Keeping up with the Joneses does seem a bit misguided. And I think it can become detrimental before it reaches sociopath level. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a 50 inch flat screen t.v. I am not even saying there is anything wrong with wanting to buy a 50 inch flat screen t.v. Only that it needs some perspective.
I also think the US may have elevated capitalism to a dangerous level. It seems the current theme to blame the poor for their poorness. I see a distinct lack of empathy and compassion.
I can't disagree with that. The number of people I encounter who think capitalism is some kind of moral system is a bit frightening.
I am not even saying there is anything wrong with wanting to buy a 50 inch flat screen t.v. Only that it needs some perspective.
You're absolutely right. I want to buy a 3-D 50-inch flat-screen TV.
I am not even saying there is anything wrong with wanting to buy a 50 inch flat screen t.v. Only that it needs some perspective.You're absolutely right. I want to buy a 3-D 50-inch flat-screen TV.
Oh you caught that, did you? :)
Oh you caught that, did you? :)I am not even saying there is anything wrong with wanting to buy a 50 inch flat screen t.v. Only that it needs some perspective.You're absolutely right. I want to buy a 3-D 50-inch flat-screen TV.
I'm holding out for 6-D TVs. Perfect hard light constructs of the characters will come out of the screen and do your bidding. It'll replace the internet and probably destroy carpet sales.
Poor Spotty Carpet.
I picked up Daily Wisdom: 365 Buddhist Inspirations at Half Price Books this weekend. Sunday's inspiration was:
A monk asked Shigui, "What is the first principle?"
Shigui responded, "What you just asked is the second principle."
Would someone point me in the direction of the principles it is referring to.
Taoism isn't the Way (the first principle); Taoism is finding the Way (the second principle).
I can't tell you what your Way is. Heck, I can't honestly tell you what may Way is. But if you're willing to ask the question, "What is my Way?" that's the first step to finding it.
Thanks Andy. It is always nice to know you are missed.
Thanks, HG.
I just wanted to share…
Everything is mind-made.
I have nothing further to say on the quote at the moment because my own reasoning has found no means of disproving it and I am still considering the implications. The universe may well exists outside of our perception, but there is no way for us to know that beyond the use of our own perception. And our perception is slave to our mind. Therefore, it seems to me that the universe is indeed mind-made. I think, therefore the universe exists?
I think, therefore the universe exists?
Sure it does.
It's right there, isn't it?
Is it? :)
It sure looks like it, dunnit.
I just wanted to share…
Everything is mind-made.
I have nothing further to say on the quote at the moment because my own reasoning has found no means of disproving it and I am still considering the implications.
Can I turn this one around a little bit?
Say a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound? It's a fun little question and people will happily line up on different sides for it, but are they expressing a real difference of worldview or not?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip k. Dick
Don't fall into the trap of believing there is only subjective reality. Conversely, don't fall into the trap of believing that there is only objective reality. Both exist and both are equally important.
Can I turn this one around a little bit? Say a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound?
This question always frustrated me. Of course it makes a sound.
But now…some 25 years later…I am coming at this from a different perspective. I do not imagine the universe changes whether I believe in it or not. What I am considering, is that the universe exists for me only as I perceive it. Let us say for the sake of argument that the universe does exists. If I am unable to perceive it in any way, does it matter to me whether or not it exists?
I will be honest that I did not understand everything in the article you linked. I think the general gist is that physics continue to function exactly the same way whether we understand them or believe them. But our understanding of them is based on our perception. If you have no measurement for length, how do you explain length? It still exists. It still functions exactly the same. But how do you perceive it?
I think I see it too. So you may be right, CourtFool. :D
I think this is a trap. :) You claim to see it to, which should lead 'credence' to its existence. However, only because I perceive that you agree with me. My universe still depends upon my own perception.
Both exist and both are equally important.
This is an aspect I am growing an appreciation for: moderation. I have a tendency to flip-flop between extremes. I try to make things black and white, but they are not. Thanks, HG.
Can I turn this one around a little bit? Say a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound?This question always frustrated me. Of course it makes a sound.
It used to frustrate me but eventually came to annoy me. I think it's a bit like a riddle, the kind of question people throw out as a word game and treat as a serious challenge. But it was a great illustration for the article's point.
But now…some 25 years later…I am coming at this from a different perspective. I do not imagine the universe changes whether I believe in it or not. What I am considering, is that the universe exists for me only as I perceive it. Let us say for the sake of argument that the universe does exists. If I am unable to perceive it in any way, does it matter to me whether or not it exists?
I was worried that you were considering the universe might change to match your personal beliefs, since that seemed very out of character for you. :)
But taking the more narrow point, I think it can matter depending on how onbe is unable to perceive something. Suppose you inhaled an odorless, colorless, tasteless poison. It could only be perceived by sophisticated equipment which you don't have and don't even know you need. Surely you are unable to perceive it, but neither of us would want you to be poisoned by it. Of course most poisons will do rough stuff to your body that you will notice after he fact, but by then it can be too late.
Say you escape the poison, but I get a hit of it combined with some kind of anesthetic that killed sensation, you might not feel those things either. I suppose that's the ideal way to go if you must, just waking and fine one moment and dead the next. But I think the existence of such a poison definitely matters. I know I might get attacked for this and it's a stand some people consider controversial, but I am against CourtFool and Samnell poisoning! :)
Now if we were talking about something that is absolutely, completely, permanently impossible to perceive then we are talking about nothing in the most literal sense. I don't know how you'd defend something like that as actually existing independent of the mind that imagined it, and I'm not sure minds can actually manage that feat. It all gets pretty convoluted since obviously we can't see, touch, smell, or any of that stuff to find our subject. We couldn't see its footsteps, or how it distorts light, or any of that stuff since those things require that it do business with the rest of the universe in ways we can perceive.
I will be honest that I did not understand everything in the article you linked. I think the general gist is that physics continue to function exactly the same way whether we understand them or believe them. But our understanding of them is based on our perception. If you have no measurement for length, how do you explain length? It still exists. It still functions exactly the same. But how do you perceive it?
Yudkowsky can leave me blinking too. (I really like his work but it's very demanding sometimes and the personal jargon he's built up can be rough to follow even on top of that. So I'm spending more time reading the Harry Potter fanfic [Yes, really!] he's writing to illustrate its points than the hard stuff. :) ) You're close to the point. He's saying, I think, that if we don't anticipate some kind of different experience if a proposition goes one way vs. it going another, then we aren't really talking about things that matter. If we have perceptions that vary about a subject, and the difference is something that leads us to expect the universe to appear in different ways, we can run tests and compare notes to see which of us is in the right.
I've thought this for a while myself, but was delighted recently to discover (Via Yudkowsky but I opted for a Wikipedia link.) that there's actually some math about it. I don't think that I'm properly a Bayesian since I don't understand the math and the more technical discussions leave me behind, but it looks something like a grand unified theory of human rationality so I'm trying as best a layperson can. A lot of it appears to be refinements of things we already do, but in a more rigorous sense.
|
I absolutely know that none of you are actually here; that in fact 'here' is a state I personally redefine on a continuous basis. Every thought you have is because I gave it to you, and all your collective thoughts and actions, the clothes you choose to wear, the food you eat, the BM waiting for you a few hours later, are all designed to teach me something my superconscious finds useful or necessary to my continued development.
Thank you for your assistance.
Have you read any original daoist literature?
Many interent sites and translations tend to have either real bad translations, coloring the original text in some ways, or intently drive it into different directions, like translations from christian guys that subbed things they didnt know or like with christian mythology and speech.
Have you read any original daoist literature?
Many interent sites and translations tend to have either real bad translations, coloring the original text in some ways, or intently drive it into different directions, like translations from christian guys that subbed things they didnt know or like with christian mythology and speech.
I happen to love the irreverent translations.
The teachings themselves emphasize the imperfection of language, the weakness of rigidity, and the folly of authority... so why not let people teach the tao as they think it reads?
They're all wrong anyway, even the original. I think it would do Laozi proud.
If you look to others for fulfillment,
you will never truly be fulfilled.
Tao Te Ching Chapter 44 Stephen Mitchell translation
I see so many people looking to others or external things for fulfillment. I do it myself. This really struck a cord with me.