Zen Thought For the Day

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm ignorant of the teachings of Buddhism, but escaping the 'same entity' idea for a minute, what makes us individuals? Supposedly individuality maintains the ideas of individual freedom, and the importance of the self. But can we truly be individuals under those aspects? It always seems to be true individualism is a rare (if not impossible) thing to achieve when in the context of man as a social animal, 'condemend' to accept or at least live with social conventions and rules. In fact, importance of the self seems to suggest that it is the opposing end of the concept of society, or collectivism... Is true individualism only achieved by purging society and more importantly society's control over the self?

 

Help a poor retard understand life!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You have to think about it like this. Why are you part of society ?

[metadigital]

You have to think about it like this. Why are you part of society ? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... To bring it down, of course. Or rule it. Whichever comes first. Or both.

[SteveThaiBinh]

You have to think about it like this. Why are you part of society ? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... To bring it down, of course. Or rule it. Whichever comes first. Or both.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

@Meta: Shh! :angry:

 

@ShadowPaladin: We are part of society because that is our nature, the nature with which we have evolved. As intelligent beings, we are capable of removing ourselves from society, but it will never be more than a small minority that does so. We are part of society in order to benefit ourselves and those around us, because we believe we cannot lead happy and fulfilled lives alone. Experience tells us that we can achieve more of our goals, both for ourselves and for others, by working together with others.

[metadigital]

Sounds like you've fallen asleep in front of Sesame Street again, Steve, and left the definition of "co-operation" on loud!

[SteveThaiBinh]

Sounds like you've fallen asleep in front of Sesame Street again, Steve, and left the definition of "co-operation" on loud!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you mind? I do not get my philosophical ideas from Sesame Street.:angry:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I get them from Fraggle Rock.

[Reveilled]

I never cease to be amazed that people actually believe in that Scientology bull****. Perhaps they just dont want to admit that theyve paid all that money for the gibberish of some psychologist-hating hippie?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, it's more like they realise they've paid all that money for the gibberish of some psychologist-hating hippie, attempt to leave, and are subsequently forced to stay and are either brainwashed and tortured, driven to suicide, or killed.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

You have to think about it like this. Why are you part of society ? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well one day I woke up and these people told me to be nice to the government. If I kept quiet they'd give me candy... And I've whored myself out ever since.

 

Seriously I can't tell you why I am a part of it. That position was expected of me long before I was born and handed down to me before I could even think. Currently I am a part of society because I don't know why I am a part of it. It's suggested that something like survival is considerably greater when man manages to belong to a group or organization (though I think the aspect of subsistence is changed... it remains the same at its core, but the survival achieved trough hunting in large groups has been replaced by survival trough association with large groups which can bring social prestige, status, etc.). But I'm missing one important thing, the reason as to why its believed this is required rather than optional.

[Cantousent]

society entails more than the government. We have a society of sorts here on these fora. Society, however, seems like a narrow term. Why are we part of a community? Indeed, why are most of us part of several different communities? We're not here in order to survive. We might have a sort of social prestige or status, but only in a virtual world. Why do people come here? Why do they abide by the rules, by and large? Community isn't something for which we strive out of sheer necessity or immediate gain.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I think that may vary. It's more of a parallel of real societies. Virtual societies don't have from the onset a goal based around, as you say, necessity or immediate gain but they may have. A group may form to produce something - a community-based hub, all of them with certain aspects, built around one or other function. Gaming clans are an example of a society which entails a gathering of likeminded individuals who carry out virtual activities based around fun or competition (or both). Hierarchies can also be created, even, as well as rules. And it seems they are similar to real societies with the exception that they are built around systems and ideas as virtual as themselves (though you can no doubt attribute, or derive real ideas and values to/from them). Survival gains a faux meaning there, in terms of physical, real survival that is.

 

People here follow the rules (well, most anyway) because I think they want to belong to this particular society, or group. Same applies to other virtual groups they may belong to. Is it to gain relevancy, or some shred of individuality trough collectivism, making yourself present/useful/validated and therefore trying to outline your individualism? People who do not succumb, obey to, or follow social standards or laws that would be considered as oppressive or regulating probably would not bother to register here and suffer scrutiny from other members as well as moderators.

 

But isn't it said there's something in the human race that appreciates control? Man wants to be judged; if God did not exist, then there would need to be something else created to keep him in check. Without control and observation, what defines men? Or their exploits, or lives? If there is no one to judge you, or to label your deeds, then how do we find self-worth in ourselves? If we feel this need, doesn't that make a search for true individualism a contradiction?

 

 

I think I'm getting a fever from typing the above.

[Musopticon?]

I'm speechless.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'd dumb. :ph34r:

[Musopticon?]

I always knew you would be the one.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

...I don't think what I wrote was particularly insightful. Or great. I think I'm rather prone to ramble on, but lack the necessary coherence, intelligence and articulate speech to make it something interesting :/

[Calax]

does this mean he will bring "balance" to the force?

 

Otherwise i let the last line of my sig do the talking.

[Musopticon?]

And, I'm not speechless, just rather surprised at how you could make a post so deep without it degenerating to gibberish about halfway through. My posts usually do that; and therefore I try and make my posts short.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

If there is a god the dice have been rolled and everything we do is scripted, there is no and never will be any free will unless we kill god.

 

But assuming what we will do has been scripted, why does it conflict with freedom? If you know you will make a decision in the future... Doesn't this mean you had the freedom to make such a decision, the free will to make it in the first place? Knowing what the future holds doesn't necessarily interfere with your choice and freedom unless you or anyone else plans to interfere with it.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

And, I'm not speechless, just rather surprised at how you could make a post so deep without it degenerating to gibberish about halfway through. My posts usually do that; and therefore I try and make my posts short.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, sometimes I do that as well. Other times I have some Ritalin near me >_>

[Hildegard]

Here's a "Zen comment":

"She wore a dress the same color as her eyes her father brought her from San Francisco."

 

--Danielle Steel, Star

[metadigital]

...

But isn't it said there's something in the human race that appreciates control? Man wants to be judged; if God did not exist, then there would need to be something else created to keep him in check. Without control and observation, what defines men? Or their exploits, or lives? If there is no one to judge you, or to label your deeds, then how do we find self-worth in ourselves? If we feel this need, doesn't that make a search for true individualism a contradiction?

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If a tree falls in a forest, does anybody hear?

 

You are wrestling over the difference to an external and an internal frame of reference.

 

Someone with a strong internal frame of reference does not concern themselves overly with the noteriety, infamy, group appreciation or their reputation in general; they just do what they think is "best" (where the definition of best encompasses their own peculiar wants and needs

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Someone with a strong internal frame of reference does not concern themselves overly with the noteriety, infamy, group appreciation or their reputation in general; they just do what they think is "best" (where the definition of best encompasses their own peculiar wants and needs

[metadigital]

I agree with what you said, but two issues come to mind. One, how is this 'best' formed? It can't come from nothing at all. It's likely based on interaction with others, observation and analysis. Morals aren't built on nothing, there must always be a frame of reference. In a way, there will always be a judgement of sorts, internal and external.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Traditionally, ethics are gained from our interaction with others, viz we learn them from our parental units. But it is not impossible to consider that ethics may be formed from a contemplation with the individual soley: the soul.

Also, do you believe there are exceptions to the rule, or do you believe everyone has a need to be judged and controlled in a way, no matter how diminute? You do say that "someone (...) does not concern themselves overly with (...)" such exterior appraisals directed at them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes indeedy there are exceptions: psychopaths are a common one. Regardless (or perhaps because) of the ethics taught during the impressionable period of mental development, these (overwelmingly male) individuals instead eschew empathy for a more direct emotional feedback: power.

Even then, when man is not being, or letting himself be guided or judged by external sources, doesn't his own set of rules and definitions constitute a means of self-regulation, self-analysis and self-judgement? In a way, his own God?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course. All our experiences, and therefore all empirical knowledge, and all deductive and indictively reasoned knowledge based on this experience, is filtered through an individual's experiences ... just like a mind metaphor of the physical brain, where 100 billion neurons are connected via 100 trillion connections, some with upwards of 1000 dendrites (connections) each, creating links with tens of thousands of other axons (the electro-chemical bits that make the sparks). So in effect, one can only interpret the senses according to what has already been experienced.

[EnderAndrew]

I am an individual because no one else was born with my genes and lived the exact same life as me. Even if mathmatically someone lived in a very similiar environment with very similiar genes, they didn't do so at the same time and place as me.

 

I'm also an individual because I accept that reality. I don't want to accept a reality where I don't exist. Why would I?

 

Othen than the fact that nihlism making me smile.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Traditionally, ethics are gained from our interaction with others, viz we learn them from our parental units. But it is not impossible to consider that ethics may be formed from a contemplation with the individual soley: the soul.

 

Honestly I do not believe in the concept of soul, although I agree with your point (and the rest of what you wrote). However, would you agree ethics derived from exclusively personal interaction with oneself are always founded on external interaction first and foremost, it being a base for future interactions (even only with the self)? It is said that men does not become good or evil because of his interactions with others but because of interactions with himself (or something to that effect). But it seems before going through that he will need to have a base, an example or set of examples that will allow him to do so on his own, ie, he'll need to judge others and learn from interactions with them before he can stop judging them and rely solely on interactions with himself.

 

Speaking of which - how does someone relying on interactions with no one but himself define his own morality? If I choose not to interact with others, how do I allow my own morality to grow, or even improve itself? I may rely on my morality but what if a more better shaped morality would suit me best how would I know of this if I did not interact with others?

[EnderAndrew]

Books like Lord of the Flies suggest that civilized humanity deevolves quickly without the presense of a larger socialiatal authority.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I am an individual because no one else was born with my genes and lived the exact same life as me.  Even if mathmatically someone lived in a very similiar environment with very similiar genes, they didn't do so at the same time and place as me.

 

I think those elements make us unique individuals, but not necessarily examples of individualism. No one else is like me, but I am like everybody else: physically distinct, but socially and morally bound to what is written and considered the norm. My life is my own, but my own life falls into the cracks that others' lifes often do. I don't believe I am living for myself, and I doubt I ever will. I find myself doing things I do not want to get things I don't think I particularly need and to please people I don't like at all, hate or am afraid of letting down (if they haven't let me down in the first place, that is). Am I really that different from others?

 

I'm also an individual because I accept that reality.  I don't want to accept a reality where I don't exist.  Why would I?

 

And how do you define yourself, the "I"? I'll drudge up more unfounded and ignorant opinions just for the sake of conversation, and submit that no one truly exists as an individual because we must conform to a reality that does not allow us to grow or become our true selfs, actual individuals. We are limited by self-regulations, barred by laws, we are tied by social, political and moral conventions which most of the time neuter our perceptions and desires, and confine our abilities. When we do not place regulating powers in others' hands, we are regulating ourselves. Am I a true individual considering I don't allow myself to be more? To be truly individual?

 

Othen than the fact that nihlism making me smile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, wasted youth...