, my 'taking responsibility, is practiced in these
areas, in these ways. This is a noble contribution to world peace, and
to the liberation of all beings to the extent that I can perfect them.
I particularly focus on the first two of these perfection in my own
practice, though the third is becoming more relevant as I get older
(or at leats I am seeing the importance of it I should say).
> > In the end what good is your moral indignation, or even moral outrage?
> > Isn't that just adding more negativity to the situation?
>
> Not necessarily. If it were blame or hypocrisy, then yes.
Under what conditions would it be hypocrisy? If say you had not
perfected your own ethics? Or if you continued to act from greed,
hatred and delusion, then that would be hypocritical wouldn't it?
> But I would suggest that there is also such a thing as moral energy which is
> a life-force. Whether that's actually what has motivated my response, I
> couldn't say. I'll leave that for you to judge.
I am not prepared to judge you either :-) I merely seek to create
doubt in your mind as to the value of sitting in judgement of others!
But what is this "moral energy", and whence this "life force"? These
things are not something I understand - not the words, nor the way
they are used, nor their applicability to a discussion on ethics.
> In your other post you said you thought my characterisation of
> "staggeringly vile" was full of hatred.
Staggeringly vile suggests strong aversion to me - and aversion is
always underlaid by hatred: ergo stong hatred. My personal response?
Well as I think I said at the outset I have some sympathy with these
people because I have some insights into deaf culture. I've read, and
written about it. I've seen a very good documentary on deaf culture
and the issues involved - from many different points of view. It is
not something that I would do - and that's about as far as I would go.
> > Well again it depends what "game" you would have me play...
>
> That of acknowledging that the world has to be governed, and doing
> what you can to ensure it is goverend according to the highest ethic.
Well if we are talking about the "highest ethic" then renouncing any
use of coercion or force over other beings is something I would apply
from the start.
I wonder about governing the "world" - I don't know that I necessarily
agree that government must be perpetrated on such a lareg scale.
However groups do tend to need to have principles on which they
operate - and Buddhist ethics are the most refined and sublime set of
ethical guidelines that I know of.
My part in this is to, as I already do, follow the rules to the best
of my ability, and to confess my transgressions with alacrity - this
is an enormous and exacting responsibility which I am not always able
to live up to. Until my own conduct is more wholesome I would not
dream of judging others!
From the point of view of the "highest ethic" sexual relationships and
having children are almost inherently unskilful because they almost
inevitably involve craving. So if we were going to apply the "highest
ethic" then we wouldn't have children, or sex, at all. But then most
beings aren't up to living by the highest ethic, and so we water it
down a little until we can live with it.
> There is karmic effect from not-doing as well.
Well sort of. Karma (lit action) is said to come into affect on the
basis of your mental states. So if you withdrew as a result of
aversion then that would have karmic consequences, but if it were on
the basis of equanimity then it would have no karmic consequences, or
perhaps even positive ones.
> > If by not playing the blame game I manage to avoid adding to the
> > negativity in the world then I have made a valuable contribution...
>
> Have you? There are six billion of us, so you will have dammed up a
> six-billionth of the negative flow. Is that enough to be considered
> 'valuable'?
Oh yes indeed! It is of enormous value.
>I just don't know that retreating into our own private monasteries
and
> cultivating equanimity is enough. What do you propose to do about the world?
Who said I lived in a private monastery? I live in the world and
interact with a lot of people - I have some little influence, and I
try to use it for the good. If only everyone was able to be a little
more good, and a little less evil then we would all be a lot better
off. I don't merely "propose" - I am actively, vigorously,
enthusiastically, improving my own mental states so that I am not
increasing the suffering in the world. In addition I use what little
influence I have to pass this approach onto other people in the hope
that they too will take up the practice, and in their turn infect
other people with the desire to perfect their ethical conduct. I need
only pass this fever onto 2 others, and if they infect two others and
so on, the whole world will be cured of evil in just 34 iterations (2
e34 = 8,589,934,592), as long as everybody talked to two different
people. It won't be that simple obviously, but why despair?
You know - and I hesitite to add to an already overlong post - this is
all about mental states. Karma is produced by mental states, and not
the actions in themselves! This is a crucial point. Because if you
want to mitigate any perceived evil in the case of these two deaf
women, you'd need to first know their current mental state, and then
find a way to change it! I doubt you know anything about their mental
states - because I'm sure I don't and I have only a little more
information than you do.
I suggest that labelling their actions as "Staggeringly vile" is
hardly going to produce a positive result. I tend to find that this
sort of approach results in reactivity and even more negativity. So in
this sense you're on the wrong track because you've already alienated
the people who you hope to change.
Sorry to be so long winded, but as they say: brevity is the soul of
wit :-)
Regards
Michael
Darren Saunders
I do not attempt to offer a 'way out of this circle'....I am profoundly deaf
and British Sign Language is my first language....both my parents are
profoundly deaf...
I can understand why this couple wanted a deaf child...if I was asked if I
wanted a deaf or hearing child...I probably would go for the former...
90 percent of deaf children come from hearing families - this can be either
positive or sad cases... I know a number of families who learnt sign
language and made it a family language - or a number who try to 'normalise'
their deaf child by making the child to behave 'normally' like a hearing
child. I am not going to say this is wrong... It is human way of coping
suffering...
But I can discuss the outcome of this approaches. Many deaf children who
had signing family or at least family who had positive attitude to their
deafness - grow up loving themselves and can see themselves offering
something to the world. As for these children who may have been trying to
live 'normally' for their families often end up with negative outlook of
life. They try to be what their parents want them to be. Cochlear implants
comes up here - another sensitive issue... me being profoundly deaf doesn't
give me a better insight or right to discuss this.
All I'm saying that be careful what you say about the culture bit. Some say
that it is part of defense. Okay fair enough. Just remember that most
people in this world cling onto their identities. Gay people, Black people,
Women, American Indians, and so on have their identities - including
American, French, and many more... Deaf people have their own identities -
they form a group - they experience the world in the same way as other deaf
people. Most have linguistic recongised language - as for in UK it is
British Sign Language. Another interesting thought to ponder on - can one
have language without the culture bit. My thoughts are : no...one can't
learn a language without embracing the culture bit. I am BSL tutor myself
and I teach the art of translation from English to BSL (incluidng
shakespeare) - Cultural translation comes up very frequently.... - so I
find it hard to say that BSL users (both deaf people and hearing people
whose first language is BSL (mostly hearing people of deaf parents)) do not
have their own culture.
I am not adding any fuel here....but can I ask those to refrain emotive use
of language and ensure that they find out more about it before they come to
any conclusion. I do not advocate the action of the lesbian couple. I
think it is sad...but I will not fall into the trap of saying it is righ tor
not.... It is their choice and they will have to live out the consequences
of making that decision. I think it is unfair for us to commentate on them.
It is very easy to 'bitch' about others.
I wish everyone a bright day!
With very best wishes
In gasshó
Daz
Angelo
> I can understand why this couple wanted a deaf child...if I was asked if I
> wanted a deaf or hearing child...I probably would go for the former...
...
> I do not advocate the action of the lesbian couple. I
> think it is sad...but I will not fall into the trap of saying it is righ tor
> not.... It is their choice and they will have to live out the consequences
> of making that decision. I think it is unfair for us to commentate on them.
> It is very easy to 'bitch' about others.
Thanks for your perspective Darran. I think it adds something that
none of the other participants have - a real knowledge of what it's
like to be deaf. I agree with your approach to this.
Tell me, do you do translations of Buddhist scripture as well as
shakespeare? Just curious.
Regards
Michael
Brian Mitchell
Darren:
> > I can understand why this couple wanted a deaf child...if I was asked if I
> > wanted a deaf or hearing child...I probably would go for the former...
> ...
> > I do not advocate the action of the lesbian couple. I
> > think it is sad...but I will not fall into the trap of saying it is righ tor
> > not.... It is their choice and they will have to live out the consequences
> > of making that decision. I think it is unfair for us to commentate on them.
> > It is very easy to 'bitch' about others.
Angelo:
> Thanks for your perspective Darran. I think it adds something that
> none of the other participants have - a real knowledge of what it's
> like to be deaf. I agree with your approach to this.
I also appreciated your post, Darren. Thank you.
However, what we are struggling for is a principle. Since you and
Angelo seem to be in agreement on your approaches, let me address
this question to you both:
In the UK, and I'm sure in New Zealand as well, we have numerous
social welfare institutions, among which are child welfare
departments. These bodies have the statutory power to remove a child,
or children, from its/their parents if it is believed on evidence
that those parents are abusing or neglecting or otherwise harming the
children. We, collectively, in the guise of the State, make the
*judgement* that those are not fit people to have the care of
children, so we undertake the care of the children ourselves and
perhaps even prosecute the parents. Experience has shown that if we
don't, the children end up either severely traumatised --physically
and/or psychologically-- or dead.
Why should we do that? The abused child is clearly working out its
karma, and the abusing parents are going to have to live with the
consequences of their actions anyway, so what need have we to intervene?
Brian Mitchell
Angelo
> In the UK, and I'm sure in New Zealand as well, we have numerous
> social welfare institutions, among which are child welfare
> departments.
><snip>
> Experience has shown that if we don't, the children end up either severely
> traumatised --physically and/or psychologically-- or dead.
By the time we intervene, most children in these circumstances are
already traumatised, and in almost 100% of cases the abuser was abused
themself as a child, by an adult who was abused...etc. We are not
usually in a position to prevent such violence because we focus on the
wrong elements of the situation. So this approach is pretty hopeless
in terms of protecting children from harm. Ethically it is very
dubious to wait for the child to be harmed before removing it from
harm. It would be like a parent watching a child to put it's hand into
the fire, and then loving applying burn cream and kissing it better.
So I don't think this is a very good example of ethics in action.
> Why should we do that? The abused child is clearly working out its
> karma, and the abusing parents are going to have to live with the
> consequences of their actions anyway, so what need have we to intervene?
Presumably you are trying to suggest that the deaf women are abusing
their child? I don't think that you've made this case very well - in
fact their are many holes in your argument as my previous post points
out (at one point you seem to arguing in favour of eugenics!). So in a
way I don't think that a discussion of child abuse is going to help
you much.
You want us to operate under your own prejudices here, to take on your
assumptions about what the case represents - when clearly there is at
least some doubt as to whether yours is a valid point of view.
Clearly there is a case for stepping in to protect a child from harm -
even though removing a child from it's parents will cause harm to both
parents and child, we almost always tend to go for what we perceive to
be the least harm. But the question of eugenics must surely arise here
again if you pursue this line! What about a deaf couple who want to
have children and there is a very high likelihood of their child being
deaf? They know this and yet choose to breed anyway - isn't this in
the same category as the current example? What about any person who
knowing inflicts inferior genes on their children (as my parents did
to me). Have they the right to sue their parents for negligence? How
rigorously are you going to apply this "principle" and who decides who
gets to breed and with whom?
But let's assume that we agree that such an act is "staggeringly
vile": now what? What are you proposing to do about these women who we
presume have already conceived their children? What does the "highest
ethic" prescribe for such perpetrators of vilimnity?
Regards
Michael
Brian Mitchell
> By the time we intervene, most children in these circumstances are
> already traumatised, and in almost 100% of cases the abuser was abused
> themself as a child, by an adult who was abused...etc. We are not
> usually in a position to prevent such violence because we focus on the
> wrong elements of the situation. So this approach is pretty hopeless
> in terms of protecting children from harm.
I agree that it's an imperfect system, and I acknowledge that the
abuser may well act from a compulsion they are in no control of, but
you wouldn't --I doubt-- advocate that there should be no
intervention at all just because it cannot be a perfect one?
> . . . Ethically it is very
> dubious to wait for the child to be harmed before removing it from
> harm. It would be like a parent watching a child to put it's hand into
> the fire, and then loving applying burn cream and kissing it better.
> So I don't think this is a very good example of ethics in action.
What I was more trying to get at was the responsibility we feel as
co-constructors of Society to establish norms of behaviour based on
what we see as the Good (or the Skillful). And to act when those
norms are violated.
> > Why should we do that? The abused child is clearly working out its
> > karma, and the abusing parents are going to have to live with the
> > consequences of their actions anyway, so what need have we to intervene?
> Presumably you are trying to suggest that the deaf women are abusing
> their child?
I can see where that would be a likely reading, because
children/parents are involved in both instances, but actually I*
wasn't* making that assertion. I was trying to come up with a sample
situation where we might establish some common ground.
> You want us to operate under your own prejudices here, to take on your
> assumptions about what the case represents -...
I want you to understand what underlies my arguments, and to give
them full due, not just dismiss them as New Age ad hoc --what was the rest?
> . . . when clearly there is at
> least some doubt as to whether yours is a valid point of view.
Yes, I don't claim moral infallibility.
> Clearly there is a case for stepping in to protect a child from harm -...
OK. And let's bear in mind that that is *future* harm. We cannot
prevent harm already done, but we make judgements about people and
situations in order to try to prevent what we consider to be likely
future harm. In saying "we" I mean all of us, because we are all part
of a consensual society.
I am being fairly methodical here. You asked on what basis I or
anyone could judge another. (It isn't the *person* I wish to judge; I
don't wish to pronounce upon anyone that they ARE,
by-their-very-nature wrong, or immoral, or unskillful. It is their
actions). That basis is shared values. Here are three propositions
concerning why we step in to prevent harm:
1) we form societies on the basis of shared values and goals.
2) we judge or assess individual behaviour on the basis of those values.
3) we regulate individual behaviour on the basis of those values.
This is necessary. In a small community, such as a religious order,
you *may* be able to rely on people regulating their own behaviour
because they've internalised the value-base of the community, but
even that can go wrong and create a situation where physical sanction
has to be applied.
And let me deal with another of your objections. You make a
heirarchic distinction between mental states and physical action,
saying the former is senior --the causative element-- and since
mental states are subjective and objectively unknowable, there is no
basis for judgement of action. Have I got that right? I suggest that
there is no distinction between the two. The action IS the mental
state, the inward intention, given expression in the phenomenal
world. Skillful action does not arise out of unskillful mental condition.
> . . . But the question of eugenics must surely arise here
> again if you pursue this line! What about a deaf couple who want to
> have children and there is a very high likelihood of their child being
> deaf? They know this and yet choose to breed anyway - isn't this in
> the same category as the current example?
I don't think so, not quite. Eugenics is using genetics to
selectively breed out so-called undesirable traits in the (usually
national) gene-pool. The emphasis here should be on "using" and
"selectively". It seems to me that that is precisely what the couple
in question propose to do: use genetics to further their own goals
and desires. They want a child that "belongs to the same minority" as
themselves, they don't just want a child. Hearing is within the
normal genetic potential of human beings; this couple propose to
purposely limit that potential by making every effort ot *ensure* the
child is born deaf. There is an intentionality at work here which
strikes me as highly eugenic and goes beyond the likely genetic
outcome of a profoundly deaf couple simply having a child.
I fully take Darren's point that a child raised by parents
significantly different to itself may have a difficult time of it,
which should be taken into account. But it is that intentionality
that disturbs me.
> . . . What about any person who
> knowing inflicts inferior genes on their children (as my parents did
> to me). Have they the right to sue their parents for negligence?
Second time you've mentioned that. Try as I might, I can't detect any
genetic inferiority in you.
> . . who decides who
> gets to breed and with whom?
It's not really about that; it's more about what right do we have to
use genetics for our own ends? This goes right to the moral heart of
the debate about human genetic engineering.
> But let's assume that we agree that such an act is "staggeringly
> vile": now what? What are you proposing to do about these women who we
> presume have already conceived their children? What does the "highest
> ethic" prescribe for such perpetrators of vilimnity?
(Is "vilimnity" an actual word? I like it!) Not necessarily anything,
if it violates no law. The point about this case is its use as a
future precedent. If the issue raises ethical qualms, then Society as
a whole has to grasp the nettle and create ethical guidelines which
will be adhered to.
Turning the question back to you, what *of a practical nature* does
Buddhism contribute to the issue of how to regulate our use of
genetic technology?
Brian Mitchel
> Regards
> Michael
peterr
Most human beings are born with five senses, the result of thousands
of years of evolution. At least some of the world which we have
created depends, or assumes, that these senses are present. While
it is true that other sense may compensate for the loss of one, such
compensation is never 100 percent. Therefore, the intention to
*deliberately* disable a child is an abuse of power and shows a
lack of caring. The karma stuff is advanced to hide this.
This refusal to make a judgment call on actions which impact on
other people does not inspire confidence in regard to the issues
of genetic engineering. When that is finally possible with human
beings what are we going to do? Instead of asking ourselves
what a healthy and normal human being should look like, will
we struggle with the question how far somebody can disable
and cripple a future child before we say no?
As to the preference for a deaf child I would like to know what
a deaf child can do that a hearing child is inherently incapable of
doing?
Angelo
> I agree that it's an imperfect system, and I acknowledge that the
> abuser may well act from a compulsion they are in no control of, but
> you wouldn't --I doubt-- advocate that there should be no
> intervention at all just because it cannot be a perfect one?
No. As I say further down.
> What I was more trying to get at was the responsibility we feel as
> co-constructors of Society to establish norms of behaviour based on
> what we see as the Good (or the Skillful). And to act when those
> norms are violated.
Well this is a very interesting subject. It goes a lot deeper than you
think. For a start what is the motivation behind the surveillance of
people - of the sort that would detect say child abuse. Foucault shows
that it is *control* - it is in fact Big Brother, and therefore hardly
motivated by a duty of care.
I could write a whole essay (off the cuff) on the subject of norms and
society. So-called "norms" are one of the most pernicious
manifestations of groups. Having lived outside them at various times,
and having experienced the abuse and persecution that comes with it, I
am not in favour of prosecuting group norms to any great extent.
Agreed, if if we don't have some sort of common standards then things
are chaotic: however I suggest you look around at the chaos that we
live in. Virtually no-one conforms to the rules, virtually every one
breaks the rules to suit themsleves.
Acting to enforce group norms is one of the worst ills of society!
> > Presumably you are trying to suggest that the deaf women are abusing
> > their child?
>
> I can see where that would be a likely reading, because
> children/parents are involved in both instances, but actually I*
> wasn't* making that assertion. I was trying to come up with a sample
> situation where we might establish some common ground.
:-) Staggeringly vile but not abusive. OK. The common ground I think
must be the way in which we cast doubt on "norms", on "accepted
practices" and on predjudice.
> I want you to understand what underlies my arguments, and to give
> them full due, not just dismiss them as New Age ad hoc --what was the rest?
Well I think I understand all too well where you are coming from, and
I'm asking you to examine the assumptions that underlie that sort of
thinking.
> > . . . when clearly there is at
> > least some doubt as to whether yours is a valid point of view.
>
> Yes, I don't claim moral infallibility.
So you are prepared to cause harm on occasions?
> > Clearly there is a case for stepping in to protect a child from harm -...
>
> OK. And let's bear in mind that that is *future* harm. We cannot
> prevent harm already done, but we make judgements about people and
> situations in order to try to prevent what we consider to be likely
> future harm. In saying "we" I mean all of us, because we are all part
> of a consensual society.
I do not consent to the so called "consensual society"! So called
consensual society is sick, derranged, dangerous, etc. I could not
ever give my consent to such an enterprise.
> I am being fairly methodical here.
Are you just ;-)
> You asked on what basis I or anyone could judge another. (It isn't the
> *person* I wish to judge; I don't wish to pronounce upon anyone that they
> ARE, by-their-very-nature wrong, or immoral, or unskillful. It is their
> actions).
OK. I'll buy this.
> That basis is shared values.
I don't share your values. So now what?
>Here are three propositions
> concerning why we step in to prevent harm:
> 1) we form societies on the basis of shared values and goals.
Very debatable. I doubt you'd find an anthropologist in the world that
would accept such a proposition. I certainly don't. In fact I'd say we
form societies on the basis of greed, hatred (of others, of
difference), and delusion (things last and are satisfying, there is
value in the material world). Perhaps in the UK there is a set of
shared values and goals - it's not obvious from here - but there isn't
in my country (NZ).
> 2) we judge or assess individual behaviour on the basis of those values.
> 3) we regulate individual behaviour on the basis of those values.
Since I don't accept proposition 1) it is pointless to comment on 2),
and 3).
I think you need to read Foucault's Discipline and Punish. You've
bought into Big Brother's stategy to keep you in check.
> This is necessary.
So we are told.
> In a small community, such as a religious order,
> you *may* be able to rely on people regulating their own behaviour
> because they've internalised the value-base of the community, but
> even that can go wrong and create a situation where physical sanction
> has to be applied.
There are som many complex things that contribute to this argument. So
amny assumptions and suppositions. Start looking beneath the surface
of what you beleive to be true.
> And let me deal with another of your objections. You make a
> heirarchic distinction between mental states and physical action,
> saying the former is senior --the causative element-- and since
> mental states are subjective and objectively unknowable, there is no
> basis for judgement of action. Have I got that right? I suggest that
> there is no distinction between the two. The action IS the mental
> state, the inward intention, given expression in the phenomenal
> world. Skillful action does not arise out of unskillful mental condition.
The Buddhist tradition gives priority to mental states. These are
where karma is formed, and where the fruits of karma are experienced.
It is possible to have an idea but not cat on it, but not possible to
act without a thought behind it - perhaps this latter is what you are
talking about? This priority of mental states takes it's most refined
form in the "mind only" school which says that there is only mind. So
it's not *my* distinction as such.
> I don't think so, not quite. Eugenics is using genetics to
> selectively breed out so-called undesirable traits in the (usually
> national) gene-pool. <snip>
> There is an intentionality at work here which
> strikes me as highly eugenic and goes beyond the likely genetic
> outcome of a profoundly deaf couple simply having a child.
By your definition the word would not be eugenic, but dysgenic - they
are selecting for the lack of a characteristic. I agree to a point
with what you say. And I would never do such a thing myself. However I
don't believe you have made a very good case for judging others
actions, nor is it clear what would happen as a result of such
judgement. It seems to me that too much of prejudice and
presupposition underlies your approach to this subject - hence I ask
you a lot of questions to draw you out.
> I fully take Darren's point that a child raised by parents
> significantly different to itself may have a difficult time of it,
> which should be taken into account. But it is that intentionality
> that disturbs me.
What about your intentionality. Doesn't that disturb you? (mine
certainly disturbs me!)
> > . . . What about any person who
> > knowing inflicts inferior genes on their children (as my parents did
> > to me). Have they the right to sue their parents for negligence?
>
> Second time you've mentioned that. Try as I might, I can't detect any
> genetic inferiority in you.
Ah you'd have to see me :-)
> > . . who decides who
> > gets to breed and with whom?
>
> It's not really about that; it's more about what right do we have to
> use genetics for our own ends? This goes right to the moral heart of
> the debate about human genetic engineering.
My god you certainly know how to open a debate up to the widest
generalisations don't you. I can think of no ethical objection to
human genetic engineering.
> > But let's assume that we agree that such an act is "staggeringly
> > vile": now what? What are you proposing to do about these women who we
> > presume have already conceived their children? What does the "highest
> > ethic" prescribe for such perpetrators of vilimnity?
>
> (Is "vilimnity" an actual word? I like it!) Not necessarily anything,
> if it violates no law. The point about this case is its use as a
> future precedent. If the issue raises ethical qualms, then Society as
> a whole has to grasp the nettle and create ethical guidelines which
> will be adhered to.
And how do you get people to follow ethical guidelines? Most people I
know drop any ethical guidelines as soon as self interest prompts them
to - surely this mush is obvious to you. Following ethical guidelines
is hard work. Even if you are really inspired by ethics and devout
about keeping them, you will mostly likely break them at some point.
> Turning the question back to you, what *of a practical nature* does
> Buddhism contribute to the issue of how to regulate our use of
> genetic technology?
Well "Buddhism" doesn't exist as such. What you have is this very
amorphous group of people who claim to be followers of the Buddha -
some more heterodox than others. It does have a clear set of ethical
guidelies for determining individual action towards others however,
and these are quite widely accepted, and somewhat less widely
practiced in the Buddhist world.
I doubt there would be a single Buddhist position on the use of
technology - of whatever sort. The question is does it contribute to
our happiness, or to our misery? I think it's a little early to tell
what effect it will have. As a person who works with technology I am
deeply divided about the so called benefits of it. I like the Amish
approach which is not what most people think it is. They are actually
early adopters of technology - were amongst the first to use
telephones and cell phones for instance - but they go through a period
of evaluation and then make a decision. The basis for the decision is
this: does it help to bring the community together, and support our
values, or does it not? If not then get rud of it! I doubt that such
an approach would catch on, and they do have a very severe regime of
surveillence and regulation, but I can see the merits in it. Unbridled
innovation is bad for society (according to an APA Journal article Jan
2000).
Also "genetic technology" is a fairly amorphous term which can apply
broadly from selective breeding right up to the creation of new
life-forms. So that makes it difficult to give a short answer - and I
have problems with that at the best of times :-)
Brian, I think I can sum up our discussion to date in this way. You
seem to be asking me to take some sort of stand, and I am pointing out
that the ground that you would have me stand on is shifting, and
unstable. You say that a stand must be taken, and in a way you are
right, but my response is this: find me some *solid* ground to take a
stand on, and I will.
Cheers
Michael
Angelo
>The karma stuff is advanced to hide this.
Actually Brian was more active in advancing karam in this discussion.
I certainly wouldn't use it as an explanation of anything as I don't
entirely accept the doctrine of karma.
>When that is finally possible with human beings what are we going to
do?
It's been possible for many years, and indeed human embryos are
routinely clones in labs now, but destroyed after a few days. Also
several other genetic techniques such as gene therpay are becoming
routine, and are astonishingly successful in treating genetic
disorders.
>Instead of asking ourselves what a healthy and normal human being
should look
> like, will we struggle with the question how far somebody can disable
> and cripple a future child before we say no?
And what does a "normal" human being look like? I've never seen one so
I wouldn't know. Like Brian you are straying into the area of
eugenics. I can claim that my parents left me with a deficient set of
genes and that tangibly harmed me - if I was in the US I could sue
them I guess.
Most deaf people don't consider themselves as cripples or disabled.
> As to the preference for a deaf child I would like to know what
> a deaf child can do that a hearing child is inherently incapable of
> doing?
Relate to being deaf - that's what they can do that a hearing child
couldn't. Someone with hearing can never know what it's like to be
deaf in a hearing world.
For the record though I have chosen to date not to condemn these
people. That doesn't mean I agree with what they did - I don't. What
I'm interested in here is the 'right' (even the *duty* if we believe
Brian) to judge and to label the actions of other people with such
emotive terms as "staggeringly vile". I question the apparent aversion
behind such a comment, I question Brians notions of what society is
and how it operates, I question prejudice and norms. I question the
black and white thinking that was in evidence about a subject that is
clearly of some complexity, and about which we have only the barest
facts!
The point of the discussion is not to say "I am right and you are
wrong" - where's the fun in that? The point is to examine how ethics
work in practice, how our assumptions about "right" and "wrong" are
conditioned, and underlain by cultural assumptions and prejudices, how
we jump to conclusions, and then are prepared to act on them!
As well as being a Buddhist, I like Socrates, who never claimed to
know anything, but was adept at exposing the underlying fallacies
inherent in people's views. I suspect the Buddha and Socrates would
have got on very well.
Regards
Michael
Brian Mitchell
> > What I was more trying to get at was the responsibility we feel as
> > co-constructors of Society to establish norms of behaviour based on
> > what we see as the Good (or the Skillful). And to act when those
> > norms are violated.
> Well this is a very interesting subject. It goes a lot deeper than you
> think...
If you cast many more slurs on the depth and integrity of my thinking,
you will soon convince yourself that I'm not worth talking to. Is that
the design?
> . . . For a start what is the motivation behind the surveillance of
> people - of the sort that would detect say child abuse. Foucault shows
> that it is *control* - it is in fact Big Brother, and therefore hardly
> motivated by a duty of care.
I'm not that familiar with Foucault. How does he suggest that Society
deal with phenomena such as child abuse? We have had two cases in
Britain in recent times of children who have been systematically abused
over many months. One died, the other is in intensive care in hospital.
If I regularly hear the screams of a child coming from the house next
door, is it Big Brother control to alert some capable authority? What
would you do?
> I could write a whole essay (off the cuff) on the subject of norms and
> society. So-called "norms" are one of the most pernicious
> manifestations of groups. Having lived outside them at various times,
> and having experienced the abuse and persecution that comes with it, I
> am not in favour of prosecuting group norms to any great extent.
> Agreed, if if we don't have some sort of common standards then things
> are chaotic: however I suggest you look around at the chaos that we
> live in. Virtually no-one conforms to the rules, virtually every one
> breaks the rules to suit themsleves.
> Acting to enforce group norms is one of the worst ills of society!
There seems to be some contradiction at work above. Group norms are
pernicious, but we must have common standards to avoid chaos. There
already is chaos, you say, and it is because no-one conforms to the
rules/standards/norms.
It has always been difficult to maintain a balance between social
stability and individual liberty. The group norm can be oppressive to
creativity and individual expression, on the other hand it also provides
a basic context within which creativity is given scope. You are somewhat
absolutist and seem to take the view that if it isn't ideal it's an
abomination.
> :-) Staggeringly vile but not abusive. OK...
It's a fine distinction. I'm not sure it's possible, legally or
actually, to abuse a non-existent child. But it may be staggeringly vile
to want to do so.
> . . . The common ground I think
> must be the way in which we cast doubt on "norms", on "accepted
> practices" and on predjudice.
In other words, we shall be on firm common ground when we both see
things through your eyes.
> Well I think I understand all too well where you are coming from, and
> I'm asking you to examine the assumptions that underlie that sort of
> thinking.
Once again, your arrogance is showing. You have no idea to what extent
or by what means I examine and interrogate my own assumptions. *Your*
assumption here is that if I did so properly, I would see things as you
do. You may be right; you may not.
> > Yes, I don't claim moral infallibility.
> So you are prepared to cause harm on occasions?
I'm afraid I don't understand the connection.
> I do not consent to the so called "consensual society"!
Then leave it. Manage entirely on your own. Forage for your own food and
shelter. Be dependent on no-one. I think New Zealand is fertile and
unpopulated enough for you to be able to do it, and you would be part of
a longish and honourable eremitic tradition.
> . . . So called
> consensual society is sick, derranged, dangerous, etc. I could not
> ever give my consent to such an enterprise.
But you *do* give your unspoken consent to large parts of it. In common
with most of us, I suspect, you want the benefits of society --the
security, the prosperity, the health and welfare opportunities, the
individual liberty, and so on-- and you square your conscience by loudly
denouncing the obvious drawbacks.
But there is an even more significant movement going on here: by
protesting your abhorrence you implicitly deny that the state of the
world is anything to do with you; you are not responsible. So who *do*
you blame for the current state of affairs?
> > That basis is shared values.
> I don't share your values. So now what?
You share some, I imagine.
> > 1) we form societies on the basis of shared values and goals.
> Very debatable. I doubt you'd find an anthropologist in the world that
> would accept such a proposition. I certainly don't.
You are, I think, a member of the FWBO. I presume you joined that
organisation, rather than one of the many other groups, sects or
lineages available, because at some level you found yourself in
agreement with what it stands for, its particular understanding of
Buddhism, the way its members comport themselves, and whatever else. You
found you had values in common so you joined.
> . . . In fact I'd say we
> form societies on the basis of greed, hatred (of others, of
> difference), and delusion (things last and are satisfying, there is
> value in the material world)...
I didn't claim that all the values were benign and enlightened.
> . . . Perhaps in the UK there is a set of
> shared values and goals - it's not obvious from here - but there isn't
> in my country (NZ).
I haven't heard that NZ has descended into lawless anarchy, so it must
yet have some remnant of social stability, and that could only be due to
at least a certain level of shared social values.
> > 2) we judge or assess individual behaviour on the basis of those values.
> > 3) we regulate individual behaviour on the basis of those values.
> Since I don't accept proposition 1) it is pointless to comment on 2),
> and 3).
If you and others attended a single-sex retreat and one night one of you
left the retreat and came back with a troupe of women, what then? You
would assess his behaviour in the light of the value of single-sex
retreats and his earlier apparent agreement with it. And you would
regulate his behaviour on the same basis, and presumably tell him to
take the women away again, wouldn't you?
> There are som many complex things that contribute to this argument. So
> amny assumptions and suppositions. Start looking beneath the surface
> of what you beleive to be true.
That's four, or is it five, now?
> By your definition the word would not be eugenic, but dysgenic - they
> are selecting for the lack of a characteristic. I agree to a point
> with what you say. And I would never do such a thing myself. However I
> don't believe you have made a very good case for judging others
> actions, nor is it clear what would happen as a result of such
> judgement...
But I am now detecting in you some very conflicted attitudes to the
social matrix within which such judgements would be made, and to which
they would apply, so I can see that it's going to be hard to make such a
case to your satisfaction.
The results of such judgements? If generally accepted, they would
probably help form the overall cultural zeitgeist by being internalised
and taught. If less generally accepted, but thought necessary by those
deputed to govern the society, they might be given statutory form and
become part of the body of law.
> . . . It seems to me that too much of prejudice and
> presupposition underlies your approach to this subject - hence I ask
> you a lot of questions to draw you out.
How Socratic of you.
> What about your intentionality. Doesn't that disturb you? (mine
> certainly disturbs me!)
I was referring to a very specific intention on the part of the couple
under discussion. Intentionality as a whole is another matter. You'd
have to tell me more about what you find disturbing about it before I
could make a sensible response.
> > It's not really about that; it's more about what right do we have to
> > use genetics for our own ends? This goes right to the moral heart of
> > the debate about human genetic engineering.
> My god you certainly know how to open a debate up to the widest
> generalisations don't you. I can think of no ethical objection to
> human genetic engineering.
Maybe not, but there are a great many who can and do.
> And how do you get people to follow ethical guidelines? Most people I
> know drop any ethical guidelines as soon as self interest prompts them
> to - surely this mush is obvious to you...
I find this hard to believe, unless you happen to know only very
self-interested people. I know many people who are honest, kind,
helpful, concerned at the suffering of others, and more. And these are
not "special" people, not obviously holy or spiritual people, just
people. Perhaps you should widen your circle of acquaintances.
> . . . Following ethical guidelines
> is hard work. Even if you are really inspired by ethics and devout
> about keeping them, you will mostly likely break them at some point.
Yes, but that's not an argument for not trying to build ethics into the
cultural fabric.
> Brian, I think I can sum up our discussion to date in this way. You
> seem to be asking me to take some sort of stand, and I am pointing out
> that the ground that you would have me stand on is shifting, and
> unstable. You say that a stand must be taken, and in a way you are
> right, but my response is this: find me some *solid* ground to take a
> stand on, and I will.
Well, this is Samsara and Maya, the dismal realm of illusion and
suffering. There ain't a lot of solid ground down here. Some of us,
though, are hoping to scrape together a few merits by trying to lessen
the overall level of suffering in the world with the blunt tools of
restraint and education. Perhaps we shouldn't. Perhaps truly horrific
suffering and confusion is the dynamite needed to blast beings off the
wheel of rebirth. What do you think?
BM
> Cheers
> Michael
Angelo
> If you cast many more slurs on the depth and integrity of my thinking,
> you will soon convince yourself that I'm not worth talking to. Is that
> the design?
No, but you don't seem to see beneath some of the ideas you put
forward, don't seem to see that they are conditioned by society,
culture, etc. Actually I think you are very much worth talking to, and
this is by far the most interesting thread on this ng since I started
looking at it. I am playing the devils advocate, but having to work
pretty hard at it.
> If I regularly hear the screams of a child coming from the house next
> door, is it Big Brother control to alert some capable authority? What
> would you do?
I did once try to step in when I saw a father beating his child. He
decided that it might be a better idea to beat me up instead, but I
escaped with only a verbal battering. I suspect the child still bore
the brunt of the father's considerable anger. So much for direct
intervention. However if you are really concerned then go to the
authorities.
> There seems to be some contradiction at work above. Group norms are
> pernicious, but we must have common standards to avoid chaos. There
> already is chaos, you say, and it is because no-one conforms to the
> rules/standards/norms.
It's a crazy world.
> It has always been difficult to maintain a balance between social
> stability and individual liberty. The group norm can be oppressive to
> creativity and individual expression, on the other hand it also provides
> a basic context within which creativity is given scope. You are somewhat
> absolutist and seem to take the view that if it isn't ideal it's an
> abomination.
No I take the view that what I see around me is an abomination. It
could be worse here in NZ, but given the state of the world at the
moment I can't help thinking that I live in a veritable oasis.
> > . . . The common ground I think
> > must be the way in which we cast doubt on "norms", on "accepted
> > practices" and on predjudice.
>
> In other words, we shall be on firm common ground when we both see
> things through your eyes.
Of course :-)
> > Well I think I understand all too well where you are coming from, and
> > I'm asking you to examine the assumptions that underlie that sort of
> > thinking.
>
> Once again, your arrogance is showing. You have no idea to what extent
> or by what means I examine and interrogate my own assumptions. *Your*
> assumption here is that if I did so properly, I would see things as you
> do. You may be right; you may not.
Well you seem to state things as though they were accepted - things
about how societies work for instance, how groups form and work. I've
studied these things to some extent. Your views, as you present them,
lack an apparent understanding of social processes. But then you
haven't really answered a lot of those questions about why you believe
things so have done nothing to show that I wrong except accuse me of
arrogance, which is true, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong :-)
> > > Yes, I don't claim moral infallibility.
>
> > So you are prepared to cause harm on occasions?
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand the connection.
Well if you are not infallible then you will at times act in ways
which will be motivated by greed, hatred, and delusion. These will be
by definition harmful. It's like our justice systems - we kind of
figure that we'll get it right most of the time, but occasinally an
innocent person gets sent to jail. You have to be prepared to shoot a
few "own goals". Acting from this knowledge of fallibility presents an
interesting dilemma - that in order to do good, we must occasionally
do harm. Another ethical dilemma for those who would act. Like the
screaming child next door - could just by ADD or something, or it's
parents good by burning it with cigarettes. You don't know until you
act.
> > I do not consent to the so called "consensual society"!
>
> Then leave it. Manage entirely on your own. Forage for your own food and
> shelter. Be dependent on no-one. I think New Zealand is fertile and
> unpopulated enough for you to be able to do it, and you would be part of
> a longish and honourable eremitic tradition.
:-) If only it were that easy huh? I leave it as much as I am able,
resist the worst excesses of it's stupidity, and depend on it as
little as I am able, progressively weaning myself off it. NZ may well
be one of the great places to be self sufficient, but thankfully there
are others like me, and I don't have to do it alone. In fact I'm
coming over to Blighty to link up with some more radical dropout
conscientious objector types. My goal is to completely withdraw form
the rat race, but it takes time to work things out and adjust.
> > . . . So called
> > consensual society is sick, derranged, dangerous, etc. I could not
> > ever give my consent to such an enterprise.
>
> But you *do* give your unspoken consent to large parts of it. In common
> with most of us, I suspect, you want the benefits of society --the
> security, the prosperity, the health and welfare opportunities, the
> individual liberty, and so on-- and you square your conscience by loudly
> denouncing the obvious drawbacks.
My consent where I give it is a little more conscious than that. I
don't know that society provides any security at all, in any real
sense, although yes I own the health system my life. Mind you it kills
lot's of people too. The individual liberty is a very valuable
commodity, but I wonder just how much liberty I really have. I've
noticed that when I try to be an individual, other members of the
group start exerting pressure on me to conform - and we're not talking
officials or laws here. I get hassled daily about being a vegetarian
for example, and my ethical practice is continually undermined. It's a
subtle thing, but something I've been more conscious of lately as I
try to disentangle myself from samsara.
> But there is an even more significant movement going on here: by
> protesting your abhorrence you implicitly deny that the state of the
> world is anything to do with you; you are not responsible. So who *do*
> you blame for the current state of affairs?
No I don't think I am doing this, this is you projecting something of
your own onto me. I am quite prepared to take responsibility where I
can, and indeed try to be a positive influence for harmony or
happiness (not that I necessarily succeed very well at it). I am
responsibile to the extent that I am motivated by greed, hatred and
delusion. Indeed I am more responsible than most people I know because
I recognise this fact, and have determined that I will dedicate my
life to changing this in myself, and to encouraging other people to do
so also. In fact I rather think that I have had a significant positive
influence within my sphere of influence, even though that sphere may
not be very large. But then maybe I'm just being arrogant again -
you'd have to ask my friends I guess, but they do give me very
positive feedback in the main.
And anyway what is this obsession with blame that you have? Why should
I seek to blame anyone for the current state of affairs? I see a mess,
and I know that it's been created through the combined efforts of all
humanity down through the ages - what point is their in pointing the
finger? And you accuse me of absolutist thinking?
> > > That basis is shared values.
> > I don't share your values. So now what?
>
> You share some, I imagine.
But imagine that I don't. Now what? There are probably a 100 people in
your neighbourhood who have very different values to you. So now what
is the basis for our society?
> > > 1) we form societies on the basis of shared values and goals.
>
> > Very debatable. I doubt you'd find an anthropologist in the world that
> > would accept such a proposition. I certainly don't.
>
> You are, I think, a member of the FWBO. I presume you joined that
> organisation, rather than one of the many other groups, sects or
> lineages available, because at some level you found yourself in
> agreement with what it stands for, its particular understanding of
> Buddhism, the way its members comport themselves, and whatever else. You
> found you had values in common so you joined.
I haven't "joined" anything. I practice with the FWBO because I like
the people, the way they practice and the general vibe beyond that
there's nothing to "join" - there are no membership fees, or forms, or
lists - you either hang around or you don't.
But we're talking about societies - did you choose to "join" British
society? Did you choose to join whatever class you were born into? I
don't think so. Did you even choose your values, or were they simply
the values you grew up with and that you were conditioned to believe
in? This is a question I've asked in several different ways but that
you keep deflecting - and you wonder what makes me suspect that you
haven't thought about things.
> > . . . In fact I'd say we
> > form societies on the basis of greed, hatred (of others, of
> > difference), and delusion (things last and are satisfying, there is
> > value in the material world)...
>
> I didn't claim that all the values were benign and enlightened.
:-) Good point. But GH and D are not really values are they? They are
obscurations in our mind, underlying tendencies in the way we think
that shpae our values. They are in the final analysis mental states
upon which other mnental states are based.
>
>
> > . . . Perhaps in the UK there is a set of
> > shared values and goals - it's not obvious from here - but there isn't
> > in my country (NZ).
>
> I haven't heard that NZ has descended into lawless anarchy, so it must
> yet have some remnant of social stability, and that could only be due to
> at least a certain level of shared social values.
We do have modicum of social stability. So yes a certain level of
shared values.
> If you and others attended a single-sex retreat and one night one of you
> left the retreat and came back with a troupe of women, what then? You
> would assess his behaviour in the light of the value of single-sex
> retreats and his earlier apparent agreement with it. And you would
> regulate his behaviour on the same basis, and presumably tell him to
> take the women away again, wouldn't you?
I imagine that we'd act as a group and tell him to piss off, and
probably employ all the usual social sanctions to enforce it. However
I am not holding the FWBO up as an ideal, nor as an alternative
society. I think that it has the *potential* to offer a different way
of doing things, as does any Sangha, but it is stocked with ordinary
people with all the usual faults.
> > There are som many complex things that contribute to this argument. So
> > amny assumptions and suppositions. Start looking beneath the surface
> > of what you beleive to be true.
>
> That's four, or is it five, now?
:-)
> But I am now detecting in you some very conflicted attitudes to the
> social matrix within which such judgements would be made, and to which
> they would apply, so I can see that it's going to be hard to make such a
> case to your satisfaction.
Probably, but then I am playing the devils advocate. I never said I
didn't have any conflicts - in fact it's partly because I do have
conflicts that I am resisting your attempts to see this in black and
white terms.
> The results of such judgements? If generally accepted, they would
> probably help form the overall cultural zeitgeist by being internalised
> and taught. If less generally accepted, but thought necessary by those
> deputed to govern the society, they might be given statutory form and
> become part of the body of law.
You seem to have a lot of faith in the system as it already exists.
Laws can't prevent cruelty or crime, or at least laws and puishments
have failled to do so so far in human history. Maybe I'm just getting
to cynical about society...actually this is your best attempt yet at a
good case, argh...I can feel myself weaking :-)
> > . . . It seems to me that too much of prejudice and
> > presupposition underlies your approach to this subject - hence I ask
> > you a lot of questions to draw you out.
>
> How Socratic of you.
Haven't you found it useful to challenge what I say. I have found it
useful to receive your challenges.
> > What about your intentionality. Doesn't that disturb you? (mine
> > certainly disturbs me!)
>
> I was referring to a very specific intention on the part of the couple
> under discussion. Intentionality as a whole is another matter. You'd
> have to tell me more about what you find disturbing about it before I
> could make a sensible response.
We actually know very little about the intentionality behind the
couple - we know that they sought a specific outcome, but all we can
do is speculate about their motivations, about what they actually
intended. We've come a long way on a little speculation!
> > My god you certainly know how to open a debate up to the widest
> > generalisations don't you. I can think of no ethical objection to
> > human genetic engineering.
>
> Maybe not, but there are a great many who can and do.
Yeah I know. I've heard some of the debates. A lot of it amounts to
superstition and fear of the unknown - so much for the age of reason.
Is fear a good enough reason not to do something? Most people are
woefully uninformed on the issue, and aren't at all clear what the
technology does, nor what if any ethical principles apply or how they
apply - they jus don' like it!
> > And how do you get people to follow ethical guidelines? Most people I
> > know drop any ethical guidelines as soon as self interest prompts them
> > to - surely this mush is obvious to you...
>
> I find this hard to believe, unless you happen to know only very
> self-interested people. I know many people who are honest, kind,
> helpful, concerned at the suffering of others, and more. And these are
> not "special" people, not obviously holy or spiritual people, just
> people. Perhaps you should widen your circle of acquaintances.
:-) I watch honest, kind people break the rules everyday - a little
white lie here, a little back stabbing there. Maybe they're kind but
that doesn't extent to not killing animals for food. The people I know
who are scrupulously ethical are very few and far between. But as you
say...maybe I should get out more. Trouble is the more I get out, the
worse it seems.
> > . . . Following ethical guidelines
> > is hard work. Even if you are really inspired by ethics and devout
> > about keeping them, you will mostly likely break them at some point.
>
> Yes, but that's not an argument for not trying to build ethics into the
> cultural fabric.
I can't remember what it was an argument for as you've snipped out
what I was replying to. But generally people are not prepared to put
in the effort to be scrupulously ethical - it's too much work.
> > Brian, I think I can sum up our discussion to date in this way. You
> > seem to be asking me to take some sort of stand, and I am pointing out
> > that the ground that you would have me stand on is shifting, and
> > unstable. You say that a stand must be taken, and in a way you are
> > right, but my response is this: find me some *solid* ground to take a
> > stand on, and I will.
>
> Well, this is Samsara and Maya, the dismal realm of illusion and
> suffering. There ain't a lot of solid ground down here. Some of us,
> though, are hoping to scrape together a few merits by trying to lessen
> the overall level of suffering in the world with the blunt tools of
> restraint and education. Perhaps we shouldn't. Perhaps truly horrific
> suffering and confusion is the dynamite needed to blast beings off the
> wheel of rebirth. What do you think?
I am one of those making an effort to lessen suffering. In a way I
think you are right about the dynamite. It is the awareness of
suffering that is going to push us to do something about it. We need
however to concentrate our efforts on those things which we can change
or influence. Maybe you're right and we can say the couple did
something wrong, and try to make sure that no one else does it - it
might help to lessen the suffering in the world generally. With no
legislation there may well be chaos, although even with the loads of
legislation it doesn't seem to prevent suffering, so I don't have much
faith in it. Societal norms seem to me to be more concerned with
repression, than with liberation - but then I have the liberty to be
able to think such a thing.
In examining my own opinions I have relaised however that much of what
seems "normal" to me is cultually relative, and I have been
conditioned to believe it. I think I'm still in the phase of
unravelling these conditions and working out what I truely think, and
this discussion has been quite helpful. It's funny how if I'd agreed
with you the thread would have petered out some days ago, but by
disagreeing it has kept going and explored a whole range of related
issues.
Cheers
Michael
Brian Mitchell
> . . . you seem to state things as though they were accepted...
It is a failing.
> . . . things
> about how societies work for instance, how groups form and work. I've
> studied these things to some extent. Your views, as you present them,
> lack an apparent understanding of social processes...
And it's true that I haven't formally studied these things and therefore
don't have a peer-sanctioned view of them, or a unitary view that might
classify me as a This-ite or a That-ian. I *do* have a view which most
people would probably find simplistic, if not repellant.
My basic view is that we are all far more alike than we are different. I
can see no good reason, for example, for doubting that your experience
of the colour green is as near as makes no sensible difference the same
as my experience of it; that your mind works in very much the same way
as mine, allowing for local cultural variations; and that consciousness
is exactly the same for both of us.
Secondly, as far as other people are concerned, I trust my perceptions.
The instantaneous knowing that the mind/brain can do when not swamped by
thought strikes me as immaculate. It is generally (I have found, IMVHO)
only self-interest or self-avoidance that corrupt that perception. Of
course I'm no way free of those, but over time I believe I have built up
a corps, a body of perceptual experience which can reliably inform
judgements, or, has a significant truth-quotient.
What have I just expressed? Is that just ego staking out its claim?
I can only offer two defences of that position: one, my whole Path has
been concerned with exploring and comprehending the human psyche,
including thought and what's beyond it; and two, I trust your perceptive
base as well. We may not perceive the same things, but when you are
perceiving with the authority of simplicity you will transmit that; you
will make a truth sound and I will know it.
This may sound dangerously subjective, prejudicial, subject to the sway
of every influence. But the desire for objectivity leads to where I see
you standing: reliant on the guidance of Authority (Foucault or
Whomever), and wary of making any move without the support of
irrefutable data --a commodity in very short supply.
> . . . But then you
> haven't really answered a lot of those questions about why you believe
> things...
I've been wondering if you were going to ask me if I'm a Buddhist, and
if not, why am I haunting a Buddhist NG. The answer is I'm a sort of
free-floating Cross-bencher, but there have been large influences. Most
significant of those would be Krishnamurti and a weird Gnostic Christian
group that was an offshoot of Scientology --a happy blend! But Buddhism
is also an influence, Buddhist writings and Buddhist people, as also
would be people who've studied mind from a psychological perspective,
such as Jung, Freud, Maslov and Adler.
What interests me most profoundly is the human psyche, in both its
individual and collective modes, and this on the basis that you cannot
go beyond what you haven't explored. That exploration, in my view, has
to take in not just conscious thought, feeling, faculty, etc, but also
the much vaster range of subconscious being.
> > But there is an even more significant movement going on here: by
> > protesting your abhorrence you implicitly deny that the state of the
> > world is anything to do with you; you are not responsible. So who *do*
> > you blame for the current state of affairs?
> No I don't think I am doing this, this is you projecting something of
> your own onto me...
OK, perhaps so, but when I suggested a few posts back that we are the
world --that Samsara is what we ARE-- you recoiled in horror and
insulted me dreadfully. From this I understood that you take the normal
atomised view that you are you and they are they, and they are doing
horrific things to one another, and also to you, but you are just
getting on with your daily practice.
> And anyway what is this obsession with blame that you have?...
As briefly as possible, there is a school of thought (not a very large
one) which avers that we choose everything. We have choice, or we are
that which distinguishes and chooses. All that comes within the scope of
our comprehension is the result of our choice. We are who-dunnit.
Following from this, to accept the scope of our choice is to be
responsible; to deny choice is to be non-responsible. This is,
admittedly, a slightly specialised use of the term 'responsibility',
which for most people relates only to a social ethic of duty and care to
others.
To accept the scope of one's choice is difficult; it puts you at cause
and therefore places the onus of change squarely on you. But in denying
choice you deny any causativeness, so something else is always at cause
over you; circumstance is your creator. In general, though, we prefer
not to accept the scope of our choice, and one of the principal methods
of convincingly denying being cause is to place cause elsewhere. This is
essentially blame. Blame goes so deep in the human psyche that we are
mostly unaware of it. We *rely* on blame for our sense of personal
integrity and rightness, but we're rarely conscious of doing so.
Blame isn't the only mechanism of non-responsibility, but it's the main one.
> . . . Why should
> I seek to blame anyone for the current state of affairs? I see a mess,
> and I know that it's been created through the combined efforts of all
> humanity down through the ages...
*Has been* created, yes. But what keeps it all in place NOW?
> I haven't "joined" anything. I practice with the FWBO ...
Fine, but you have values in common with the other practitioners.
> But we're talking about societies - did you choose to "join" British
> society? Did you choose to join whatever class you were born into? I
> don't think so. Did you even choose your values, or were they simply
> the values you grew up with and that you were conditioned to believe
> in?...
See rant on choice, above. Yes.
When you give your agreement to something, you choose to uphold and be
conditioned by that thing. What usually makes people baulk at this
notion is that they cannot remember choosing. They try to place choice
in the past --a moment of Grand Decision when they elected to be this or
that, or to believe such and such. Choice is right in the moment, every
moment; a continual motion of agreement.
> You seem to have a lot of faith in the system as it already exists...
Actually, no. I share your view that human society is profoundly corrupt
and dangerous. But let me launch into another sea of generalisation.
There seem to be two principal spiritual modes: the one that sees
everything non-spiritual --matter, psyche, conditions in general-- as
non-salvageable and attempts to transcend them; and the one that is
recuperative, that wants to spiritualise condition rather than transcend
it. I mostly adhere to the latter. This is kind of the "no-one is
enlightened until everything is enlightened" notion. So I don't believe
it is actually feasible to leave the world to its own devices while I
perfect my spirit.
> Haven't you found it useful to challenge what I say. I have found it
> useful to receive your challenges.
Yes, challenge is necessary. We have to prod one another to stay awake.
> We actually know very little about the intentionality behind the
> couple - we know that they sought a specific outcome, but all we can
> do is speculate about their motivations, about what they actually
> intended. We've come a long way on a little speculation!
The theory of Choice would say that what we intend is what actually
occurs, so at the very least we might say that this couple intended to
whip up a storm of controversy and outrage. It's true that the story has
gone through a lot of hands and that distortion may well have crept in.
I was responding to the story as I received it, which may not have been
particularly skillful.
However, relating back to what I said about perception earlier on, I
don't accept that all we can do is speculate. And motivation cannot be
separated so conveniently from the outcome, one is the expression of the
other.
> I am one of those making an effort to lessen suffering...
I'm sure you are, and I regretted how pompous that remark sounded once
I'd sent it off. You probably make a lot more effort than I do.
BM
Angelo
Sorry to be so long getting back to you on this. I've been ill and
then distracted by responding to Mark Dunlop (a hobby of mine).
Re trusting experience, I agree that experience is something to be
valued. However I beleive that there is always room to quesiton the
*interpretation* of ones experience.
> But the desire for objectivity leads to where I see
> you standing: reliant on the guidance of Authority (Foucault or
> Whomever), and wary of making any move without the support of
> irrefutable data --a commodity in very short supply.
I don't think this is the case. I use the ideas of people like
Foucault to question and challenge my interpretations and biases. It
is always refreshing to come upon new ways of understanding the same
information.
In my younger days I was a scientist. One thing it taught me is that
there is no objectivity, no irrefutable data. In contrast to where you
think I'm at, I would say that this is precisely where you seem to be,
and I am challenging your assumptions about what is. I have resisted
taking a stand, precisely because I believe that there are no
irrefutable data. You have taken a stand because you believe that some
data are irrefutable, or close enough to it.
> > . . . But then you
> > haven't really answered a lot of those questions about why you believe
> > things...
>
> I've been wondering if you were going to ask me if I'm a Buddhist, and
> if not, why am I haunting a Buddhist NG.
It was clear from the start that you were not a Buddhist, and I
assumed pretty much what you say next, that you are interested in a
range of schools of thought.
<snip>
> > > But there is an even more significant movement going on here: by
> > > protesting your abhorrence you implicitly deny that the state of the
> > > world is anything to do with you; you are not responsible. So who *do*
> > > you blame for the current state of affairs?
>
> > No I don't think I am doing this, this is you projecting something of
> > your own onto me...
>
> OK, perhaps so, but when I suggested a few posts back that we are the
> world --that Samsara is what we ARE-- you recoiled in horror and
> insulted me dreadfully. From this I understood that you take the normal
> atomised view that you are you and they are they, and they are doing
> horrific things to one another, and also to you, but you are just
> getting on with your daily practice.
Did I insult you dreadfully? Sorry if that's how it came across.
Sometimes my challenges go a bit overboard. I'm not entirely sure
what you mean when you say "Samsara is what we ARE" - is this a
variation on "hell is other people"?
My views and my beliefs can be said to be two different things from a
Buddhist. The former are the habits of thnking which I have fallen
into (presumably over myriad lifetimes) the latter the ideals I
espouse. So that while I espouse non-duality, as a non-enlightened
being I cannot help but think and act dualistically (see how this
statement is inherently dualistic!) It is a paradox I suppose, but one
that we non-enlightened beings must live with. IN time I will have the
necessary insights that will free me form duality. Until then I think
dualistically but try not to allow the extremes of such thinking to
get in the way.
I think the Buddhist view that all things are inter-related holds in
every case. So while my habit is to think of myself as separate, in
reality there is no ultimate separation. Since I am not enlightened I
don't always remember to apply this. Indeed it seems to me that other
people act in ways which I would not, that they do things which are
not the things I would do, and that these actions harm people -
sometimes in a gross manner. I'm still not entirely sure what the best
response to these observations are. What is clear is that I have very
little *control* or influence. What I can influence is my own
behaviour. So this is my working ground. I don't do this for my own
benefit alone, since I am aware that my behaviour affects other people
- and in theory I accept that everything I do affects all beings to
some extent. So anything I can do which is of benefit to myself, is
also of benefit to all beings. So no, I'm not really an atomist, and
if I have atomistic tendencies then I am working to curb and correct
them.
> > And anyway what is this obsession with blame that you have?...
>
><snip>
> Blame isn't the only mechanism of non-responsibility, but it's the main one.
I hope that I haven't snipped something vital here, but it seems to me
that you have answered the question in a way that tells me that you
disagree with the assigning of blame. So again I ask the question why
do you seek someone to blame. Are you admiting avoidance of
responsibility?
> > . . . Why should
> > I seek to blame anyone for the current state of affairs? I see a mess,
> > and I know that it's been created through the combined efforts of all
> > humanity down through the ages...
>
> *Has been* created, yes. But what keeps it all in place NOW?
The sum total of the mental states of all the players.
>
>
> > I haven't "joined" anything. I practice with the FWBO ...
>
> Fine, but you have values in common with the other practitioners.
>
> > But we're talking about societies - did you choose to "join" British
> > society? Did you choose to join whatever class you were born into? I
> > don't think so. Did you even choose your values, or were they simply
> > the values you grew up with and that you were conditioned to believe
> > in?...
>
> See rant on choice, above. Yes.
No I don't think your rant covered this. The thing is that we are
conditioned to believe certain things - certain values and ideas. We
accept these without thinking, without evaluation or investigation.
You clearly have investigated to some extent the things you believe in
- you've investigated a number of world views and ideas about Reality.
Where I was challenging you was on your views about responsibility and
blame. I still don't think you have articulated *why* you believe the
things you do - other than to say that you trust your interpretation
of your experience.
> When you give your agreement to something, you choose to uphold and be
> conditioned by that thing. What usually makes people baulk at this
> notion is that they cannot remember choosing. They try to place choice
> in the past --a moment of Grand Decision when they elected to be this or
> that, or to believe such and such. Choice is right in the moment, every
> moment; a continual motion of agreement.
Perhaps. But the 'choice' is seldom conscious, so in what sense is it
a choice? Habit to is right in the moment - making our choices for us
without our awareness.
>
>
> > You seem to have a lot of faith in the system as it already exists...
>
> Actually, no. I share your view that human society is profoundly corrupt
> and dangerous.
I may overstated it in order to make a point, plus I have biases based
on my experience. Actually I think most people are not so much corrupt
as naive. Society has some very positive aspects as you yourself
pointed out: we can't survive without it.
> But let me launch into another sea of generalisation.
Argh! :-) (And I've got Happy Camper hammering me for not sticking to
specifics in TRB!)
> There seem to be two principal spiritual modes: the one that sees
> everything non-spiritual --matter, psyche, conditions in general-- as
> non-salvageable and attempts to transcend them; and the one that is
> recuperative, that wants to spiritualise condition rather than transcend
> it.
There are other principle spiritual modes that must be included in
this formula. One is that everything is perfect already and it is
merely our perception of it which is at fault! This is a common one
amongst Buddhists. So the redemption if it happens, must be of the way
we see things, rather than of the things themselves.
> I mostly adhere to the latter. This is kind of the "no-one is
> enlightened until everything is enlightened" notion. So I don't believe
> it is actually feasible to leave the world to its own devices while I
> perfect my spirit.
I agree with your conclusion here. But I still question your methods.
I don't see how proscribing certain behaviours will lead to
enlightenment. It will prevent further descent, to some extent, but it
does nothing to *enhance* the world as such.
However since you also believe that all things are interconnected (or
at least I think you do.) then would it not be correct to say that if
you perfect your "spirit" then the world would be perfected right
along with you? If you take interconnectedness into account then it
really doesn't matter how you approach the problem of evil (which I
think what we are talking about now). You can transform yourself, or
you can transform the world, because in the end there is no
difference! However you have far more influence over yourself than you
do over the world, so it makes sense to start there. It is far easier,
far more reliable, and productive to start with transforming oneslef.
And because of intercennectedness the change will radiate out from
you, and the world will be transformed without you having to do
anything else.
> > Haven't you found it useful to challenge what I say. I have found it
> > useful to receive your challenges.
>
> Yes, challenge is necessary. We have to prod one another to stay awake.
I'd like to be more skilful at doing it - I often loose the necessary
sang-froid and blunder into being offensive. Well even old Socrates
pissed people off at times - hopefully I won't pay the same price as
him for it!
> > We actually know very little about the intentionality behind the
> > couple - we know that they sought a specific outcome, but all we can
> > do is speculate about their motivations, about what they actually
> > intended. We've come a long way on a little speculation!
>
> The theory of Choice would say that what we intend is what actually
> occurs, so at the very least we might say that this couple intended to
> whip up a storm of controversy and outrage. It's true that the story has
> gone through a lot of hands and that distortion may well have crept in.
> I was responding to the story as I received it, which may not have been
> particularly skillful.
I'm not sure about the a-posterii (after the fact) assignation of
intention. You must have had the experience of causing something
inadvertently. To say that deep down you must have wanted it to happen
is dangerous ground for my money. Think of any example of extreme
suffering and this "theory of choice" becomes an extremely ugly
instrument!
The Buddhist doctrine of karma never allows for a single cause, or
single effect - everything is inter-related and complex. So to say
that the couple *intended* controversy and outrage may simply be
untrue. There are too many scenarios that don't include this kind of
intention, but which could still lead to the observed effect - and why
prefer one explanantion over another?
> However, relating back to what I said about perception earlier on, I
> don't accept that all we can do is speculate. And motivation cannot be
> separated so conveniently from the outcome, one is the expression of the
> other.
It's not that we separate motivation and outcome. It's that we admit
the undertain relationship between them. If you examine your own
experience I would think that you could see any number of examples
where you intended one thing, but caused another. Which opens yet
another can of worms because we then have to try to explain the gap
between the two.
In Buddhist thought action is indeed the outcome of intention - I
think there's no doubt that most people would accept this. The tricky
thing is understanding the relationsship between the two. The key
question here I put this way: Why do bad things happen to good people,
and vice versa? To me your "theory of choice" fails because it doesn't
really explain why an apparently good person would end up with bad
outcome - when they clearly would never in a million years choose it.
Not that I have a better theory, because I don't think the Karma
Doctrine explains it well either (it makes untestable assumptions
which amounts to requiring blind faith!). So we are left with a
mystery and no really good answer. An uncomfortable position, but
that's where we seem to be.
> > I am one of those making an effort to lessen suffering...
>
> I'm sure you are, and I regretted how pompous that remark sounded once
> I'd sent it off. You probably make a lot more effort than I do.
Well let's not get into comparisons, but I'm glad that we have gotten
onto a more civilised tack. Bloody usenet brings out the worst in me
sometimes! Anyway I've left at least one logical inconsistency in the
above argument so you should have plenty of ammo for a retort :-)
Ciao
Michael
Brian Mitchell
> Sorry to be so long getting back to you on this. I've been ill and
> then distracted by responding to Mark Dunlop (a hobby of mine).
Commiserations.
> Re trusting experience...
This wasn't quite what I advocated. I spoke about trusting one's innate
perceptive faculties, which would translate more as trusting one's
intuition than one's experience. I'm assuming here that one's innate
perceptive faculties are (mostly) overlaid by all the operations of
thought, and it is thought which is both the conditioned and the
conditioner.
> . . . I have resisted
> taking a stand, precisely because I believe that there are no
> irrefutable data. You have taken a stand because you believe that some
> data are irrefutable, or close enough to it.
Hmmm, no. More that I would be prepared to take a stand even without
irrefutable data because I think we have a responsibility to create the
best possible world, for now and for the future that we may or may not
be a part of.
> Did I insult you dreadfully?
Yes! You said I was a New Age something-or-other and that, if we were
not antipodally separated, would be a calling-out matter.
> . . . I'm not entirely sure
> what you mean when you say "Samsara is what we ARE" - is this a
> variation on "hell is other people"?
If there were no human beings, or beings of like consciousness, there
would be no evil, no suffering, no ignorance. We have created these out
of ourselves, which is why we are also so thoroughly subject to them.
> My views and my beliefs can be said to be two different things from a
> Buddhist. The former are the habits of thnking which I have fallen
> into (presumably over myriad lifetimes) the latter the ideals I
> espouse...
But that which forms into viewpoints and that which espouses ideals are
the same thing. They only seem different because you want them to be.
Recognising that you are bound into destructive habits of thought, you
invent a "good" habit of thought and strive to become that instead.
> . . . . IN time I will have the
> necessary insights that will free me form duality...
What does time have to do with it? Does insight stem from time? Perhaps
you mean time in the sense of continued practice? If you apply good
conditioning hard and often enough, it will overwrite the bad
conditioning?
> I think the Buddhist view that all things are inter-related holds in
> every case. So while my habit is to think of myself as separate, in
> reality there is no ultimate separation...
But you're still reaching for those ULtimates. There's no separation in
a much more immediate and INtimate way right now. When I am the locus
and machinery of greed, it is exactly the same greed as every other
instance of it that ever was. My violence is all violence everywhere.
The Israeli army goes into Jenin with bulldozers, kills Palestinians,
demolishes houses with bodies still in them, then uses the bulldozers to
compact the rubble and pulp the bodies of their enemies in what appears
to be a licenced frenzy of revenge. I am shocked and sickened.
I hear about an 80-year old woman mugged for small change outside a fish
and chip shop, who later dies of shock and injury. I imagine being there
at the time. I am the new Bruce Lee. I trip, push, punch, kick, stamp,
knee, do whatever I can imagine doing until I have mentally triumphed
and the forces of evil have been vanquished. I feel pleased with myself.
If I try to make any distinction between myself and the Israeli soldier
I am grievously deceiving myself. We were both caught up on a current of
vengeance and the desire to inflict injury on the bodies of our enemies.
I might comfort myself by insisting that I was only *imagining*, while
the soldier was actually doing, but that doesn't work. When conditions
are such that my violence is in some way sanctioned --when I can get
away with it, or disguise it-- it also finds expression. And, just like
the soldier, I have put that quantum of violence out into the common
pool, just by thinking and feeling it.
> . . . it seems to me that other
> people act in ways which I would not, that they do things which are
> not the things I would do, and that these actions harm people -
> sometimes in a gross manner.
The strange people who brought me up had a saying: "whoever you are
looking at, you're looking at yourself." If you want to understand the
action of another, look in your own heart and find it also there, then
you can understand it fully. And, on the basis of that understanding,
you can --IF it seems good and necessary-- make a judgement with regard
to that action.
> . . . I'm still not entirely sure what the best
> response to these observations are...
To utilise them as instances of self-knowledge?
> ><snip>
> > Blame isn't the only mechanism of non-responsibility, but it's the
> > main one.
> I hope that I haven't snipped something vital here...
Just the absolute heart of the matter, but never mind. We don't want you
to get another cold.
> . . . but it seems to me
> that you have answered the question in a way that tells me that you
> disagree with the assigning of blame. So again I ask the question why
> do you seek someone to blame. Are you admiting avoidance of
> responsibility?
My own responsibility? Constantly. But where do you see me trying to
apportion blame? There is a big difference between doing that and
placing responsibility where it belongs.
> > > . . . Why should
> > > I seek to blame anyone for the current state of affairs? I see a mess,
> > > and I know that it's been created through the combined efforts of all
> > > humanity down through the ages...
> >
> > *Has been* created, yes. But what keeps it all in place NOW?
> The sum total of the mental states of all the players.
In the present, yes.
> . . . I don't think your rant [on choice] covered [conditioning].
> The thing is that we are
> conditioned to believe certain things - certain values and ideas...
Notice you put that into the passive voice automatically. It was done
*to* you.
> . . . We
> accept these without thinking, without evaluation or investigation...
But you are talking about the past here; in the past we accepted
conditioning. Depending on the age you are referring to, it may not
necessarily have been without some evaluation or conscious assent. The
point I tried to make in my previous post, though, is that mind is not a
substance, it cannot be stored. Mind is re-made as a response to every
momentary situation. It's quite true that those responses are codified
and largely automated --there is the blueprint of experience-- but the
response or reaction of mind is always in the present. Therefore you
*continue* to choose, to give your assent and agreement, according to
the pattern you've created. But also therefore, you can always find the
instant of choice and choose otherwise.
> Where I was challenging you was on your views about responsibility and
> blame. I still don't think you have articulated *why* you believe the
> things you do - other than to say that you trust your interpretation
> of your experience.
You want to know why I believe we are the authors of our own experience?
It seems self-evident to me, on a logical level, at least. I can't claim
to have taken full ownership of all my effects just yet. If you are not
the author of your own experience, who or what is? Circumstances? Other
people? Look at the word 'conditioning'. Conditioning is brought about
by repetition; repeatedly you have agreed to the reality of what others
have told you, and thereby colluded in your conditioning, and thereby
shaped your own experience according to that conditioning.
> > Choice is right in the moment, every
> > moment; a continual motion of agreement.
> Perhaps. But the 'choice' is seldom conscious, so in what sense is it
> a choice? Habit to is right in the moment - making our choices for us
> without our awareness.
Choice is invariably a conscious act, but the *fact* that you have
chosen, and the nature of what you have chosen, are very often quickly
relegated to subconscious layers of mind. Habit is NOT right in the
moment. Habit is by its nature an automated response of the past. Habit
doesn't make choices, it enacts choices we have already made. But these
are all arguments for developing a relationship of awareness with our
subconscious channels of thought.
> > . . .So I don't believe
> > it is actually feasible to leave the world to its own devices while I
> > perfect my spirit.
> I agree with your conclusion here. But I still question your methods.
> I don't see how proscribing certain behaviours will lead to
> enlightenment...
Whose enlightenment? Mine, or that of the person whose behaviour is
being proscribed? Anyway, proscription is not exactly the aim. We don't
generally let children play with matches, or allow blind people to walk
over the edges of cliffs. If you saw me embarking on an action that you
felt quite sure would cause me harm, I hope you'd try to stop me --or at
the least, warn me.
> However since you also believe that all things are interconnected (or
> at least I think you do.) then would it not be correct to say that if
> you perfect your "spirit" then the world would be perfected right
> along with you? If you take interconnectedness into account then it
> really doesn't matter how you approach the problem of evil (which I
> think what we are talking about now). You can transform yourself, or
> you can transform the world, because in the end there is no
> difference!
Actually, I think we are talking about our relation with the world, with
Other. What you propose here may be right, but you have to ask yourself
whether it is not in practice a fine excuse for giving the world enough
rope to go and hang itself. One's practice should lead one away from the
limitations of the world, but shouldn't be a bowl in which one washes
one's hands of it.
Then there is the question of whether you can in fact transform
yourself, or whether you always have to direct your efforts away from
self toward Other.
> . . . It is far easier,
> far more reliable, and productive to start with transforming oneslef.
> And because of intercennectedness the change will radiate out from
> you, and the world will be transformed without you having to do
> anything else.
Maybe. But I find that the people I admire are those who act; those who
risk their lives giving medical relief in war zones; those who make a
noise and get an injustice corrected; those that foster, in every sense
of that word. I think it's probably a lot easier to cultivate a
spiritual image in safe surroundings and venture nothing. How do you
know you're transforming yourself? Who's keeping track?
I say none of the above about you personally. I speak generally.
> > The theory of Choice would say that what we intend is what actually
> > occurs...
> I'm not sure about the a-posterii (after the fact)...
Thank you. I did know.
> . . . assignation of
> intention. You must have had the experience of causing something
> inadvertently...
I only tried to brush a fly from your shoulder but you fell backwards
off the parapet to your death. An accident, of course.
> . . . To say that deep down you must have wanted it to happen
> is dangerous ground for my money. Think of any example of extreme
> suffering and this "theory of choice" becomes an extremely ugly
> instrument!
Oh, yes. The usual ploy is to say: "Are you trying to tell me that 6
million Jews chose to be gassed?!"
Anything can be reduced ad absurdam (...?) and thereby dismissed, but
that is the Microsoft School of Philosophy. Karma can be caricatured in
the same way. And anyway, what is Karma if it is not a theory of Choice?
> The Buddhist doctrine of karma never allows for a single cause, or
> single effect - everything is inter-related and complex. So to say
> that the couple *intended* controversy and outrage may simply be
> untrue. There are too many scenarios that don't include this kind of
> intention, but which could still lead to the observed effect - and why
> prefer one explanantion over another?
I'm sure, if you put your mind to it, you could come up with ten
thousand and eight possible scenarios which could all lead to a specific
outcome, so there is no possible determination of cause, no explanation
for anything, no way to amend any phenomenon, we just exist in a tangled
welter of conditions and that's that.
One "prefers" the explanation that gives the greatest degree of scope
for effective action; the one that tests out to be the most reliably
accurate. Why? Because one wants to *do* something, bring about change,
be at cause.
> It's not that we separate motivation and outcome. It's that we admit
> the undertain relationship between them. If you examine your own
> experience I would think that you could see any number of examples
> where you intended one thing, but caused another. Which opens yet
> another can of worms because we then have to try to explain the gap
> between the two.
Au contraire; *you* have to try to explain the gap between the two. I've
done so. What we are normally aware of is only a conscious intention to
do something, and when that something doesn't materialise --what then?
The Gods decreed otherwise? It wasn't my karma? Bad luck?
> . . . The key
> question here I put this way: Why do bad things happen to good people,
> and vice versa? To me your "theory of choice" fails because it doesn't
> really explain why an apparently good person would end up with bad
> outcome - when they clearly would never in a million years choose it...
The terms 'bad' and 'good' are muddying the waters here. What do you
mean by a "bad" thing? And what do you mean by a "good" person? These
are surely subjective judgements --which you have spent a lot of energy
warning me away from.
It's not at all clear that bad things do happen to good people. How are
you going to determine if someone is good or not? If they perform
actions you approve of? Or they're widely admired? The only useful
criterion I can think of is: "By their fruits..." A good person is one
who creates beneficial effects on others, but *how* they do that is not
specified. And is anyone ALWAYS good, every living second?
And by "bad" things you probably mean things that make a person
suffer(?), but is suffering something that comes to us from without, or
is it a response from within? Suppose my house burns down and all my
possessions destroyed; my books and records, collected over a lifetime,
rare and special. All my mementos, my past, gifts and reminders from
people now dead. What a tragedy! If I was wholly identified with my
belongings, and my sense of self was completely tied up in them, as well
as my livelihood and my reputation for learning, and so on, then I would
probably suffer a great deal. But suppose the burning of my past life
was exactly the thing I needed to prove to me the uncertainty and
transitoriness of existence? Suppose all those belongings were a burden
I could not by conscious willing put down? Then the fire is like an
angel, come to free me. Once again, the badness or otherwise of an event
can only be judged by its effect, and that may not show up for a long
time.
But neither the theories of Karma or Choice are really about explaining
how the elephant got its trunk; they are vehicles for liberation. Do you
have freewill as a being? If not, if everything is determined, then all
talk about transforming oneself is specious nonsense and you might as
well give it up now. If you do have free will, if you can choose between
one course of action and another, then you need to exercise it, and you
also need to responsibly abide by the consequences of exercising it. So
the theory of choice is not really about explaining how you got to be
what you are, though that has its value, so much as its about placing
you at the active centre of being. While I can exercise choice, I am
free; while I can't, I'm enslaved. But to properly exercise choice I
have to acknowledge that I have the power to choose, and have always had
it.
BM
Angelo
> This wasn't quite what I advocated. I spoke about trusting one's innate
> perceptive faculties, which would translate more as trusting one's
> intuition than one's experience. I'm assuming here that one's innate
> perceptive faculties are (mostly) overlaid by all the operations of
> thought, and it is thought which is both the conditioned and the
> conditioner.
Ah...OK.
>
>
> > . . . I have resisted
> > taking a stand, precisely because I believe that there are no
> > irrefutable data. You have taken a stand because you believe that some
> > data are irrefutable, or close enough to it.
>
> Hmmm, no. More that I would be prepared to take a stand even without
> irrefutable data because I think we have a responsibility to create the
> best possible world, for now and for the future that we may or may not
> be a part of.
Yes. I also think we have a responsibility not to cause harm - I'd
just like a bit more surety before acting in this case. When it comes
to myself however I have very good knowledge and a stong basis for
judging and acting. Maybe in the end it doesn't matter whether we
approach it from 'out there', or 'in here'.
>
>
> > Did I insult you dreadfully?
>
> Yes! You said I was a New Age something-or-other and that, if we were
> not antipodally separated, would be a calling-out matter.
It was the idea you were expressing, not you yourself that I was
insulting :-)
>
>
> > . . . I'm not entirely sure
> > what you mean when you say "Samsara is what we ARE" - is this a
> > variation on "hell is other people"?
>
> If there were no human beings, or beings of like consciousness, there
> would be no evil, no suffering, no ignorance. We have created these out
> of ourselves, which is why we are also so thoroughly subject to them.
But this is not the same as saying Samsara is what we are. I tend to
think the opposite is true which is why Samsara is so frustrating!
> > My views and my beliefs can be said to be two different things from a
> > Buddhist. The former are the habits of thnking which I have fallen
> > into (presumably over myriad lifetimes) the latter the ideals I
> > espouse...
>
> But that which forms into viewpoints and that which espouses ideals are
> the same thing. They only seem different because you want them to be.
> Recognising that you are bound into destructive habits of thought, you
> invent a "good" habit of thought and strive to become that instead.
Yep.
>
> > . . . . IN time I will have the
> > necessary insights that will free me form duality...
>
> What does time have to do with it? Does insight stem from time? Perhaps
> you mean time in the sense of continued practice? If you apply good
> conditioning hard and often enough, it will overwrite the bad
> conditioning?
Time comes into to it, because I am not enlightened in this moment,
but I hope in some future moment to be enlightened. And yes if you
apply good conditioning stong and hard enough it will overwrite bad
conditioning - this is easily demonstrated! A simple example is that I
watched a friend become very good a left handed frisbee when he broke
his right hand. The upshot is that if you act as though you are having
positiver thoughts - eventually you will have them. This is one of the
principles at work with Buddhist ethics. Act skilfully and you will
become skilful.
> > I think the Buddhist view that all things are inter-related holds in
> > every case. So while my habit is to think of myself as separate, in
> > reality there is no ultimate separation...
>
> But you're still reaching for those ULtimates. There's no separation in
> a much more immediate and INtimate way right now. When I am the locus
> and machinery of greed, it is exactly the same greed as every other
> instance of it that ever was. My violence is all violence everywhere.
I don't see the ultimate here. I agree with your point however.
Violence is simply violence whether it is 'in here' or 'out there'.
And have similar sickening examples happening around me.
> If I try to make any distinction between myself and the Israeli soldier
> I am grievously deceiving myself.
Not so grievoue I think. One is acting out the worst aspect of the
thinking one is not (you). That is an important difference! Yes the
underlying thought is the same, but if you are prepared to not act on
it, to attempt to transform that thought into a positive thought, then
that is a very significant and noble thing!
Yes thoughts have consequences as do actions, but when you counter
somme aggressive tendency in yourself rather than killing someone then
that has an enormous positive consequence.
> > . . . it seems to me that other
> > people act in ways which I would not, that they do things which are
> > not the things I would do, and that these actions harm people -
> > sometimes in a gross manner.
>
> The strange people who brought me up had a saying: "whoever you are
> looking at, you're looking at yourself." If you want to understand the
> action of another, look in your own heart and find it also there, then
> you can understand it fully. And, on the basis of that understanding,
> you can --IF it seems good and necessary-- make a judgement with regard
> to that action.
Were these strange people Jungians by any chance. Sounds familiar from
what I know of Jung. I guess I basically agree with it, except I try
to reserve the judgement for things I can change - and this is usually
only myself. Thankfully I am not often confronted with major hatred or
violence.
> > ><snip>
> > > Blame isn't the only mechanism of non-responsibility, but it's the
> > > main one.
>
> > I hope that I haven't snipped something vital here...
>
> Just the absolute heart of the matter, but never mind. We don't want you
> to get another cold.
:-)
>
>
> > . . . but it seems to me
> > that you have answered the question in a way that tells me that you
> > disagree with the assigning of blame. So again I ask the question why
> > do you seek someone to blame. Are you admiting avoidance of
> > responsibility?
>
> My own responsibility? Constantly. But where do you see me trying to
> apportion blame? There is a big difference between doing that and
> placing responsibility where it belongs.
How can we place responsibility outside of ourselves? Sometimes, out
of concern that our friend will suffer the bad consequences we might
skilfully remind them of their responsibilities. I still say that
telling someone that their action is "staggeringly vile" is unlikely
to be helpful. When I was arguing with one of my teachers about
"something someone had done to me" I tried to amke out that I had a
duty to point out their unskilfulness towards me. He reminded me that
this was only true if I was acting out of love for them, and concern
as I say above. If I am trying to manipulate them for other purposes
(trying to get them back) then it is entirely inappropriate to say
anything!
> > . . . I don't think your rant [on choice] covered [conditioning].
> > The thing is that we are
> > conditioned to believe certain things - certain values and ideas...
>
> Notice you put that into the passive voice automatically. It was done
> *to* you.
Yeah I know :-) Wrong thinking huh?
>
>
> > . . . We
> > accept these without thinking, without evaluation or investigation...
>
> But you are talking about the past here; in the past we accepted
> conditioning. Depending on the age you are referring to, it may not
> necessarily have been without some evaluation or conscious assent. The
> point I tried to make in my previous post, though, is that mind is not a
> substance, it cannot be stored. Mind is re-made as a response to every
> momentary situation. It's quite true that those responses are codified
> and largely automated --there is the blueprint of experience-- but the
> response or reaction of mind is always in the present. Therefore you
> *continue* to choose, to give your assent and agreement, according to
> the pattern you've created. But also therefore, you can always find the
> instant of choice and choose otherwise.
I agree that mind is remade every moment. Now I suggest to you that
you try to break a habit in the blink of an eye, and I'd bet good
money that you can't do it. So I say that past conditioning is vitally
important and it's simply not true that you always have a choice. We
are conditioned by our past actions and thoughts, and that limits the
choices we have now. This is a simple application of dependent
arising. However we can change what choices we have in the future by
our actions now.
> > Where I was challenging you was on your views about responsibility and
> > blame. I still don't think you have articulated *why* you believe the
> > things you do - other than to say that you trust your interpretation
> > of your experience.
>
> You want to know why I believe we are the authors of our own experience?
Is that what you have been saying?
> It seems self-evident to me, on a logical level, at least. I can't claim
> to have taken full ownership of all my effects just yet. If you are not
> the author of your own experience, who or what is? Circumstances? Other
> people? Look at the word 'conditioning'. Conditioning is brought about
> by repetition; repeatedly you have agreed to the reality of what others
> have told you, and thereby colluded in your conditioning, and thereby
> shaped your own experience according to that conditioning.
See above. Past limits present, present conditions future. Freedom is
an illusion in most cases - if it weren't we'd all be entirely free of
suffering right now. Why does anybosy choose to suffer, and yet you
are saying that they do. This leads to inventing some nefarious
psychology which can only be speculative!
>
> > > Choice is right in the moment, every
> > > moment; a continual motion of agreement.
>
> > Perhaps. But the 'choice' is seldom conscious, so in what sense is it
> > a choice? Habit to is right in the moment - making our choices for us
> > without our awareness.
>
> Choice is invariably a conscious act, but the *fact* that you have
> chosen, and the nature of what you have chosen, are very often quickly
> relegated to subconscious layers of mind. Habit is NOT right in the
> moment. Habit is by its nature an automated response of the past. Habit
> doesn't make choices, it enacts choices we have already made. But these
> are all arguments for developing a relationship of awareness with our
> subconscious channels of thought.
Hmmmm. I think this is closer to how I think about things. I still
question the extent to which we choose, because it seems a very poor
way of explainging why bad things happen to good people - ie the
problem of evil.
> > > . . .So I don't believe
> > > it is actually feasible to leave the world to its own devices while I
> > > perfect my spirit.
>
> > I agree with your conclusion here. But I still question your methods.
> > I don't see how proscribing certain behaviours will lead to
> > enlightenment...
>
> Whose enlightenment? Mine, or that of the person whose behaviour is
> being proscribed?
Either!
> Anyway, proscription is not exactly the aim.
But you say proscription is the aim! Or at least the immediate aim.
> We don't
> generally let children play with matches, or allow blind people to walk
> over the edges of cliffs. If you saw me embarking on an action that you
> felt quite sure would cause me harm, I hope you'd try to stop me --or at
> the least, warn me.
But I wouldn't force you :-) If you insisted on harming yourself I
would be relatively helpless to stop you. But why would you choose to
harm yourself?
> > However since you also believe that all things are interconnected (or
> > at least I think you do.) then would it not be correct to say that if
> > you perfect your "spirit" then the world would be perfected right
> > along with you? If you take interconnectedness into account then it
> > really doesn't matter how you approach the problem of evil (which I
> > think what we are talking about now). You can transform yourself, or
> > you can transform the world, because in the end there is no
> > difference!
>
> Actually, I think we are talking about our relation with the world, with
> Other. What you propose here may be right, but you have to ask yourself
> whether it is not in practice a fine excuse for giving the world enough
> rope to go and hang itself. One's practice should lead one away from the
> limitations of the world, but shouldn't be a bowl in which one washes
> one's hands of it.
No I don't think you have taken interconnectedness fully on board. If
you do then there can be no question of washing one's hands of it: it
simple is not possible!
> Then there is the question of whether you can in fact transform
> yourself, or whether you always have to direct your efforts away from
> self toward Other.
There si no difference in the end! So it doesn't matter.
>
>
>
> > . . . It is far easier,
> > far more reliable, and productive to start with transforming oneslef.
> > And because of intercennectedness the change will radiate out from
> > you, and the world will be transformed without you having to do
> > anything else.
>
> Maybe. But I find that the people I admire are those who act; those who
> risk their lives giving medical relief in war zones; those who make a
> noise and get an injustice corrected; those that foster, in every sense
> of that word. I think it's probably a lot easier to cultivate a
> spiritual image in safe surroundings and venture nothing. How do you
> know you're transforming yourself? Who's keeping track?
Sure self centeredness is generally not seen as beneficial.
Selflessness is part of the defintion of being a better person.
>
> I say none of the above about you personally. I speak generally.
Of course. I think we understand each other pretty well and are not,
like so many in usenet, simply trying to undermine each other for the
sake of it!
>
>
>
> > > The theory of Choice would say that what we intend is what actually
> > > occurs...
>
> > I'm not sure about the a-posterii (after the fact)...
>
> Thank you. I did know.
:-) One never knows...
>
> > . . . assignation of
> > intention. You must have had the experience of causing something
> > inadvertently...
>
> I only tried to brush a fly from your shoulder but you fell backwards
> off the parapet to your death. An accident, of course.
Of course.
>
>
> > . . . To say that deep down you must have wanted it to happen
> > is dangerous ground for my money. Think of any example of extreme
> > suffering and this "theory of choice" becomes an extremely ugly
> > instrument!
>
> Oh, yes. The usual ploy is to say: "Are you trying to tell me that 6
> million Jews chose to be gassed?!"
>
> Anything can be reduced ad absurdam (...?) and thereby dismissed, but
> that is the Microsoft School of Philosophy. Karma can be caricatured in
> the same way. And anyway, what is Karma if it is not a theory of Choice?
Karma is indeed a theory of choice, and it falls apart for the same
reasons. In science one can never truely prove a hypothesis, one can
only ever disprove it - because there are invariably infinite
possibilities to try to prove. However a single example is enough to
disprove an hypothesis. So karma, ultimately, fails as an explanation
of why things happen. This isn't a problem, because it was never
intended, I would suggest, as an ontological statement. It was
intended to spur us on to practice.
> One "prefers" the explanation that gives the greatest degree of scope
> for effective action; the one that tests out to be the most reliably
> accurate. Why? Because one wants to *do* something, bring about change,
> be at cause.
Yep. This is what it comes down to. However it is useful to help
people see that their particular view is as full of holes as any
other. Kind of a public service! Socrates did this, and the Buddha
also.
> > It's not that we separate motivation and outcome. It's that we admit
> > the undertain relationship between them. If you examine your own
> > experience I would think that you could see any number of examples
> > where you intended one thing, but caused another. Which opens yet
> > another can of worms because we then have to try to explain the gap
> > between the two.
>
> Au contraire; *you* have to try to explain the gap between the two. I've
> done so. What we are normally aware of is only a conscious intention to
> do something, and when that something doesn't materialise --what then?
> The Gods decreed otherwise? It wasn't my karma? Bad luck?
Don't know basically. I admit to not understanding why things happen!
I have no explanation that fits all the facts. *That* is my point.
Your explanation is OK as far as it goes, but it still fails to cover
every case, and so is at best an approximation. It gets ugly at points
like why people suffer.
>
>
> > . . . The key
> > question here I put this way: Why do bad things happen to good people,
> > and vice versa? To me your "theory of choice" fails because it doesn't
> > really explain why an apparently good person would end up with bad
> > outcome - when they clearly would never in a million years choose it...
>
> The terms 'bad' and 'good' are muddying the waters here. What do you
> mean by a "bad" thing? And what do you mean by a "good" person? These
> are surely subjective judgements --which you have spent a lot of energy
> warning me away from.
Yep. I had resorted to short hand assuming that we understood each
other a little better now. Sorry to have muddied the already doubtful
waters!
I've run out of time and will have to leave it there! See you after
the weekend!
Ciao
Michael