Zen Thought For the Day

[metadigital]

Apophenia? maybe. Opophenia? no.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Madness. My eyes are starting to go. I was sure I typed an "a". Thanks Flatus, correction applied.

[Atreides]

Btw, which part of Bhuddhism requires the surrendering of the self and discarding of desire? Their main beliefs are the 4 truths and 8 paths to overcome the former I think which involve having the right thoughts, actions and set of mind.

 

I've seen references to the giving up of the concept of self, but I'm not sure whether this is maisntream Bhuddhism or whether it's the main beliefs. Someone know?

[EnderAndrew]

The four noble truths clearly state that desire is the source of suffering, and that the 8-fold path is the means to discard suffering.

[Atreides]

The 8 fold path is mostly about doing/thinking good and having the right concentration, not necessarily discarding desire. I don't know if there's some hard evidence that you need to strip yourself from desire to achieve a state of enlightenment like what we see monks try to do.

[EnderAndrew]

It seems to be a way of removing desire however.

 

Furthermore, when you delve deeper into Buddhism, they teach that you have no reason for desire because the self does not exist so there is no reason to desire anything for yourself.

[Atreides]

Do they say anywhere concrete that the self is not important/does not exist etc? I've got the impression that Bhuddhism tries to let go of desire and the concept of self/ego - have seen references to it but no hardcore proof.

[EnderAndrew]

http://www.buddhanet.net/

 

That seems to be a good resource. Buddhism is a many fractured and splintered religion that sometimes presents itself more as a philosophy. I have Buddhist friends who have confirmed that deep down Buddhism teaches that we along belong to the same universal over-soul entity. That is how we can be reincarnated into different forms, because in reality we are all the same person. In that way it only makes sense to follow the 8-fold path. There is no reason to do harm to ourself.

 

Some Buddhists also believe thusly that a murderer who understands their dharmic path and follows it honestly is not to be faulted. It is simply an extention of ourself that is exploring a path that needs to be explored.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Sure, no-one is pointing fingers, I was just going back to first principles to help make some progress.

 

Because you haven't even started on the other definitions: what sort of grouping these individuals are reacting too.

 

For example, I am (in case you hadn't noticed) quite supportive of the libertarian model for a society: I think it creates more opportunities and better citizens than an authoritarian civilization, even considering the benefits of specific, well-documented roles. (I would use real-world examples like JiT manufacturing methodology generally, and specifically the Japanese kaizen R&D on processes, as evidence.)

 

Still, the point remains that an "individual" in a libertarian democracy will behave radically differently to one in a repressive autocracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Theoreatically, I was considering expressions of individualism based on any kind of controlling society. Just the desire to be free of any boundaries, moral or social. Yes, I know, I sound like an ignorant, wide-eyed, hippie detached from reality.

 

Though as you said, different expressions would exist. I assume there would be less motivation to firmly achieve or express a modicum of individualism depending on that kind of society.

[EnderAndrew]

I express my individuality by urinating in the frozen food section and watching the steam rise.

 

Ironically enough, I am now demonstrating my lack of individuality by ripping that line from Kevin Smith.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

This is why it gets really difficult to seperate out genotype from phenotype ... after all how much of genetic material is necessary to be passed on for various traits?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And how much of it influences someone's growth?

[Darth Launch]

This is why it gets really difficult to seperate out genotype from phenotype ... after all how much of genetic material is necessary to be passed on for various traits?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And how much of it influences someone's growth?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, an answer to both of those questions has never been truly determined (from what I've read, but could be wrong so feel free to correct me).

 

The evidence found on studies relating to the inheritability of traits and personality and such seems to strongly support the nativist approach though.

 

A really good example is the awful case of Bruce/Brenda... where a child was born as Bruce, but suffered from a botched circumcision and so he was brought up believeing he was a girl called Brenda... the psychologists of the time thought he was overwhelming evidence to support the view that our genetics dont play a significant role in our development/growth... of course they were wrong... Brenda has now had a sex change and is happily married to a woman

 

DL

[EnderAndrew]

Moiles are now offering circumcisions, half off!

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Moiles are now offering circumcisions, half off!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great movie

[EnderAndrew]

For every example there is to suggest that environment is more important than genes, there is one to contradict it. Certain people seem more influenced by one or the other, but I don't think we have large numbers of case studies to adequately form percentages or understand why one is more prevalanet as a factor for one person or the other.

 

My original point is that between the two, and the possibility of a creator's master plan, how we can we feel comfortable with the belief in free will?

 

Even society asks a certain level on conformity out of us, as Role Player would likely agree. Are we not pushed into certain societal roles? While these roles are more or less defined at different stages of our life, they always seem to be there.

 

To an extent, it governs our actions, our relationships, our associations with others. And while I normally heavily advocate responsibility for one's actions, historically we forgive the actions of individuals based upon the actions of society.

 

Isn't society made up of individuals? Does societal roles and morality remove a certain semblance of our personal responsibility, or is it the other way around?

[SteveThaiBinh]

A really good example is the awful case of Bruce/Brenda... where a child was born as Bruce, but suffered from a botched circumcision and so he was brought up believeing he was a girl called Brenda... the psychologists of the time thought he was overwhelming evidence to support the view that our genetics dont play a significant role in our development/growth... of course they were wrong... Brenda has now had a sex change and is happily married to a woman 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose it all depends whether he would have continued to live happily as a woman he hadn't discovered that he wasn't one. Yes, I know that's impossible :D We could never know, I suppose.

 

My life is a constant interplay between my free will, my nurture/social conditioning, and my nature/genes. I'm not aware of it at the time, of course, but when I reflect on my actions I can sometimes see them at work. So long as free will is in there, I don't think I'm too worried about arguments about which is stronger. Hmmm, or maybe I am.

[EnderAndrew]

Will Wright however knows, as he can check your mood and influence meters. He's making a Sandbox/Sims-style game so that we can further explore this right now.

[Darth Launch]

I suppose it all depends whether he would have continued to live happily as a woman he hadn't discovered that he wasn't one.  Yes, I know that's impossible :D We could never know, I suppose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, actually the reason why his mother told him that he was really a dude was because he was terribly unhappy with his life. In an interview with her (his mum that is) I believe she said that 'Brenda' was near suicidal, despite the psychologists patting themselves on their backs for 'proving' that we are all born as 'tabula rasa'. Apparently, 'Brenda' was being bullied at school and called names like 'Cavewoman' etc. due to her obvious manliness.

 

Perhaps if Brenda had no doubt to her feminity then perhaps he would've been happy to live as a woman... or at least more content...

 

I think there was a whole documentary on Channel Four a while back about the Bruce/Brenda story... was quite interesting to watch... I'm sure the story can also be found on the internet

 

Anyway, getting to the whole issue about free will...

 

People mentally, either consciously or subconsciously, make a decision to act in a certain way. We all have innate tendencies inherited from our genetics, but we also can choose to break away from such things so long as we are aware of our other options. The same can be said for societal norms... we can choose to break out from them too. I think its important for people to be held accountable for their actions.

 

DL

[Walsingham]

Society:

 

I'm in agreement with Hobbes on the social contract. We resign some of our freedoms and tendency to act for our individual interests in the understanding that living in a well regulated society will result in a better payoff, by the end of the day.

 

Certainly my experience is that people are generally pro-social or anti-social depending on their life experience with groups and with authority. particualrly their experiences by about age fourteen. They tend to attach to whatever level of society they believe is most 'trustworthy' or likely to reward their loyalty and obedience.

 

 

Nature/Nuture:

 

I have read a good deal of work that suggests that the vast majority of humans, of all races, are so genetically similar that nurture must account for the remaining variation. I am not entriely convinced. Things like appetite, metabolism, stress-handling and risk-seeking appear convincingly nature based, and it is not hard to see how they might influence behaviour.

 

However, I think the notion of 'free will', that is the ability to reason a response from abstract propositions or second hand information is good. There is ample evidence from research on stress and emotion that while they affect behaviour they are also capable of being managed and controlled by the conscious mind. Quite simply, you may inherit the tendency to alcoholism, you can be given booze from an early age, but you may recognise the horrible consequences of drinking, and go teetotal or even just be a kind-hearted drunk. I know both.

 

 

Individuality:

 

We exist as the flame on a matchhead. We illuminate, we change the world. but when the match burns out, we expire. So it was that Chesterton wrote:

 

Know you what you shall lose this night, what rich uncounted loans?

What heavy gold of tales untold you bury with my bones?

My loves in deep dim meadows, my ships that rode at ease;

Ruffling the purple plumage of strange and secret seas

To see this fair earth as it stands, to me alone was given

The blow that breaks my brow tonight shall break the dome of heaven

The skies I saw, the trees I saw, after, no eye shall see

Tonight I die the death of God - the stars shall die with me!

One sound shall sunder all the spears, and break the trumpet's breath -

You never laughed in all your life, as I shall laugh in death!

 

Humanity:

 

Yet at the same time, there are other matches being lit all the time. Thus so long as humans exist the universe as you know it is maintained, albeit not precisely unchanged. Your ideas may be passsed on. The advances of understanding we have made survive. This understanding and sophisticated thought is important, for the greater the weight of such understanding the greater the capacity for us to exercise free will over our nature and our nurture, through our own minds, and the assistance of science.

 

Thus it seems to me self-evident that we must, irrespective of race or creed act in every way to avoid the extinction of the species.

[Darth Launch]

Thus it seems to me self-evident that we must, irrespective of race or creed act in every way to avoid the extinction of the species.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice post... just one thing you need to clarify for me though ... surely if we *must* act in such a way to avoid the extinction, this in turn takes away our free will, don't we get to choose whether we want to propagate or not?

 

Also, it's well known that humans are naturally quite destructive, as compared to most other animals.

 

DL

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Also, it's well known that humans are naturally quite destructive, as compared to most other animals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe because we are more accutely aware of our own abilities, ourselves as opposed to other beings? Or because hating and destroying is easier to us than loving and creating?

[Darth Launch]

Or maybe because we choose, by our own free will, to not create... its a common argument that other animals don't have free will in the same way that we humans do... nearly all of their actions are done so that the situation and environment is easier to handle for the the following generations whereas the majority of our actions are done so with our own best interests in mind...

 

DL

[Cantousent]

FATHER: What the hell?! When... Why did you get your tongue pierced?!?

 

DAUGHTER: Well - ya know - I wanted to show my individuality. ...And - ya know - all my friends were doing it!

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Quite. Maybe it is a question of perception, ie, we seem to be the only animal that is aware of their own mortality, which by nature would compel us to consider life in different terms. Maybe fully knowing what destruction is and entails is what makes us resort to it because we *want*, rather than *need*.

[metadigital]

...

I have read a good deal of work that suggests that the vast majority of humans, of all races, are so genetically similar that nurture must account for the remaining variation. I am not entriely convinced. Things like appetite, metabolism, stress-handling and risk-seeking appear convincingly nature based, and it is not hard to see how they might influence behaviour.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just wanted to make a quick observation before tackling the meat of your well made post; it is interesting that you phrased it "risk-seeking", because I saw a programme recently on a particular (bacteria, I think, some sort of plasmosis-inducing) organism that infects sentient animals, like fish.

 

What is causes them to do is take egregious risks. (IIRC it assists in the organisms reproductive process, I think the animal eating another infected animal will be infected in turn.) For example, the Koi carp will swim outside the camouflage of the overhead foliage in some bizarre risk-taking dare to the piscavorean bird standing over its head.

 

What is interesting is that this organism has been found in cats. And it may indeed, therefore, have spread to humans. ...

 

In a slightly tangential but oddly related fact, there is a type of moss that grows on the carapace of a sea crab species, that eventually grows into the shell and takes over the brain functions of the crab, turning it into a moveable (semi-autonomous) platform.

[metadigital]

Also, it's well known that humans are naturally quite destructive, as compared to most other animals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe because we are more accutely aware of our own abilities, ourselves as opposed to other beings? Or because hating and destroying is easier to us than loving and creating?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Humans (and higher apes) are smart enough to understand the social network, and to attempt to deconstruct it and rebuild it in a more "useful" framework for them.

 

This entails destroying the existing framework and building a new one, as happens periodically in history (1917 Communist revolution in Tzarist Russia, where a bunch of middle-class bourgesois men overthrough the ruling class claiming "rights for the proleteriat" and promptly put them all back to work as an underclass, for example.)