Human suffering; opposing dualistic views & middle view

[dream-scape]

Begin necessary background information In another thread, in response to a question posed by bradybaker on what I thought was more important than the origins of the universe, I replied with the following: Originally posted by bradybaker I respect your opinions, but find that position unfortunate. People will always be suffering, people will always be happy and sad regardless of your intervention, you will grow personally whether you choose to embrace it or not. Instead of worrying myself with the petty squabbles of humanity, I'd rather spend my time asking big questions and trying my damndest to get answers...or at least something close, the answer must be in the attempt. We are not somehow independent from one another. Every action we make, every word we say, and every thought we think -- because thoughts leads to words and actions -- has an effect on someone else. Even if we do not think it does, or cannot immediately perceive the effect, it occurs nonetheless. People are happy or sad, not only because they make themselves happy or sad, but much more so because other people make then happy or sad. Happiness and sadness is not somehow separate from us. Suffering is not somehow separate from us. People suffer because we make them suffer. They suffer because we allow them to suffer. They suffer because we allow others to make the suffer. We're not separate from suffering and we shouldn't push it away. We should not turn our back to it either. We can take care of suffering. We can learn to help transform it. Being organic, hate and anger can always be turned into happiness, joy, and love. The opposite is also true, and many times our happiness and love turn into hate and anger. Because we didn't care for our happiness. We didn't know how to. And we don't know how to care for our anger, and we we bottle it up or push it away or use it to lash out. But if we know how to care for it, we can turn it back into happiness. We can see the happiness in our anger the moment it arises, and we can smile at it and care for the anger. When we know how to care for ourselves, we can care for those around us too. We effect their lives, and should try to live in a way that also helps them to care for their anger, and their hate, and their suffering. Knowing how to care for ourselves, we can turn to them and say, "My dear, I know you suffer so much. I can help you to care for your suffering. I can help to relive some of the pain." We should live in a way so that they do not suffer as much. And it is not just humans that suffer. We make our earth suffer much as well. We can also know how to care for the earth, to help heal it. Knowing how to care for ourselves, we can turn to the earth, smile, and say, "Don't worry earth, I know you are suffering. I can know how to care for you. I can help relieve some of your suffering." If we bottle up suffering, we become like a time bomb, ready to explode at any moment. Soon we become easily set off, and others do not want to be around us because even the smallest thing could cause us to explode, burning everyone around us. If we push suffering away, we have not accomplished anything. We might hit our pillow or punch the wall, and getting all that energy out we feel better and think our anger or suffering has left us. But really it has not. We have done nothing to take care of it, and have only helped it to grow. If we go get something to eat or drink to replenish our energy, we might find that our suffering soon returns, maybe stronger than it was before. But if we take care of our suffering, soon we will suffer much less. And we will know how to help care for the suffer of others. And we will be able to stand and smile at all the suffering in the world.

[Lucius]

I realise that we cannot 'change the world' sort to speak. As one person there is very little we can do about 'the entire world' but there is certainly something we can do. It starts at a very basic level (first you need to love yourself of course) which first and formost a smile and acceptance for all you encounter, and kindness for all you see. I personally always feel so much better when a complete stranger shows me his kindness, or when I feel warmth or a simple smile from them. Its like a child, smiling at you. And there are little tiny things we can do in this world. We can help others find more peace, comfort and happiness on a very small scale. And we can hope that a lot of more people will help others on a small scale, and what if they did? Then suddenly the impact becomes a lot bigger. We dont have to help entire nations, we cant. But we can help a small amount of people. (and like dreamscape said, not only people, everything whatever we encounter, be it animals or grey aliens =P if such exist) I think this love/compasion onitself is an answer, and a basic part of universal wisdom. When you truly realise that everybody has the equal right to be happy. I think you already know a whole lot. It may be very simple, yet its part of the answers we look for, I personally believe. I think whatever universal wisdom is out there, this is the simple basis of everything. Its funny, I believe that in theory we humans are capable of utopia. We have a planet capable of utopia, we have skills capable to form utopia. Of course Im not saying this is meant to be, and this idea is very subjective of course aswell. But you get my idea. I might have some more to say on this later on, not much time rightnow though.

[bradybaker]

And in 100 years we'll all be dead. Rotten and forgotten. I think I slightly overstated my point of view on this subject. I didn't mean to suggest that I completely reject the suffering of humanity and those around me. I was only illustrating that it is a tiny (rather insignificant) part of the cosmic picture. As I stated in another thread, humanity is the universe trying to figure itself out. So instead of focusing on our own selfish desires and personal problems, I'd rather take a shot at the big picture and see what I can hit.

[syzygy]

I can just feel the love for mankind radiate out of all your posts, bradybaker... Yes, we are the universe trying to figure itself out, and yes our struggling seems small, but that's where you are. But what seems small to you could be the biggest thing in the universe. We are the only ones we know of in the universe who are conscious of ourselves, so we've run into a little problem and we are trying to figure out. How do you fix a problem? You look beyond the situation to get a bigger perspective, but without forgetting the problem. But our problem is not just physical, it is also mental and spiritual, and every bit helps in this incredible long search for the truth about ourselves.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by bradybaker So instead of focusing on our own selfish desires and personal problems I am sorry to say, but you have failed to understand anything at all that I have said.

[bradybaker]

Disagreeing is not the same as failing to understand.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by bradybaker Disagreeing is not the same as failing to understand. It is when you are disagreeing with something that has not even been put forth.

[Yume]

Just stop for a second and think. Take one piece of paper and read both Lucius and dream-scape's posts. Write down all the simalarities. Next write down where their posts agree with each other. Next write where the posts disagree. Look at them. Can you see how they are alike? I was actually surprised to find that they were two separate posts. They are both saying the same thing. They are just wording it differently. Both Lucius and dream-scape want to achieve the same thing. The only problem is the miscommunication. If Lucius wrote his post the way dream-scape would have wrote it dream-scape would understand it and agree with it. It is human misunderstanding that is dissallowing people to see that they want the same thing. I agree with both them and also want to achieve the same thing as them. bradybaker I have found you to be the most negative person in this forum that I have met. I do not hate you and in fact I like you more because I know inside you do want to agree with us, but you have gone so far one way it is almost impossible for you to do that. You just need to slow down a minute and realize what we are saying. If you allowed us to post without automatically saying that is wrong then maybe you will see why we keep advocating our position. You say that you acknowledge that almost anything is possible, but through your posts you have failed to show that. By the way my post to your thread will be done in a few days.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape It is when you are disagreeing with something that has not even been put forth. I apologize, I should have clarified what I meant when I said \"selfish\". I would argue that any concern focused on ourselves, or members of our species is \"selfish\". It is a matter of trying to protect our genetic material, and ensure the future of our species. At first glance, this may seem anything but selfish. But upon closer examination, you may realize that each individual is a product of their own genetic material. In other words, a human being is nothing more than a vehicle to transport DNA through time and space. It is in the best interest of our genetic material to survive as long as possible, and to have other genetic material survive as long as possible. Genetic diversity is the key to natural selection, which in turn is the key to survival. So all of your wishes for the happiness of yourself and (apparently more importantly) of those around you, are in fact a product of the selfish desire programmed into your brain by a bunch of chromosomes. You are designed to care primarily for yourself and other members of your species. Selfishness is unavoidable in that respect. Your position is very understandable and respectable. Now, I'm not saying that this is all bad. Nor am I saying that I don't give two shits about humanity. I'm just saying that it might be interesting to try and be a part of something much, much, much bigger than yourself. I agree that suffering is a problem, and people should love each other, and everyone should get along like Care Bears....and all that jazz. But does a rock experience any of this? Does a cloud? Does a jellyfish? No. Just be wary about placing the problems of humanity at the centre of everything. There is no cure to suffering. Spending your life trying to alleviate it is an exercise in futility. Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div> I can just feel the love for mankind radiate out of all your posts, bradybaker...[/b] I do my best. Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div> Take one piece of paper and read both Lucius and dream-scape's posts. Write down all the simalarities. Next write down where their posts agree with each other. Next write where the posts disagree. Look at them. Can you see how they are alike? I was actually surprised to find that they were two separate posts.[/b] Who was claiming that they weren't alike? Originally posted by Yume bradybaker I have found you to be the most negative person in this forum that I have met. Too bad. Originally posted by Yume I do not hate you and in fact I like you more because I know inside you do want to agree with us, but you have gone so far one way it is almost impossible for you to do that. No, I definitely don't want to agree with you. Sorry. And quit trying to explain me within the confines of your distorted view of reality. Sorry...that was a bit negative. I take it back. <!--QuoteBegin-Yume@ You just need to slow down a minute and realize what we are saying. If you allowed us to post without automatically saying that is wrong then maybe you will see why we keep advocating our position. And vice versa. In your case, take a second or two out of your day, and ask yourself....is the Bible truth? <!--QuoteBegin-Yume By the way my post to your thread will be done in a few days. Splendid.

[tboothby]

What if you are a determinist?? Then why even think about this crap at all?? BRRRRR.... such a narrow scope of discusion.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div> It is a matter of trying to protect our genetic material, and ensure the future of our species. At first glance, this may seem anything but selfish. But upon closer examination, you may realize that each individual is a product of their own genetic material. In other words, a human being is nothing more than a vehicle to transport DNA through time and space.[/b] True, but also more than that. I am more than my genetic makeup. I am also a product of how my parent's raised me. They a product of how theirs raised them... and on. I am also a product of how other people treat me and behave towards me. And they a product of how others treated them... and on. This points to what I mentioned earlier, that we're not somehow independent from each other. We're not someone independent from this world. We're not someone independent from the universe. <!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker So all of your wishes for the happiness of yourself and (apparently more importantly) of those around you, are in fact a product of the selfish desire programmed into your brain by a bunch of chromosomes. As I pointed to just a moment ago, yes we are a product of our genetics, but also more than that. We're a product of so many things. Impact of environment cannot be separated from impact of genetics, and one is not really more or less influential than the other. Also the path I follow is not one built on desires. It is one designed to let go of desires. Realizing when they are present; knowing how they arise; seeing the causes; and realizing the path to cessation of those desires. Now, I'm not saying that this is all bad. Nor am I saying that I don't give two shits about humanity. I'm just saying that it might be interesting to try and be a part of something much, much, much bigger than yourself. I agree that suffering is a problem, and people should love each other, and everyone should get along like Care Bears....and all that jazz. But does a rock experience any of this? Does a cloud? Does a jellyfish? No.[/b] True in some respects depending on the thinking model; however, as I at least tried to allude to, I reject the dualistic thinking model. For those of us born & raised in the West, we are raised to think dualistically in virtually every respect, and so it can be especially difficult to grasp what someone is really saying when they are saying something that should not be interpreted using a dualistic model. This in particular is why we Westerners so often misunderstand Eastern thought, especially Eastern thought that also rejects dualistic thinking. (yes we can understand them, but at times we must abandon the comforts of what our mind is used to. Also, yes, dualistic thought in present in some Eastern thinking; however, non-dualistic thinking is much more prevalent in Eastern thinking than in Western thinking, traditionally speaking) But especially these 2 points, I am not thinking in any kind of model where these are of any relevance (bigger than yourself, etc..)... these arise from dualistic thinking, which I reject. Yes I use dualistic language because that is the only language I have (English). But there is no prevailing dualism behind the language. I think really in many ways, we are saying some of the same things, but it just seems to me that an artificial framework is being placed overtop of (or rather behind) what I wrote -- one that is not really there. Perhaps I did not explain well enough that the position I take is not a dualistic position, and when reading one should try not to artificially place a dualistic framework on it, though it is tough to do, I know. After studying Eastern philosophies for many years, believe me, I know how difficult it is to read something without using frameworks your mind is so used to. Good conversation so far Also, Yume, I think you have misread something maybe. I did not say or mean to say that Lucius was in disagreement with me. No, I think he and I are saying somewhat close to the same thing, most of the time.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by tboothby What if you are a determinist?? Then why even think about this crap at all?? BRRRRR.... such a narrow scope of discusion. If you believe everything is pre-determined, and also believe the following: 1. Pollution of our water supplies is what is supposed to happen, so I should help to pollute them 2. I was supposed to hurt my mother, so I will try to hurt her again 3. Genocide is ok, because it was meant to happen... maybe I will go take part then yes you are correct, and you probably would not even think or care about "this crap" However, even if you are a determinist and do not believe the above 3 things, there is plenty of room for discussion here.

[tboothby]

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream&#045;scape)</div> <!--QuoteBegin-tboothby What if you are a determinist?? Then why even think about this crap at all?? BRRRRR.... such a narrow scope of discusion. If you believe everything is pre-determined, and also believe the following: 1. Pollution of our water supplies is what is supposed to happen, so I should help to pollute them 2. I was supposed to hurt my mother, so I will try to hurt her again 3. Genocide is ok, because it was meant to happen... maybe I will go take part then yes you are correct, and you probably would not even think or care about \"this crap\" However, even if you are a determinist and do not believe the above 3 things, there is plenty of room for discussion here.[/b] ...determinism is not predestination...nor is it fatalism... all those examples were fatalistic or predestined... not deterministic. Deterinalism does not suppose that things should or are supposed to happen, only that if a set of causes are met that they will cause an impulse, such that cannot be avoided and is all together nessisary. To translate: 1. if you dump pollutants into water supplies they WILL become polluted. There is nothing you can do to change this fact. 2. You hurt your mother, therefore she experienced pain. There is nothing you can do about this fact. 3. Someone killed a lot of people, so they died. There is nothing you can do about this fact. Likewise the causes that made the impulses nessaisary in the three above exampled also had causes that had them nessisary. It has been supposed that if one knew the location and volocity of every piece of matter in the universe one could predict everything that will ever and has ever happened. This is from a physical stand point absolutly true... and from a practicle stand point, pretty pointless, because it is impossible to tell both the direction and volocity of a particle together at a given time. Never the less even though humans cannot do this it is still possible, and thus determinism roles on. Now if you wanna be a flip-flopper you will accept weak-determinism, but thats pretty pointless because weak-determists agree that determinism is true... but argue it is false "because they don't like it". Not like something does not make it false. It is a scientific imposibility that things happen spontaniously!!! and therefore it is essential that they happen from a cause and effect (aka deterministic point of view). Therefore if everything is determined by an effect... and that effect was caused by another effect and so on then there is no point worrying about you being happy, or your mom being happy, or world peace... because theres nothing you can do about it! YOU'RE SO HELPLESS!!!

[Yume]

Originally posted by dream-scape Also, Yume, I think you have misread something maybe. I did not say or mean to say that Lucius was in disagreement with me. No, I think he and I are saying somewhat close to the same thing, most of the time. Just because I said find places in their posts where they agree and disagree does not mean I think there are spots where you both are in disagreement. I just said to do that because it's always good to try and see if there is a point where you both may be in disagreement. I didn't see any, but someone else might.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by tboothby+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tboothby)</div> What if you are a determinist?? Then why even think about this crap at all?? BRRRRR.... such a narrow scope of discusion.[/b] I'm actually a determinist, but for the sake of this conversation, I'm putting that idea aside. Lack of free will really has little impact on day to day life, the illusion of free will is enough to permit such discussions as these. Originally posted by dream&#045;scape@ I am also a product of how my parent's raised me. They a product of how theirs raised them... and on. And what are they a product of? You guessed it. Welcome to the universe, one ginormous chemical reaction. <!--QuoteBegin-dream&#045;scape We're not someone independent from this world. We're not someone independent from the universe. Agreed. I'm not saying we're somehow seperate, we're just insignificant. I understand what you're saying about rejecting the dualist perspective, but think you are wrong in doing so. I'm having some trouble trying to put what I'm thinking into words... Let me start over...fundamentally, you're right. The dualist perspective is an artificial framework that we use to help us understand the world around us. I think we are basically saying the same thing, but you are speaking from a human point of view, while I reject consciousness and look purely at the physical. On the surface that seems like a contradiction I'm sure, because "you require consciousness to observe reality"....but that assumption is completely baseless. Wow, I'm confusing my self. Am I even on topic? Great discussion.

[tboothby]

Originally posted by bradybaker the illusion of free will is enough to permit such discussions as these. Dude... the illusion of free will is not enough to permit jack sh--. If you are a determinist then you would beleave that some action has caused that it is absolutly nessisary for you to have this discussion. Sounds like you are discribing weak-determinism... but if you have another explanation please do tell (I am not being sarcastic, I am actually really interested in determinalism and would love to hear more about your veiws on free will ect.)

[dream-scape]

To me, there is no practical difference between a "determinist" and a "pre-determinist" (or someone believing in pre-destination). Though one could argue for fundamental difference, they are different labels with slightly different methods for the same thing. I think this is a wrong view. Also I think "free will" is a wrong view. To me and my beliefs, this question is not one that need arise. That is all I will say for now on that. Originally posted by bradybaker Wow, I'm confusing my self. Am I even on topic? Great discussion. Strictly speaking there really is no on topic or off topic

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by tboothby+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tboothby)</div> (I am not being sarcastic, I am actually really interested in determinalism and would love to hear more about your veiws on free will ect.)[/b] This calls for a new thread. <!--QuoteBegin-dream&#045;scape Strictly speaking there really is no on topic or off topic I hope you have more to say than that.

[tboothby]

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div> Originally posted by tboothby@ (I am not being sarcastic, I am actually really interested in determinalism and would love to hear more about your veiws on free will ect.) This calls for a new thread. <!--QuoteBegin-dream&#045;scape Strictly speaking there really is no on topic or off topic I hope you have more to say than that.[/b] Did you make a new thread?

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by tboothby+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tboothby)</div> 1. if you dump pollutants into water supplies they WILL become polluted. There is nothing you can do to change this fact. 2. You hurt your mother, therefore she experienced pain. There is nothing you can do about this fact. 3. Someone killed a lot of people, so they died. There is nothing you can do about this fact.[/b] All of these deal with the past or future. I am neither interested in regretting the past or fretting over the future. I am interested in being and living in the present moment. 1. knowing dumping pollutants into water supplies causes water pollution, you refrain from doing so. 2. knowing hurting your mother causes her pain, living mindfully you refrain from doing so. If you have already caused her pain or do cause her pain, you live in a way to lessen her pain or cause her less pain. 3. knowing that people have killed countless people causing countless pain, you refrain from doing so. you refrain from supporting those who do. you refrain from speaking, thinking, acting, and living in ways that would advocate doing so. <!--QuoteBegin-tboothby Therefore if everything is determined by an effect... and that effect was caused by another effect and so on then there is no point worrying about you being happy, or your mom being happy, or world peace... because theres nothing you can do about it! YOU'RE SO HELPLESS!!! I also hold the view that nothing can arise free from conditions, away from cause & effect. However, I hold the "deterministic" view as a wrong view. If we were to view cause & effect visually, the view I hold is represented by a circle. I may be wrong, but it seems the view you hold would be represented by a chain.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by bradybaker I understand what you're saying about rejecting the dualist perspective, but think you are wrong in doing so. I'm having some trouble trying to put what I'm thinking into words... Maybe this will make my position a little more clear. I think there are basically 2 types of truth: 1. conventional truth 2. ultimate truth conventional truth being a truth conforming to the convention of the word. ultimate truth being what you probably think it means, ultimate truth, truth in reality, etc. When speaking conventional truth, it is sometimes necessary to speak in dualistic dichotomies. This is the convention of our (human) world; the convention of our language. I do not reject this. This is very necessary for communication... I, you, we, mountain, river, earth, universe, etc But a dualistic framework cannot be applied to ultimate truth. Often, I think, people confuse conventional truth for ultimate truth; or take a conventional truth as an ultimate truth. This is one of the reasons I reject dualistic thinking. I use it (and accept it) only to the extent and with the understanding that it can only directly convey conventional truth. I reject it to convey or attempt to convey ultimate truth. While it can point towards ultimate truth, it often causes confusion and can often lead one further from ultimate truth, or worse lead one to accept conventional truth as ultimate truth. Plus there are better ways of speaking -- using \"non-dualistic\" approaches -- if one wishes to point towards ultimate truth. I also hold the view that ultimate truth cannot be directly spoken. It can only be spoken about. The reason I do not reject non-dualistic frameworks when pointing to ultimate truth is because in my opinion, they tend to be less prone to confusion for ultimate truth, and tend to force one to attempt to abandon the comforts of their normal thinking methods, thus giving them a better chance of actually realizing what the ultimate truth that is attempting to be conveyed is. I hope that makes my position a bit more clear on rejecting dualistic frameworks you require consciousness to observe reality[/b] I also do not exactly hold this view. To experience reality -- or observe.. whatever we label it -- you require all of your aggregates that make "you"

[tboothby]

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream&#045;scape)</div> Originally posted by tboothby@ 1. if you dump pollutants into water supplies they WILL become polluted. There is nothing you can do to change this fact. 2. You hurt your mother, therefore she experienced pain. There is nothing you can do about this fact. 3. Someone killed a lot of people, so they died. There is nothing you can do about this fact. All of these deal with the past or future. I am neither interested in regretting the past or fretting over the future. I am interested in being and living in the present moment. 1. knowing dumping pollutants into water supplies causes water pollution, you refrain from doing so. 2. knowing hurting your mother causes her pain, living mindfully you refrain from doing so. If you have already caused her pain or do cause her pain, you live in a way to lessen her pain or cause her less pain. 3. knowing that people have killed countless people causing countless pain, you refrain from doing so. you refrain from supporting those who do. you refrain from speaking, thinking, acting, and living in ways that would advocate doing so. <!--QuoteBegin-tboothby Therefore if everything is determined by an effect... and that effect was caused by another effect and so on then there is no point worrying about you being happy, or your mom being happy, or world peace... because theres nothing you can do about it! YOU'RE SO HELPLESS!!! I also hold the view that nothing can arise free from conditions, away from cause & effect. However, I hold the \"deterministic\" view as a wrong view. If we were to view cause & effect visually, the view I hold is represented by a circle. I may be wrong, but it seems the view you hold would be represented by a chain.[/b] You can apply determinalism to any time frame, past, present or future. A determinalist would say that "knowing hurting your mother causes her pain" while nessisarily cause YOU to live mindfully (note: it could also effect you are another differently). In this sense a determinalist would say you really are helpless. Well a chain would be closer the mark then a circle... however determinalism cannot really be represented by a chain. Determinalism unlike fatalism does not say for sure that something will happen. It only says that if certain things happen other things will have to happen because of what has come before. Of course you are free to hold whatever view you want. I was merely inquiring (or pointing out) that the importance of things (eg: world peace) is not something that can be ranked, because everyone has a different take on life.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by tboothby Of course you are free to hold whatever view you want. I was merely inquiring (or pointing out) that the importance of things (eg: world peace) is not something that can be ranked, because everyone has a different take on life. If you think I was speaking of or for world peace, you have missed the boat and the river has dried up my friend.

[tboothby]

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream&#045;scape)</div> <!--QuoteBegin-tboothby Of course you are free to hold whatever view you want. I was merely inquiring (or pointing out) that the importance of things (eg: world peace) is not something that can be ranked, because everyone has a different take on life. If you think I was speaking of or for world peace, you have missed the boat and the river has dried up my friend.[/b] I didnt think that... I was giving an example... replace world peace with whatever you hold important.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by tboothby+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tboothby)</div> Originally posted by dream&#045;scape@ <!--QuoteBegin-tboothby Of course you are free to hold whatever view you want. I was merely inquiring (or pointing out) that the importance of things (eg: world peace) is not something that can be ranked, because everyone has a different take on life. If you think I was speaking of or for world peace, you have missed the boat and the river has dried up my friend. I didnt think that... I was giving an example... replace world peace with whatever you hold important.[/b] It was a lighthearted comment... relax a bit and listen to your breath