|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
|
|
Quote:
Ferdinando said: I will say for science that the mental weeds are very much something that is seen visually
and the mind has so many of them
they need ridding (ego loss (somewhat (or entirely )
what a relief and assistance it would be
and refreshment
in your meditation, you can identify mental objects fairly if you are not reacting against them.
you need relief from reacting to what you see as positive and negative, such that in meditation you are merely touching what arises and passes away gently and calmly sitting still breathing together with what arises and passes away.
this way each mental form does not get another association chain following it, digging it more deeply into the mass of cognition and memory.
resume the breathing.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Ferdinando


Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,678
|
|
rgv deserved more recognition than buddha
he is more advanced and general in meaningful and equally significant and more significant philosophy than buddha
buddha talked about how to attain nirvana
rgv talks about what is good
and bad
-------------------- with our love with our love we could save the world
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Dam...
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
|
|
it's absurd, to be expected
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Oh c'mon just take the complement!
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
|
|
take it where?
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Idk. Maybe to the Ego. Knock on his door, see if he's interested?
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said: What is the worse crime, to force good deeds by way of a third party or to refuse to offer good deeds to a third party in need?
Feels like the ends are in competition with the means.
The crime is to pretend that you are the lofty moral arbiter who could impose or fail to impose standards on another.
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
|
|
the game of arbitration allows players to moralize on a limited monopoly board - (roll) dice (and then) slice
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
|
|
Quote:
Ferdinando said: rgv deserved more recognition than buddha
he is more advanced and general in meaningful and equally significant and more significant philosophy than buddha
buddha talked about how to attain nirvana
rgv talks about what is good
and bad
Namaste - "I respect the buddha in you and appreciate the same", this is how I would translate it and say it; however, this is not a more or less kind of thing: We each have as much Buddha-Nature as any other among us, and making a big deal of it while singling any person out always leads to confusion.
My immediate ego reaction was confusion and distaste, since my habit is to sit on the side and make odd comments that can help with the flow. (what I see as the flow of science, morality, consciousness...)
It may be a flaw, but that's me, I will not be your buddha - I am too busy dealing with my own nonsense and noise.
Enjoy the hat.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
Edited by redgreenvines (09/19/20 09:27 AM)
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Yellow Pants said: What is the worse crime, to force good deeds by way of a third party or to refuse to offer good deeds to a third party in need?
Feels like the ends are in competition with the means.
The crime is to pretend that you are the lofty moral arbiter who could impose or fail to impose standards on another.
Then you might side with the Libertarian view that the lesser evil is neglect.
That's what I had in mind for this thread. The dispute between Progressive Statism and Libertarianism. The negative aspect to Progressive Statism is that you (The State) have to use force to take from the rich or the people in general but mostly the rich in order to serve the community or especially those people in need. In Libertarianism the negative aspect is that the rich or the well off people neglect the community and don't volunteer a fair share of the booty to the rest of the community or those people in need.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,247
|
|
I see a difference between being selfish and being self centered. In truth, there is little semantic difference between the two but one satisfies shared interests and one satisfies a self interest without regard for others.
Almost any case of altruism can be shown to benefit the self in some way.
In some cases a person does not see a self benefit to a particular action or the perceived cost is more than the perceived gain, and the action does not occur.
In some cases one must make compromises.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: Good Deeds [Re: Rahz]
#26944625 - 09/19/20 05:42 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said: Almost any case of altruism can be shown to benefit the self in some way.
If this is the case then we ought to be able to do away with The State totally.
But many would not buy this assertion. Or rather altruism simply is not tempting. Despite the personal benefits it may bring it doesn't hold allure especially to those who are out getting dat money and power. This may be the contradiction that effectively justifies the use of force to achieve social welfare.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
Quote:
Rahz said: Almost any case of altruism can be shown to benefit the self in some way.
If this is the case then we ought to be able to do away with The State totally.
But many would not buy this assertion. Or rather altruism simply is not tempting. Despite the personal benefits it may bring it doesn't hold allure especially to those who are out getting dat money and power. This may be the contradiction that effectively justifies the use of force to achieve social welfare.
Animals behavior is the result of mainly genetics and environment, and not of an external force with its own goal. So ants do what ants do (live for the hive) and chimps and baboons do what they do (a lot of hierarchical behavior). Us humans are very much like these 2 primates when it comes to behavior. Its not about to change because of some intellectual's political theories, like Karl Marx, or other theorizer.
Some 'altruism' is explained by other family members carrying the same genes, as explained by Dawkins.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=altruism+and+genes&t=hk&ia=web
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,247
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
Quote:
Rahz said: Almost any case of altruism can be shown to benefit the self in some way.
If this is the case then we ought to be able to do away with The State totally.
I'm not sure how you get to that. Altruism isn't common enough to do away with the state. Regarding the OP, it's a good question. I tend to think that the more force is used, the more push back there will be. People who do well probably tend to share, but they also like to have control over how they share. Maybe the least force necessary to maintain the status quo is the lesser crime? But as time goes by wealth amasses and more force is necessary. The receivers become dependent and resent it. The givers resent it. It falls apart eventually.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: Good Deeds [Re: Rahz]
#26949651 - 09/22/20 03:57 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said: I'm not sure how you get to that. Altruism isn't common enough to do away with the state. Regarding the OP, it's a good question. I tend to think that the more force is used, the more push back there will be. People who do well probably tend to share, but they also like to have control over how they share. Maybe the least force necessary to maintain the status quo is the lesser crime? But as time goes by wealth amasses and more force is necessary. The receivers become dependent and resent it. The givers resent it. It falls apart eventually.
I mean like if altruism benefits the self then giving especially amongst the wealthy should produce great personal benefits because they have so much to give. It is not common enough to do away with The State. But I wonder whether altruism would become more "hip" and "cool" if there wasn't a State. It is difficult for the wealthy to be altruistic when force is being used to take. The poor often don't have the luxury of discerning how their benefits are received. Whether it's through voluntary means or means that acquired the gifts through force. A certain degree of entitlement goes to people who work relatively hard yet don't amass much fruits.
Idk though it's fairly convoluted and no shortage of angles and perspectives to come at it analytically. Maybe the ends or simply the current status of things are all that matters. But I know that I prefer a gift that was genuine whether I am receiving or giving. This tends to slide me right wing in the scope of less government is more. Not the Fascism right wing.
Also, I think a question to ask is Why does wealth amass? Like you said more force then becomes necessary to spread it around. Evidently The Elite are not tempted by altruism enough. This has led me to examine the economy itself and its structure as a means of making things more level and balanced. The worker-coop must be right around the corner!
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,247
|
|
Perhaps the state produces the least amount of force at any given time? Or is that an unreasonable assumption?
Why wealth amasses is another difficult question. Seems like most sociological/economic questions are complicated. People are greedy and it takes money to make money (or at least makes it easier). Wealth amasses because it can, short version. Like political power, there's a pyramid. In a more communistic society, position is power, though money still get's made under the table.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: Good Deeds [Re: Rahz]
#26951026 - 09/23/20 12:54 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said: Perhaps the state produces the least amount of force at any given time? Or is that an unreasonable assumption?
I don't think speed limits should be enforceable. "35" ought to be a suggestion based on a subjective analysis of what a safe speed would be on a given stretch of road. This approach is attractive on many other levels.
It sacrifices safety for greater liberation and freedom. Yet some categories would be more difficult to let freedom prosper. Like legit violence. Or grand theft. Or severe social neglect. Imo the suffering would have to get extreme and consistent in order for force to become warranted. But fucking speed limits? I got picked up for going 32 in a 25 trap a few months ago. I said "Yes sir", "No sir" with complete submission.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
Quote:
Rahz said: Perhaps the state produces the least amount of force at any given time? Or is that an unreasonable assumption?
I don't think speed limits should be enforceable. "35" ought to be a suggestion based on a subjective analysis of what a safe speed would be on a given stretch of road. This approach is attractive on many other levels.
It sacrifices safety for greater liberation and freedom. Yet some categories would be more difficult to let freedom prosper. Like legit violence. Or grand theft. Or severe social neglect. Imo the suffering would have to get extreme and consistent in order for force to become warranted. But fucking speed limits? I got picked up for going 32 in a 25 trap a few months ago. I said "Yes sir", "No sir" with complete submission.
2 different things, a small town speed trap and the German AutoBahn with no speed limits. Also different are all sorts of different road conditions etc.
But I get that if your pissed, it all seems the same.
Getting a ticket for speeding, (also by no great amount, (but not getting, a ticket for having a glass of wine too many at a party, which wasn't noticeable ( but I knew), over a decade ago), caused me to abandon some useless rebellion & wise up. In any case the real penalty is not the fine, but what such events may do to one's insurance rates. And I think insurance works according to statistics & not what I may think is reasonable.
Edited by laughingdog (09/23/20 04:26 PM)
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Instead of regular, progressive testing and other safer driving insurances like mandatory car inspections we are given an exaggeration of police force and ludicrous speed limit restrictions. Garbage !
The statement can then be made that at least for the time being we are evidently concerned with a good response rather than pre-emptive measures. This could be a trend in other areas of society and not just driving culture.
For example if you (or me) sucks at driving then you should be tested accordingly and made to learn better driving habits. Instead, we wait for a terrible car crash that kills half a family where you were driving 5 under the speed limit and happened to wonder across the dividing line. The ambulance and police showed up quickly however to note the terrible situation.
Meanwhile competent drivers log endless miles of repressed and reduced speeds.
|
|