Hi y'all - I'll try to be brief for the bored. "you do seem to attribute some sort of weakness or > momentary ‘lack’ of the human who does these things."
Yes I do believe that those who accept sin are weak. " on your current use of the terms “… > which could easily be resolved." Perhaps I should have included the word "relatively" to indicate that this victim's problems were relatively minor compared to the terminal patient. "Where I saw these words as > being an ethical evaluation of something one should not do. No, I fully accept suicide in most cases. I referenced Liz as I know she has personal experience of the mindset of terminal patients. "Well, here it is again, the term ‘better’. If you mean this in some > sort of biological way," Yes, I did mean it biologically or evolutionarily if you prefer. Perhaps a "better" phrase would have been "more assured" as genes seek to replicate above all else and the ones that survive have the best fecundity, (speed of replication) longevity (time for replication) and accuracy (copy of parents.) Of course, successful aberrations are the basis for evolution. Altruism could be defined this way. That's enough preaching - I'm a Dawkins/Darwin fan. Thanks for your enlightening review of Buddhism. I do read all religions and Buddhism is no exception. You obviously know more about it than I do. My brief summary was clearly too brief and too vague. Perhaps I'll catch up to you. On Oct 3, 1:31 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First, many here may not be at all interested in this interaction with > Clog, so, long post alert!!! > > “I don't belive in sin. I used the analogy to show that the person > jumping of the cliff was > not suffering from some long term illness but a temporary depression > aided by alcohol and a gambling debt which could easily be resolved. I > thought that was obvious.” – Clog > > I believe that you do not think you believe in sin. I also believe > that you imbibe in both alcohol and gambling. I also did assume you > were pulling some hypothetical out of your hat. > This said, the two clear areas I find apparent contradiction in here > are: > 1. During your previous post you pointed at human traits that commonly > are associated with the christian notion of sin. While you may not > embrace it, you do seem to attribute some sort of weakness or > momentary ‘lack’ of the human who does these things. This moves us > into point: > 2. I make this assumption, in part, on your current use of the terms “… > which could easily be resolved.”. This in itself of course is a value > and thus perhaps even an ethical judgment. I say this exactly because > it was NOT ‘resolved’. It was, even though a hypothetical, what it > was. > > Later you appeal to Liz as an authority about what is and what is "not > found often within the more conscious aspects of the pained psyche" > So I can be more assured that we are not miscommunicating, I’ll point > out that this area of discussion was based on your original words “a > simple "I've had enough" selfish suicide.” Where I saw these words as > being an ethical evaluation of something one should not do. If this > was not the case, sorry. > > “I think you totally missed the point here. "Evilness" doesn't come > into it. I was referring to much of Richard Dawkins' work on the > selfish gene which programs us to reproduce at all costs and can be > fought only by humans.” – Clog > > OK, clearly I missed your association. Sorry. > > “Perhaps you don't involve yourself in biology quite as much as I.” – > Clog > > No, apparently I don’t. Truth is that I am ignorant about much of > current day biological theory. > I guess that overall I’ve been reactive to the terms altruism and > selfish. I’ve interpreted their use as being in some sense moral > imperatives. Apparently, this was not your intention. Sorry again. > > “You are confusing biological evolution with philosophy of > rationality.” – Clog > In some ways, perhaps. However when it comes to the 12th Virtue, I > don’t think so. > > “I agree, but humanity has learned a better way to survive - I was > pointing out that some have not yet accepted/learned this.” – Clog > Well, here it is again, the term ‘better’. If you mean this in some > sort of biological way, I’ll have to blindly accept that you have your > reasons. > > "If I gave this impression, clearly I failed in communicating my > insights here." - Orn > “Please explain.” – Clog > > OK, braking it down point by point: > > “I am interested by your insight into Buddhism. From your response I > believe my statement that suicide commands little karma and results in > repeated lives (eternal torture) and thus no advancement to Nirvana is > close to their belief.” – Clog > > You said ‘little karma’. Most Buddhist schools would say that it is a > ‘big karma’ in the sense that it is a very important and central tenet > to not kill, including self. > You continue with the apparent assumption that one who kills will live > repeated lives as a result. In one sense, this is common theology. In > another sense, many find the cycle of birth, death, intermediate > state, rebirth to be ‘natural’ for a human being until one reaches > full enlightenment. So, say one even thinks about stepping on an ant > would assure rebirth. What almost anyone in the USA would do in a > normal day of their life would most likely include actions that would > result in rebirth, again according to some dogmas. My point here is > that suicide alone is not the only cause of reincarnation. Some > schools make extreme declarations about the resultant karma of suicide > though. It might be interesting research if you are curious. > The next notion of ‘eternal torture’ does not quite fit as I > understand it. It is seen that to have a human life imputes suffering. > This is clearly laid out in the first of the 4 Noble Truths. So, IF > you equate ‘suffering’ with ‘eternal torture’, perhaps your view is > accurate. I found the term to be too extreme. > Next you say ‘no advancement to Nirvana’. There exists a game for > children in Tibet called “Rebirth” that has a large ‘map’, kinda like > Shoots & Ladders does. It includes the hell realm, human realm, god > realms etc. It is a teaching device. One uses one regular die. The > ‘game’ starts a little up the path, in the human realm. As one rolls > the die, one moves that number to a space (state) that includes > instructions to either stay there, go down the ‘scale’ or jump up the > ‘scale’ (map) with some explanation. In this way, one can simulate the > process of rebirth. The design of the game is what is instructive. If > one is ‘unlucky’ enough to descend into some of the lowest hell > realms, the probability of getting out is greatly reduced. Also, as > one ascends above the human realm, the probability of progressing is > reduced. The resultant game play is a good analogy of the theological > views of many. > So, in one sense, no matter where one is on this path, one is > advancing towards Nirvana or enlightenment. Even if one descends to > the lowest realm, given time, the ascent will most likely take place. > > “My understanding is that by commiting suicide a Buddhist produces bad > karma which ensures another life in a lowly position. By continuing > this practice he ensures further miserable lives amounting to eternal > torture rather than ending the cycle and achieving Nirvana.” – Clog > > See above. > Thanks for your patience! > > On Oct 3, 10:03 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - "Perhaps you see imbibing in alcohol as some sort > > > > of ‘sin’ too? Gambling?" > > > Those who know me here are aware that I take the odd social drink and > > I've been know to place a bet. I don't belive in sin. > > I used the analogy to show that the person jumping of the cliff was > > not suffering from some long term illness but a temporary depression > > aided by alcohol and a gambling debt which could easily be resolved. I > > thought that was obvious. > > > "not found often within > > > > the more conscious aspects of the pained psyche" > > > I think Liz, in her professional capacity will confirm that it is > > found often. > > > "Well, this of course is not true, but your intention is noted. Your > > > > basic belief in the apparent ‘evilness’ of being selfish also is > > > transparent." > > > I think you totally missed the point here. "Evilness" doesn't come > > into it. I was referring to much of Richard Dawkins' work on the > > selfish gene which programs us to reproduce at all costs and can be > > fought only by humans. He gives too many examples to list. > > > " Again, you make an assumption about the ‘rightness’ of altruism, > > > > apparently. Then, this is followed by an association to apes? > > > Perplexing indeed!" > > > Perhaps you don't involve yourself in biology quite as much as I. > > There are many scientists (Frans De Waal, Dawkins etc.) who have > > catalogued the behavior of our nearest cousins and shown the > > development of altruism. We can deduce from this that they are > > evolving as we have evolved to learn the usefulness of altruism, and > > to find that it is a more precious survival tool than battle with > > others. > > > "Again, your belief about altruism and survival is noted. I would > > point > > > > you toward a paper recently presented here.http://yudkowsky.net/virtues"; > > > You are confusing biological evolution with philosophy of rationality. > > Apes have no philosophy but altruism is evolving in them. > > > "The telos of the human organism is to > > > > survive." > > > I agree, but humanity has learned a better way to survive - I was > > pointing out that some have not yet accepted/learned this. > > > "If I gave this impression, clearly I failed in communicating my > > > > insights here." > > > Please explain. My understanding is that by commiting suicide a > > Buddhist produces bad karma which ensures another life in a lowly > > position. By continuing this practice he ensures further miserable > > lives amounting to eternal torture rather than ending the cycle and > > achieving Nirvana. > > > "we are at different manifestation points!" > > > Yes, we are looking at these matters from different perspectives. > > > On Oct 3, 10:59 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > “…explaining to others the reason for a suicide, and helping them > > > understand that they are in no way responsible and that there is no > > > other viable alternative, is satisfying their needs in a proper way.” > > > – Clog > > > > Your ethos is noted and, while an ideal, it is not found often within > > > the more conscious aspects of the pained psyche. In this way, to > > > expect something ‘proper’ by one who suffers is not to be in reality. > > > > “…a selfish suicide would be a guy who jumps off a cliff after having > > > a few beers and losing a bunch of money at the racetrack with no > > > thought for his family or friends, or the fact that his problems could > > > easily be resolved with a little willpower and help.” – Clog > > > > Thanks for your definition. And, here again is a reflection of your > > > personal ethos, imposing some sort of necessary ‘willpower’ upon > > > another when, obviously, the illness pushes any such possible notion > > > from the forefront. Perhaps you see imbibing in alcohol as some sort > > > of ‘sin’ too? Gambling? If so, these are > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
