A Skillful Morality

Double post. This message was identical to message 47Edited by Sombra, : Double post. This message was identical to message 47

Please, remember I am not saying that this is "the way things are", or that everybody should consider things in this way. We conceptualize and interpret things in a certain way, for the sole purpose of eliminating suffering. Everybody interprets things their personal way, and no one is wrong or right. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and interpretation of things. Read my opinions with this in mind. If we are considering physical pain, then yes we are talking about the brain. And yes, I agree with you, it is the mind that perceives the suffering (mental or physical, no distinction necessary in this case).
I don't see it as suffering as "occurring there in that place or machine", I see it as the mind perceives the suffering, but it is not a place where things happen, it just perceives (and reacts, etc.). A place requires physical dimensions, can be perceived using the 5 bodily senses and is affected by time/gravity a certain way. The mind does not fulfill these requirements. I totally agree with all of this.
This implies that if we do not direct the awareness of our mind to the pain, then the pain does not "exist". I think we can receive information without the 5 bodily senses.
My mind perceives emotions, memories, future plans, intuition, and none of these use any bodily organ or sense.You say these are mental constructs based exclusively on previous bodily input (I disagree). But even if this is as you say, and they are exclusively based on bodily input, these mental constructs are still perceived by the mind, without the use of any bodily sense or organ. The dream example clarifies this.When I am in deep sleep, blankets touch my body, sounds hit my ear, but since I am not aware of it, I do not feel it. But I am having all types of experiences and emotions. There is no original input from the body, yet there is awareness.I view our mind as something that is capable of perceiving. Many things. It is very resourceful, and has 5 principal tools (the bodily senses) which it uses to interpret the world around us. But those are not the only tools it has to perceive. I think it has many others, that we have not yet developed, probably because we have not yet had the necessity. Maybe the necessity is becoming clear now that we have achieved much material progress. Our next step in progress (in evolution) would be developing these latent mental tools, to lead us into even greater well-being?By the way, I think the 5 bodily senses don't give an accurate representation of what we are actually sensing/perceiving. I don't agree with this, as I have tried to explain. I think our awareness depends on the mind and on the many things it perceives.
It is affected by many other things, the body being one of them. It doesn't. Whether we depend on the body to start perceiving things with our mind or not, the origin of mental suffering stays the same. I agree. Self-survival and well-being (=elimination of suffering) seem to be natural. I have mentioned before that I believe the ego to be a very useful tool, without it we would not be here today. It is necessary, in my opinion (but my opinion constantly changes...). So I do not think we should take the ego and annihilate it. Suppressing the ego is natural or unnatural depending on if it leads to the elimination of suffering. If it leads toward suffering I consider it unnatural. Suppressing the ego would be unnatural if it leads to you not getting out of the way of a truck on the highway because "I refuse to think in terms of the 'ego-image'". I not only consider this unnatural, I consider it stupid.Suppressing the ego is natural if you only suppress it in occasions where you see a benefit, and no big downside, such as:
"I can run, push the baby that is standing in front of a moving truck out of the way, and come out with just a scracth, by suppressing my 'ego-image' to not worry for its safety for a moment."This is where the skillful part comes in. You must have sharp awareness to consider and analyze situations from many angles, not just the self-centered one. Then you must weigh pros and cons, and come to a conclusion about which action is the optimal solution.
Use the 'self' or not to use it, that is the question.We must have skill in order to know when to use the 'self' and when not to use it. I disagree.
It is possible to use our mind in a different way. Almost all of the people I have spoken to disagree with me, or don't understand. But I have seen for myself that it is possible, and so have many other people that have progressed on the buddhist path. Some of them have built monasteries according to tradition in order to help others understand this, others have written books, others try to teach meditation, others go into forums and (annoy?) other people with their points of view that are hard to understand. Most of them though, just keep to themselves and their practice because they have seen that the world does not understand their point of view, and have seen how hard it is to explain it to other people.For you everything is based on the idea of 'me' because you have not trained your mind.At this present moment, yes everything in our society is based on the idea of 'me', because most of society does not understand this.I know that an individual such as yourself can do the practice and come to the understanding of the origin of suffering.I think that it is impossible for a whole society to understand this. At least at the present moment... (maybe in a thousand years?).

I think I'd prefer to keep the suffering. In exchange for the pleasure, I think its better than nothing. Everybody knows that hippies are recyclers. We do? Are there not different origins for different kind of suffering? I don't think that when people say that god is the origin of everything, that they are discounting more direct origins for things. Its more like that if you go back far enough then god is the ultimate origin. The Christian God wasn't created, he always exists.That question defeats a particular argument for a creator. That is that complexity implies design, therefore the universe was designed.A universe creator would be complex, so it too would require design.So, yeah, obviously that argument is wrong.If you got to Google Sitesearch, and scroll down to the demo, you can put 'evcforum.net' in the url box and your question, 'Who created the creator?', in the query, and then you'll find threads here about that.

You can keep the pleasure, and do away with the suffering, that was the whole point...
I never said you get nothing in exchange, you become a better person and get superior happiness, among many other benefits...
Good one! I agree, but I will add that they {hippies} suck at this recycling thing.
Besides, based on the second law of thermodynamics, I think recycling is futile. Do the practice and find out...
Youu don't have to give up anything in your life to start it, just a little bit of your time to do the investigation.
If I were you, I would enertain the possibility that god sent the Buddha to Earth to teach us how to end our suffering. Maybe this way of viewing things will make it easier for you to carry out the investigation. I don't understand why the Christian God can do this, and not the universe. As in, 'the universe did not have a beggining, it has always existed'. Seems logical to me, relative to the previous statement... But Thanks! I did not know that, it would have saved me some time. I looked around the site before I lost patience and got into a thread and directly asked my question!
Talk about not having skill in investigating...
Maybe I'll find somebody already used my counterargument there and it was already refuted.Peace...P.S. I think that 'complexity implies design' is a fallacy.
Complexity suggests design is correct.Edited by Sombra, : No reason given.Edited by Sombra, : No reason given.Edited by Sombra, : See P.S.Edited by Sombra, : No reason given.

Sure everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone's perspective is different. Not many are entirely wrong or right but some are more wrong and some are righter. Some positions are certainly more reasoned than others and some people are more skilful at recognizing flawed reasoning. It is here where the perspectives clash that the imperfections are revealed. Not only clashing opinions but exposure to new perspectives. I am looking for the flaws in my own reasoning and appreciate the contrast that you provide. I disagree. The mind is fully subject to the constraints of time and gravity. The location of the mind will always coincide with the spatial coordinates of the brain. Could you give an example where the two do not match up? While I have met some folks who were out of their mind I have never encountered a mind that was out of it's brain.What extra-corporeal coordinates does the mind occupy? Would you say that consciousness is similar to radiation? This is true and the mind will do it automatically in many cases when it is primarily concerned with immediate survival. In all other situations the mind is keenly aware of any pain. Ignoring pain can have severe consequences. I thought that avoiding the suffering was the whole point. WTF man? Are you some kind of masochist? (Insert appropriate emoticon displaying shock, confusion, dismay and laughter.) Why do you think that and could you offer any definition of what they might be like or how they would work? I guess that the input is what it is. The failure, if any, occurs in the processing. I argued at some length in the Morality without god thread that all action is selfish and that the self is our only true point of reference. Ever present. When you know yourself all of the weighing has been done and the skilful action will emerge without much conscious effort.We have no other choice than to use the self but we are kind and empathy is one of our survival tools, thank goodness. It is the recognition that others endure the same suffering as we do that compels us to reach out and alleviate it. This is all self referential. I am not against training altogether but I am much more of a floater than a paddler. You know, go with the flow, follow your bliss, be here now. I have so few moments that I am loathe to spend many of them on a future that may never arrive. Somewhere between self denial and over indulgence is a middle way that presents itself. I usually just go that way.Of course the middle is located between the sides and the degree of my humility will change the position of the middle. There is a tradition in hunter-gatherer societies known as 'insulting the meat.' The group praises achievement but demands humility of it's members.There is another thought that I have been having about balance and the middle way. All forces seek a balance point. We call the process entropy. Equilibrium equals death.

So, taking the orange from the tree will lead me towards suffering. And if I don't take it, then I'm on the path to some superior happiness.But you can't explain how or why, and I just have to see it for myself.Thanks, but no thanks.. Then you're misunderstand thermodynamics and/or recycling. If the Universe has been existing forever, then it would have already hit its heat death. We also see in the Big Bang Theory, that the universe has a finite past.That, however, does not suggest a creator, but we can say the universe hasn't existed forever. That being said, in the Big Bang Theory, there is no point in time when the Universe does not exist. It exists at all points in time, there's just a finite number of them in the past direction. But that's a whole 'nother story... Oh, I dunno. There's all kinds of really complex shit that wasn't designed.Besides, "complexity" is not some well defined concept that we have enough data on to know what it suggests or not.

I'm currently preparing for a trip, and once I get back from it I will be pretty busy with a new business I am planning, so I don't have much time right now and my answers will not be as well thought out. With this in mind:I have noticed, and you would be surprised, how much your thinking is in line with buddhism. The only thing that is an obstacle right now is your concept of mind. You equate mind=brain. I have not found a good way to explain the contrary (and as I said I'm short on time right now...). But this is where your principal obstacle lies.
I'll try again:We have agreed that mind is that which perceives. We know it perceives forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and textures. We also know that it uses the body, which has organs, to sense the form of an object, the sounds, etc.
We know what light is (electromagnetic radiation of a frequency that is perceivable with to eye), how it works, how it contacts the eye, and the brain processes the input and renders our experience of sight. The same with sounds (pressure fluctuations in wave patterns, etc.) and the others. All of these lie in the physical realm, that is, they are either matter or energy, and thus they are perceivable by the bodily organs.
Now, the mind also perceives emotions, to name just one thing. Take any emotion, let's say fear. Can you tell me where fear is, and how it contacts the brain? Can you tell me the location on planet Earth, the mass, or the enthalpy (energy content) of fear? I know you cannot, but we know it exists, because you perceive it with your mind, and so do I, and we agree on what it is, what it causes to us and the surrounding world.
What I'm trying to say is, that you can't reduce everything to physical objetcs, that is to matter and energy. (hence pertinence of the second law of thermodynamics to our discussion).
The mind perceives many of these things that are not matter or energy, and is itself one of those things that are neither matter nor energy. The mind is not the brain. The mind is not the brain, as I tried to explain in the previous paragraphs. I can give an example where the spatial coordinates of the brain do not match up with the mind, but you just gave one yourself!: Just switch:
folks=minds
mind=brain
Then you get: While I have met some minds who were out of their brain I have never encountered a brain that was out of it's brain.I think the switches are logical given that you equate mind=brain, and you can consider that people are a reflection of their mind.Anyway, another example are memories. I am capable of focusing my mind on a past event and see details of the event that happened, the stronger my focus, the clearer the details. I can even feel the emotions generated by that past event, and again, the stronger the focus of my mind, the stronger I relive the emotion. Anybody can agree with this.
When we are doing this, our mind is in the past, our body and brain are in the present, as they always are. Is this clear?
The mind is not affected by time, gravity or space in the same way the body is. This is because it has no energy (not a known, measurable type, at least) or mass. No, I consider consciousness a completely different thing.
I have question for you related to this. You are obviously an evolutionist. I have noticed a growth in the homosexual/general population ratio in the course of my lifetime. (I don't know for sure, though, just my personal observation and a few other people I have asked...)
It ocurred to me that this growth in the number of homosexual people in the world could be due to a defense mechanism of nature, because it has noticed environmental damage on Earth due to overpopulation of humans. With more homosexuals, less reproduction, thus less humans. Problem solved by nature.
I have heard a similar thing happens with seahorses, they change sex depending on environmental conditions.
If this is so, maybe each and everyone of our personal consciousness' are just part of a bigger one, one that has in some way, some relation to nature (this doesn't imply that nature totally controls us).
What do you, as an evolutionist think? We totally agree here. You misunderstand the meaning of the word aversion.
Aversion= a strong dislike or disinclination. I think that because of many things. The one I can explain easier are emotions, and I already tried.
The other one I have in mind right now is a pre-conceptual mental function and thus can't be put into words.
If I can think of another one I will mention it later (remember I'm short on time...) Yep. An example is our vision. There are many electromagnetic wavelengths that the eye cannot perceive like infrared, ultraviolet, or the radio frequencies AM and FM, so the eye is not giving an accurate representation of what is really there. I strongly agree with the part that says that when you know yourself all of the weighing has been done and the skilful action will emerge without much conscious effort, and that it is the recognition that others endure the same suffering as we do that compels us to reach out and alleviate it.I strongly disagree with the rest.
The self is not our only possible 'true' point of reference.
I have mentioned in this thread that it is possible (and hard to believe) to develop a way to perceive and react to the world without using the self as a reference.
It is not all self-referential, just the most part, the little part that isn't is hard to see. I said you would be surprised at how your views coincide with buddhism's. Type middle way in Google, and click on the first search result, the one on wikipedia (just read the first paragraph the rest is unaccurate or does not apply to our case). The middle way of training your mind means avoiding suffering and avoiding over-indulgence in pleasure.
There is no pain, effort, exertion to be made to train the mind. Just the contrary, to train the mind we must bring it to rest. Meditation, when done correctly, in the correct conditions and skillfully, is nothing but pure unadulterated pleasure. Yes, in any thermodynamic system, equilibrium is reached when the derivative of entropy equals zero, that is, when entropy is at its max.
But this applies to thermodynamic systems, those composed of matter and energy. As I said, the mind is neither of those.
Your scientific mind will absolutely love the buddhist point of view. Reason, logic, common sense, and hard facts completely apply.Buddhism is not the monasteries (I have never been to one), or the rites, ritual, ceremonies or prostrations. Those are just traditions that have accumulated over 2600 years of fermentation in some the most ritualistic civilizations on earth.
Buddhism is about what we have been talking about here in this thread. The end of suffering, and we use the scientific method of obtaining knowledge to achieve it.

You are already on the path to that same superior happiness.
Not taking the orange could accelerate your progress, but only if you understand why. If you do it out of blind faith, it does not do you much good.
Besides, you can't be strict on yourself, it goes against the practice. I always take the orange, I am patient and can wait a little longer to achieve the superior happiness, and I'm having a great time with my life right now anyways. I see an explanation is necessary. Very coarsely, the second law states that in any thermodynamically non-revesible process (which are practically all of them) 'chaos' or disrorder is generated. If we would want to 'undo' this chaos, more energy would have to be put in the system, do the process, and as a result, more chaos is generated.I see the same thing in recycling. You recycle your garbage to 'undo' the chaos generated, but you are generating even more chaos in the process. Recycling requires time, energy, mass and effort. This energy and mass come in the form of fuels and food, which generate more garbage than the garbage being recycled.Recycling is futile. Heat death is a suggested fate of the universe. We cannot know for sure that this heat death happens when we take time to the infinite. The Big Bang is a theory that suggests that the universe has not existed forever.
So we can't say for sure if the universe has existed forerver or not, because it is a theory and not a law. I don't get it. I thought creationists believed that complexity implies design. Yet, you agree with me that complexity does not imply design. Yes, complexity is not well defined because of the same reasons that we cannot define 'good' or 'evil', which we previously argued about. So we agree here too.

But you're unable to explain why... It takes less energy to collect, melt, and reform an aluminum can than it does to mine and process new aluminum ore. You're better off recylcing it. No, entropy increases over time. If there has been infinite time then there would be infinite entropy... but there isn't, so there hasn't been infinite time. Theories do not grow up to become laws. Laws are mathematically defined truths. F=ma because force has been defined as the product of mass and acceleration.No theory will become a law given sufficient evidence. Theory is as good as it gets.Do you throw doubt onto the Germ Theory of Disease as well? Depends on what you mean by "creationist". Do you include Theistic Evolutionists? They believe that god created the world, but they still accept evolution.That being said, I think that defining a creationist as someone who rejects evolution is practical for a site like this. In that case, I'm not a creationist.But I'd call myself a creationist for the former reason. Still, that doesn't mean that I have to accept bad arguments like "complexity implies design".Enjoy your time away. We'll be here when you get back.

Emotions are not some ethereal thing. They are the result of the electro-chemical process of the brain. They are built of matter and energy and the same applies to memories. What else could they be? The mind, like everything else, exists in the present. It's focus can be on the past or the present or the future. Memories are a review and imagination is a projection. Both activities are taking place in the present. The brain is affected by time and gravity and has evolved to work within the constraints that they present. The brain is full of feedback loops that keep very close track of time. This is essential in order to avoid biting your tongue while chewing and hitting your thumb with hammers. The structure, wiring and function of the brain are dictated by the nature of time, distance and gravity every bit as much as the course of a river. With an fMRI machine we can take a picture of where fear is located in the brain. We can see in real time which parts of the brain are active when some mental process is under way. That is where the fear is. It is not off to the side or out in front or some other place but right there in the brain. If we pluck out the amygdale from the brain then the brain will no longer produce the emotion of fear. The emotion of fear requires the physical presence of an amygdale. My guess would be that it is more socially acceptable and that sexual preference is suppressed to a lesser degree than it used to be by society in general. So the ratio has not really changed but rather is simply more visible. That is that a homosexual 50 yrs ago may have suppressed their preference out of fear.I suppose that it is possible that some environmental condition is having an impact. For example, we can detect the presence of hormones in the drinking water because of all the residual birth control ingredients that have ended up in the toilet. Minute quantities of some hormones can have a profound impact on the development of children if they are introduced before they would naturally occur.I really don't see any mechanism for a group sub consciousness. Nature or the environment will limit population in much more overt fashion using things like starvation, pestilence and war. This is not to say that we are not approaching some type of global consciousness but it is not some mystical thing but is apparent in our communications network and our increasing connectivity.The remarkable thing to me is that our global consciousness is being built up in exactly the same way as our brains are built. The shapes are the same and the processes are the same. It is just the scale that differs. In a word, fractal. Understand fractals and you will understand the nature of the universe and everything in it. I am at least a little familiar with the tenets of Buddhism. I read a book called 'The Tao of Pooh' probably 20 yrs ago. I intentionally used the phrase 'middle way' but I meant to make the point that I arrive there sort of naturally. I didn't really reason it out. I just follow the course of least resistance. 'Wei wu wei.'What does make an impression on me is that many of the core ideas of Buddhism and religion in general coincide with what science reveals to us. The idea that the universe is one thing. The Buddha, the Christ, the Vishnu. When the bible says that 'God created man in his image', that is the description of a fractal. Coincidence? I don't think so. I think that is more like a self evident truth that was recognized thousands of yrs ago and has since been obfuscated by the power struggles of men.The idea of knowing yourself and then using that as a reference point may sound as if it is selfish but if the self is an exact replica of the universe then what better reference point could we possibly have.

If I wanted to, I personally could view the mind as being the brain, and workout a reasoning for it, much like you have, and be perfectly comfortable with my reasoning, as you are.
But I don't because for the purpose of studying and eliminating suffering it is more practical to view it as I do. Remember that no one is wrong or right, and the explanation I gave for this phenomenon of people having different tastes, likes and concepts of good/evil earlier in thread...Everything you say could be true, but the origin and end of suffering stays the same. And remember that the end of suffering is the only thing we are really interested in, whether people have realized this within themselves or not...
Your conceptual reasoning has taken you this far, but if you want to get really far, you will have to learn how to reason without concepts.
I know that I'm probably not making any sense to you right now, but maybe sometime in the future you will understand. I say this because the same thing happend to me.
I agree with most of what you say. I would clarify and refute the things I don't agree with if I had time.
You can't solve suffering with only conceptual reasoning. This is most important to know.Edited by Sombra, : italics

I have to refute this fallacy.What you see in the MRI is the response of your brain to the stimulus of fear received by the mind. Similarly, you can see brain activity when you receive the stimulus of your thumb being hit with a hammer.
The thumb and the hammer are not in the brain, and neither is the fear...
When and how did the brain receive the fear?
Did the brain's mass or energy content change with the addition of fear into the system? I agree. But this in no way implies that it is the brain which perceived the emotions. The brain processes the emotion, that much is true. WTF?! When did I ever say anything about "ethereal"?
You may be forming a new concept of emotions yourself, but don't put any words or concepts that I have not said in my mouth!Just because something is not matter or energy does not mean that it is 'ethereal'. Do you consider entropy 'ethereal'? Don't confuse yourself with concepts, emotions or ideas. These are all just product of conceptual thought, and thus uncertain, unstable, impermanent, not the way to peace and the end of suffering.
Like I said, conceptual thought only takes you so far...Do not cling to the Buddha, or any other point of view, dogma or concept , if you really want to see the truth.
Don't cling to points of views.
In fact, don't limit or cling yourself to anything, because they are all mental fabrications, and thus uncertain and leading to suffering.

I did not know of the variety of viewpoints that have spawned from the debate. My mistake for clasifying people into only 2 categories I guess... Thanks!
I'll act as skillfully as my ego and mental defilements permit it!

This was taken from the book:
"The Word of the Buddha"
by NyantilokaI just started reading the book, but is seems good so far and I recommend it.
Just remember, don't believe everything a book says, you have to figure out what is true and false yourself!
The Buddha's teaching cannot be found in books, only within yourself. The books can only sort of guide you...
You have to be skillful to see how it all applies to your present state. Edited by Sombra, : Provided the quote's sourceEdited by Sombra, : Recommended the bookEdited by Sombra, : No reason given.

The possibility of some flaws will depend on your own motivation for this system of morality.
Do you intend to convince others that this moral system should be used by everyone? Or is it just a moral system that you think is very good for you, personally?If you think it should be for everyone... then I don't think it'll work. Not much works for everyone. People can get pretty different.If you think it's just for you... and also "anyone else who happens to agree with it"... then that in itself removes a whole lot of possible flaws. Are you sure this must be true?
I am interested in morality, but my real goal is not to eliminate suffering.
My goal is for me to help people instead of hurt people while I am interacting with them.
You could say that this is similar to "reducing suffering"... but I accept "suffering" to be a part of this world we find ourselves in. Sometimes shit happens that we do not control that causes suffering. I do not think it's possible to eliminate suffering. Therefore, my real goal is not to eliminate suffering... but I am still interested in morality.Is your phrase in error?
Or do you think I am in error? Why does it matter if an individual is "totally responsible" for the result of any action?
To me, I don't care if I'm responsible for a result or not.
If I make a decision, and do an action that affects another person... then I want to know if that person was helped, hurt or didn't care. Then, I can alter my actions accordingly in order to help more.The result is equally as important as the motivation.
Without knowing the result... you have no idea if your motivation helped you to be skillful or not.
Without a good or skillful motivation... you likely are not going to be producing good or skillful results. Here you're talking about how important the intention is... but what does it lead to? It leads to asking about the result of the action in order to gain the necessary information to know if your action is following your intentions.Actions need to be monitored.
Intentions need to be monitored.
Results need to be monitored.They are all equally important parts to the "moral-system" puzzle.
Without obtaining the results of the actions, you will never know if your intentions are influencing your actions in the way you would like them to or not.Without that knowledge... your moral decisions become stagnant... never changing because you are never getting any feedback on if your actions are actually following your intentions or not. Then, you can end up with intentions that are not leading you down the path you actually want to be on, and possibly even leading you down the opposite path that you want to be on.
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"
-Anonymous(?)Having good/skillful intentions is an excellent theory.
However... all theories need to be measured against practical results in order to verify their effectiveness.I also have another question for you:What is the purpose of your moral system?That is... the purpose of my moral system is to "help other people as much as possible and hurt other people as minimally as possible."
I am getting the impression that the purpose of your moral system is "personal happiness" or "personal growth in the direction of being a very skillful person" or something like that.Is that correct?