|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18786518 - 09/01/13 06:49 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
K, peace.
Same to you.
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18786525 - 09/01/13 06:50 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- "Springs of water welling from the fire" "Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."
"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions." -Thich Nhat Hanh instant "Experience always goes beyond ideas"
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18786527 - 09/01/13 06:50 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think we could even say that sentience infers an independence from nature, bt I think ownership is more pointedly at the self, and not all sentient beings necessarily have a self or ownership. So it would be more general.
Edited by teknix (09/01/13 06:57 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18786681 - 09/01/13 07:34 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sse said:
Looks like trained behavior to me, and I don't have any reason to think different.
But if any animal were to display sentience, it would likey be chimps or bonobos, considering we evolved from a common ancestor.
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18786710 - 09/01/13 07:40 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
to experience true nature/reality, then you have to eliminate self. Otherwise your living the delusions of conditioned life; man or creature.
-------------------- "Springs of water welling from the fire" "Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."
"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions." -Thich Nhat Hanh instant "Experience always goes beyond ideas"
Edited by Sse (09/01/13 07:41 PM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18786719 - 09/01/13 07:42 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Don't agree at all. There is no false nature. You just made that up.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18786721 - 09/01/13 07:42 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I did hehehe
-------------------- "Springs of water welling from the fire" "Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."
"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions." -Thich Nhat Hanh instant "Experience always goes beyond ideas"
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18786727 - 09/01/13 07:45 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
but not entirely. I guess I should have put Buddha nature/enlightenment, which is suppose to be what is really going on, the truth I guess. True nature as opposed to conditioned nature
-------------------- "Springs of water welling from the fire" "Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."
"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions." -Thich Nhat Hanh instant "Experience always goes beyond ideas"
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18786741 - 09/01/13 07:49 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
which is suppose to be what is really going on, the truth I guess. True nature as opposed to conditioned nature
"Supposed" to being the operative word. I wouldn't be surprised at all if evolution and nature as it appears is what is really going on. The problem with this buddha nature shit is that I don't see any material evidence of it but rather a lot of talk. On the other hand I can every day see humans and animals etc. acting exactly how they evolved to act.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18786755 - 09/01/13 07:53 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
seems like you can't avoid some conditioned behavior though, just your relation to it
"Supposed" to being the operative word. I wouldn't be surprised at all if evolution and nature as it appears is what is really going on. The problem with this buddha nature shit is that I don't see any material evidence of it but rather a lot of talk. On the other hand I can every day see humans and animals etc. acting exactly how they evolved to act"
Right, no way to ever know without experience, which could be just as delusional. I'm currently not willing to put myself through that much meditation. I figure if it is real I'll let my next life deal with it, or the infinity after that... could be screwing myself but I'm ok with eyes open meditation for this one :p
-------------------- "Springs of water welling from the fire" "Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."
"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions." -Thich Nhat Hanh instant "Experience always goes beyond ideas"
Edited by Sse (09/01/13 08:04 PM)
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18786769 - 09/01/13 07:55 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
A lot of value in dissolving conditioned responses anyhow whatever the end result may be.
That post was inspired by OP's thoughts. If sentience may have a self and that self is unnatural and self is conditioned/delusional(in a sense) then the opposite would be eliminating the self equaling true nature. Which equals according to some enlightenment, then Buddha nature I guess is the only true form of nature. Without a self.
-------------------- "Springs of water welling from the fire" "Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."
"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions." -Thich Nhat Hanh instant "Experience always goes beyond ideas"
Edited by Sse (09/01/13 08:03 PM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18786794 - 09/01/13 08:03 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sse said: seems like you can't avoid some conditioned behavior though, just your relation to it
"Supposed" to being the operative word. I wouldn't be surprised at all if evolution and nature as it appears is what is really going on. The problem with this buddha nature shit is that I don't see any material evidence of it but rather a lot of talk. On the other hand I can every day see humans and animals etc. acting exactly how they evolved to act"
Right, no way to ever know without experience, which could be just as delusional. I'm currently not willing to put myself through that much meditation. I figure if it is real I'll let my next life deal with it, or the infinity after that... could be screwing myself but I'm ok with waking meditation for this one :p
A good policy imo The middle path would dictate a little of both. Enjoy the few moments in the sun you are given. It's over so fucking fast. You'll wake up one day like I have and see the race has been run, your best days are behind and you didn't even place. Your results may vary.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
Edited by Icelander (09/01/13 08:04 PM)
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18786818 - 09/01/13 08:11 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Amen I already feel that way. Can't spend my days constantly sitting in one spot, searching for something that may or may not be real. Though I'm sure it has a lot of benefits. I guess I could do with some meditation in my life but I figure I am in no hurry to get to that stage. If rebirth/karma is true then I figure it will work itself out.
-------------------- "Springs of water welling from the fire" "Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."
"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions." -Thich Nhat Hanh instant "Experience always goes beyond ideas"
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18789397 - 09/02/13 11:59 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Look, I'm not going to argue with you about the legitimacy of your analogy anymore after this, I'm simply going to ignore it because you are objectively WRONG! .... The property we are looking for is Natural, or of nature. According to the definition provided.
Remember when I said that it isn't my fault that you can't keep track of what the analogy was for? Well, maybe you should have paid more attention to it. 
Do you know what the difference is between providing the definition of a false analogy and demonstrating that an analogy is false? I don't think so, and today I'll give you a two-fer - I'll show you how to demonstrate that an analogy is false while pointing out why exactly my analogy was apt.
In today's lesson, I'll use material that you provided on what an analogy is and what falsifies an analogy. 
The pertinent parts:
Quote:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Quote:
Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy: The relevance of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.
And, just for good measure...
Quote:
One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness.
As reading comprehension dictates, in order to show that it's actually a false analogy, one must demonstrate that the two objects of comparison do not actually share the purported similarity upon which the conclusion the analogy draws is based. Clearly, it is useless to identify differences that aren't actually pertinent to the alleged similarity upon which the analogy is based. If I say that dogs and cats are analogical to each other in that they both share the trait of having paws, it obviously is irrelevant to try to disprove this analogy by suggesting that dogs are pack animals. In order to label it a false analogy, one must exhibit that dogs and cats do not share this particular trait.
This is the jist of what the information teknix has provided.
So, let's use the analogy that I constructed that has been criticized by him as being objectively wrong.
I suggested that saying humans do not actually own things because they are composed of atoms, which they themselves cannot be described as owning those things is like saying that a corporation doesn't actually own anything because they are composed of employees, which they themselves cannot be described as owning those things, the conclusion being that the fact that the smaller unit that makes up each particular organism doesn't exhibit ownership doesn't disprove the fact that the organism itself does exhibit ownership.
So, how would one go about disproving this analogy? The pertinent similarities are that both a human being and a corporation are organisms that exhibit ownership and which consist of a smaller unit which, on their own, do not exhibit that said ownership. So, in order to successfully categorize this analogy as false, one would have to demonstrate that these similarities aren't actually shared by both objects of comparison, the human being and the corporation.
The fact that corporations don't have either independent thoughts or DNA? Absolutely irrelevant. The incorrect notion that employees are independent of corporations whereas atoms aren't independent of the body? Absolutely irrelevant. The suggestion that corporations aren't natural? Absolutely irrelevant. 
See, like I told you in my last response, and like I repeated at the beginning of this post, it isn't my fault if you got confused on the matter of what specifically the analogy was in response to.
Whether or not a corporation is "natural" means nothing when the analogy wasn't being used to portend that ownership was natural. That was an altogether different part of the discussion, for which I advanced a completely different set of argument. The analogy, in fact, was to debunk your reductionism fallacy, that suggested that the fact that atoms do not exhibit ownership means that humans themselves do not actually own anything.
So, essentially, when you hereby refrain from further comments about the legitimacy of my analogy, we'll know that it isn't because it was objectively wrong, but rather because you don't have the means of demonstrating that it was a false analogy.  I have the impression that this is a similar motivation to the one that stood behind your absence of response to every single other point of contention that was raised between us in this thread.
With that, I'll once more reiterate that ownership is a natural phenomenon in the same measure that a waterfall is a natural phenomenon.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
LittileSkierDude
Wandering Soul



Registered: 03/15/11
Posts: 247
Loc: Behind You
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18789780 - 09/02/13 12:54 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
to teknix
Quote:
LittileSkierDude said: I'm not really sure how anything could ever be considered unnatural. Everything comes from nature and natural things, so doesn't that make everything natural?
explain to me the flaw in my logic. the last time I posted this you replied questioning my understanding of nature and ownership. I waited 12 pages and you have yet to actually say or explain how anything could be considered unnatural. if honey made by a bee is natural, then I don't see how you could say any different about a table made by a man.
|
Rool Kat
Rutabga


Registered: 05/29/12
Posts: 526
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
|
|
For not particular reason, it occurs to me to relate what I recently heard about NSA's latest debacle.
It seem that they were doing research on AI, and while using the well known "Eliza" program from the early seventies, decided to create an Artificial Stupidity Virus somewhat along the conversational model that Eliza used.
Somehow, perhaps the same way that the famous STUXNET "escaped" into the wild, this virus also escaped into the wild. Unfortunately, although the Artificial Stupidity module was complete, the module that would make the output of that module appear to make sense if not examined closely, was unfinished.
However, I put no credence into the rumors I've recently heard around here, that this forum has been infected by that virus. Nope, none whatever. Highly unlikely.
Nothing artificial happening here folks, move along now, nothing to see...
However. The matter of Buddha nature has been raised.
A student came to his master and asked, "Master, I am told that dogs have Buddha nature, so I ask, do I also have buddha nature?"
The master replied, "It is true that all things have buddha nature, dogs have buddha nature, trees have buddha nature, even rocks have buddha nature,.
But you, you do not have buddha nature.
And now, for something completely different:
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912) received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served Tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he could no longer restrain himself. "it is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rool Kat]
#18789974 - 09/02/13 01:37 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I suggested that saying humans do not actually own things because they are composed of atoms, which they themselves cannot be described as owning those things is like saying that a corporation doesn't actually own anything because they are composed of employees, which they themselves cannot be described as owning those things, the conclusion being that the fact that the smaller unit that makes up each particular organism doesn't exhibit ownership doesn't disprove the fact that the organism itself does exhibit ownership.
So, you're right then, corporations don't actually own things, it is the people and their idea's that are doing the owning . . .
Legally, a corporation can own things, but not in actuality.
If you think legality is the basis for objective truth you have a lot to learn.
Again, the question is whether or not it is natural. Is a corporation natural?
Is ownership a property of nature (p) ?
In which the answer is a resounding NO!
Edited by teknix (09/02/13 01:44 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rool Kat]
#18789988 - 09/02/13 01:41 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rool Kat said:
However. The matter of Buddha nature has been raised.
A student came to his master and asked, "Master, I am told that dogs have Buddha nature, so I ask, do I also have buddha nature?"
The master replied, "It is true that all things have buddha nature, dogs have buddha nature, trees have buddha nature, even rocks have buddha nature,.
But you, you do not have buddha nature.
Link pls.
Quote:
he Japanese and Korean term mu (Japanese: η‘; Korean: 무) or Chinese wu (traditional Chinese: η‘; simplified Chinese: ζ ) meaning "not have; without" is a keyword in Buddhism, especially the Chan and Zen traditions.
A monk asked Zhaozhou Congshen, a Chinese Zen master (known as JΕshΕ« in Japanese), "Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?" Zhaozhou answered, "WΓΊ" (in Japanese, Mu) [11]
A monk asked, "Does a dog have a Buddha-nature or not?" The master said, "Not [Mu]!" The monk said, "Above to all the Buddhas, below to the crawling bugs, all have Buddha-nature. Why is it that the dog has not?" The master said, "Because he has the nature of karmic delusions".
A monk asked Master Joshu, "Does a dog have Buddha Nature?" Joshu replied, "Yes." And then the monk said, "Since it has, how did it get into that bag of skin?" Joshu said, "Because knowingly, he purposefully offends."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)
Quote:
"Unasking" the question
The term is often used or translated to mean that the question itself must be "unasked": no answer can exist in the terms provided. Zhaozhou's answer, which literally means that dogs do not have Buddha nature, has been interpreted by Robert Pirsig and Douglas Hofstadter to mean that such categorical thinking is a delusion, that yes and no are both right and wrong. In Robert M. Pirsig's 1974 novel Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, mu is translated as "no thing", saying that it meant "unask the question". He offered the example of a computer circuit using the binary numeral system, in effect using mu to represent high impedance: For example, it's stated over and over again that computer circuits exhibit only two states, a voltage for "one" and a voltage for "zero." That's silly! Any computer-electronics technician knows otherwise. Try to find a voltage representing one or zero when the power is off! The circuits are in a mu state.[20]
So I take it that you are implying that you are that Eliza program meant to reign down misinformation on the shroomery?
-------------------- .6th and 7th sense theory .Now is forever. .ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±Theο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±Unseenο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± is seenο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± by the blindο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± eye.ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±.When the inevitable time comes, go with your head held high,without regret or remorse, in your subconscious mind. ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±
Edited by teknix (09/02/13 01:47 PM)
|
kennedy


Registered: 02/11/09
Posts: 432
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18790325 - 09/02/13 02:53 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Are you trying to get at more than a distinction? Are you implying that because ownership is a conceptual invention of man and apparently nature-independent it is morally wrong, or what? I don't agree with the idea in the first place, but I want to know what the follow up is.
|
Rool Kat
Rutabga


Registered: 05/29/12
Posts: 526
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18790439 - 09/02/13 03:22 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So I take it that you are implying that you are that Eliza program meant to reign down misinformation on the shroomery?
I have already answered your question.
I am not amazed that you have badly misinterpreted what I said.
Nor am I at all surprised that you have missed the point entirely, despite the fact that I deliberately expressed it clearly in three different ways.
But I am surprised that you would admit the fact.
I will, however suggest that you re-read my first post in this thread for a clue to the point. I'm relatively sure that you won't; but you did ask and to leave you to remain in ignorance without such a clue, would be impolite.
And this, you would benefit greatly if you would reread that first post and meditate on the question you asked.
I'm relatively sure that won't happen either, but it would be a wonderful thing (for you) if you did.
My participation in this thread ends here. My PM function, still does. You're welcome, in advance.
|
|