|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: The omnipotence of violence [Re: Thanatos10] 1
#23385315 - 06/26/16 07:38 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
We'll have to disagree on that point, my observations indicate near equal parts empathy and violence.
Speculating on the meaning of either is beyond the means of a mortal imo As it is, I'm not going to argue as to why anything expresses empathy, only that it does
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
Re: The omnipotence of violence [Re: Repertoire89] 1
#23385563 - 06/26/16 08:37 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Glad to see you still here and posting thoughtfully as always 
This reminds me heavily of the Buddhist tradition to which I was first introduced. To try and wrap it up succinctly, every being with which you come in contact (be it plant, animal, human, spirit/god) is a reflection of yourself. It is therefore noble to not cause further suffering because we all know that suffering sucks. IIRC, most devout Buddhists are vegetarian for this reason.
It was never discussed openly in my sangha, but I think taken to the logical conclusion, in some cases, "violence" would be permissable, if it were to decrease suffering. Say, euthanizing an individual who was in incurable and horrendous pain. I don't think that is "violent" in the same sense that most would consider that term, but the OP mentions killing, so it is a notable counterexample.
--------------------
full blown human
|
Thanatos10
Stranger


Registered: 01/19/15
Posts: 2,770
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
Repertoire89 said: We'll have to disagree on that point, my observations indicate near equal parts empathy and violence.
Speculating on the meaning of either is beyond the means of a mortal imo As it is, I'm not going to argue as to why anything expresses empathy, only that it does
It would seem so, because my observations show more violence than empathy.
-------------------- As lightless oblivion devours you, drown in the ever-blooming darkness.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
|
Quote:
Penelope_Tree said: Glad to see you still here and posting thoughtfully as always 
This reminds me heavily of the Buddhist tradition to which I was first introduced. To try and wrap it up succinctly, every being with which you come in contact (be it plant, animal, human, spirit/god) is a reflection of yourself. It is therefore noble to not cause further suffering because we all know that suffering sucks. IIRC, most devout Buddhists are vegetarian for this reason.
It was never discussed openly in my sangha, but I think taken to the logical conclusion, in some cases, "violence" would be permissable, if it were to decrease suffering. Say, euthanizing an individual who was in incurable and horrendous pain. I don't think that is "violent" in the same sense that most would consider that term, but the OP mentions killing, so it is a notable counterexample.
Hey you

I agree with that aspect of Hinduism / Buddhism, extending life and consciousness to all organisms, and the interconnection of life / consciousness. Both from logical deduction and OBE's which indicated as much
Finding a balance in regard to violence is difficult, especially considering where one draws their ethics, whether contrived from empathy + logic, spiritual experiences, or religion.
Sometimes I wonder if it matters at all, viewing all things as living and conscious, what difference is there between killing a man or a cow? Generally I think there is a difference.
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
|
I think killing isn't necessarily violent... Think of euthanasia vs murder. One is done without consent; the other is done with consent. There is definitely a difference there. Maybe that is what you are picking up on.
--------------------
full blown human
|
Snazz
Polymath



Registered: 11/24/15
Posts: 1,584
Loc: Canada
|
|
Yep. There are subtleties to the English language, and violence doesn't fit. Etymology:
Violare (latin) used in words like violate
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
|
Yet we're immersed in unconsenting violence, from the food we eat, to the microorganisms we unconsciously assimilate.
Consenting death is extremely rare
|
RJ Tubs 202


Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,016
Loc: USA
Last seen: 15 hours, 34 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Repertoire89 said:
To simply exist in this world is an act of aggression . . .
That lives come to an end is not "bad"
Change is not "bad"
Impermanence is not "bad"
Notice how humans deem the end of something as "bad", such as a relationship
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: The omnipotence of violence [Re: RJ Tubs 202]
#23406019 - 07/03/16 03:07 AM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Why assume that aggression is bad?
I agree with what you're saying in an overarching way, but not practically, from the perspective of an individual - being flayed is certainly a bad thing.
|
RJ Tubs 202


Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,016
Loc: USA
Last seen: 15 hours, 34 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Repertoire89 said:
Why assume that aggression is bad?
True
I spent the day yesterday with 3 Buddhist monks who don't eat meat. But they eat plants.
Not sure why some make a distinction. "I won't eat animals but will eat plants"
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
Re: The omnipotence of violence [Re: RJ Tubs 202]
#23407326 - 07/03/16 02:18 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RJ Tubs 202 said:
Quote:
Repertoire89 said:
Why assume that aggression is bad?
True
I spent the day yesterday with 3 Buddhist monks who don't eat meat. But they eat plants.
Not sure why some make a distinction. "I won't eat animals but will eat plants"
Did you ask them why? I'm sure they would have been open to having a conversation with you about it.
--------------------
full blown human
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: The omnipotence of violence [Re: RJ Tubs 202] 1
#23407426 - 07/03/16 02:47 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RJ Tubs 202 said: True
I spent the day yesterday with 3 Buddhist monks who don't eat meat. But they eat plants.
Not sure why some make a distinction. "I won't eat animals but will eat plants"
Generally I avoid eating meat, and keep my diet mostly vegan.
The reasoning in my case, is that while all life is sentient, more evolved lifeforms have more evolved consciousness. The more complex the mind, the more corners to be illuminated by feelings good or bad. Essentially I take the view that more intelligent life forms have a greater capacity to suffer, by being more aware of the subtleties of their pain and suffering.
That isn't to negate the pain of a plant, and does not extend between humans of more or less intelligence, the spectrum is broad. Not sure if it was a Tibetan Buddhist or Sant Mat practitioner who brought up this idea, but it makes sense to me.
|
Bozko
Thread Ruining Autist



Registered: 06/01/14
Posts: 596
Loc: USA PNW
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Has anyone here read Douglas Hofstadter? He wrote GEB.
His conclusion is that people usually attach the concept of a "soul" to anything with a sufficiently complex nervous system that it can perceive itself, and avoid damaging organisms which have these systems.
This interpretation of the world has interesting things to suggest about abortion, vegetarianism etc.
-------------------- ShadeOfDeepPurple said: I guess you don't get shamanism yet by the very fact that you describe a psychedelic as Mexican.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: The omnipotence of violence [Re: Bozko]
#23407452 - 07/03/16 02:55 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Not familiar with him, but that's a very similar idea to my last post.
The main difference is I don't believe anything can exist without being living, as the material world is an extension of consciousness. So the colors and lines one perceives, are projections of their mind, part of the mind, and technically themselves as much as an arm or a leg.
But the crux of the idea is the same as my last post (in practical terms, not literal): differentiating value between complex and simple organisms.
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
Re: The omnipotence of violence [Re: Bozko]
#23407465 - 07/03/16 03:01 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bozko said: Has anyone here read Douglas Hofstadter? He wrote GEB.
His conclusion is that people usually attach the concept of a "soul" to anything with a sufficiently complex nervous system that it can perceive itself, and avoid damaging organisms which have these systems.
This interpretation of the world has interesting things to suggest about abortion, vegetarianism etc.
Haven't read GEB yet, but it's been on my list for years.
I think, at least partially, this reasoning comes from the Sanskrit term Ātman, which means soul/breath/self. If one takes it literally that breath = soul, then it would make sense to ascribe a soul to being with a breath, like those who has a nervous system. Ergo, it would be undesirable to kill a breathing being.
--------------------
full blown human
|
|