Random Spiritual Thoughts

Lhasa rules don't apply here. Click this link, and catch a breath of the fresh air of psychic freedom from Buddhist authority. If you haven't tried breathing outside the sterile domain of orthodoxy, step inside. It'll clear your head and free your mind.
Tara
Site Admin
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:07 am

Re: Random Spiritual Thoughts

Post by Tara » Sun Jul 05, 2020 8:42 pm

If you think about it in terms of our unique human evolution, where we became real humans only about 100,000 years ago during the ice age, exhibiting a remarkable transformation from animal to human unparalleled in natural history, it makes sense that our thoughts appear to be illusory. I am not going to argue that compared, for example, to our autonomic system of breathing, that our thoughts are substantial and real. But that doesn’t mean that these coming and going thoughts are not important. They have made us who we are as humans; they have separated us from the animal; they have taken us away from the crude necessities of the physical and given us the luxury of being naked AND smooth. Thoughts have created the human realm as we know it in its entirety, so let’s not be stupid and annoying Buddhists, and insist that our thoughts are nothing but illusions. It makes sense that considering how recent thoughts are in this world in terms of evolutionary time, that they would hardly have had time to enter the biological picture and thereby become as obvious as an arm or a leg or a heart.

So we have developed our thoughts and emotions to the point where we FEEL and experience everything very acutely –- all you have to do is poke us and we feel pain -- and presumably based upon these acutely sensitive sensory abilities we take action to make things as comfortable as possible for all of us. But we haven’t developed to that point, yet, as is more than obvious, where we have become morally responsible for our unique and miraculous sensory and mental development. And that process has also been interdicted by the organization of society into nations, who pattern a selfish, sadistic, pecuniary interest, against the non-suffering interests of humankind. And add to that religions who pattern abandonment of all worldly interests.

Thus, humanity is facing a severe moral problem: our suffering is acute and there is no relief. We are advanced enough to FEEL every pain and sorrow as if it pierced our very heart, but not advanced enough to know how to diminish this pain to a level where life on this planet can be tolerable.

And that is my argument for terminating the human race experiment.

This is my greatest wish: that each and every one of us would go out and bravely advocate for the end of birth, and the hoped-for termination of the human race within 100 years. Who can argue against the suffering of human existence? People who disseminate the idea that the world is basically good, that humans have basic goodness, are in reality completely immoral human beings, and perpetuating the pain of humanity. Who can even stand to go out and see the suffering homeless on the hot summer streets? Who can even imagine the pain people are going through from being sick, broke, hungry, homeless, and jobless? And that's what goes on in the rich countries! What goes on in the poor countries, like Yemen, Africa in general, the middle-east, and in authoritarian dictatorships, should absolutely make us all fall to the ground weeping and wailing and gnashing our teeth.

There will never be happiness in this world as long as one person is suffering. And since we don’t have the political and moral will, and probably also the thought abilities, to stop our collective suffering right this instant, our suffering itself is the supreme moral reason to end the human experiment. At the end of 100 years, no one should ever suffer again.

And it's only making the situation worse when people advocate stopping all thoughts, or "realizing" their insubstantiality.

Do you want to be a "Buddhist" who perpetuates suffering? Then argue that thoughts are illusory, the very thoughts that could save us.

Tara
Site Admin
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:07 am

Re: Random Spiritual Thoughts

Post by Tara » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:45 pm

How crazy do you have to be to attack our thinking processes? It seems plain on its face that those Men who did so in the past were attempting to make us their slaves. What a surprise! Men on huge power trips trying to control everyone to assert the superiority of their own egos. And as usual, I'm sure the people were faced with the choice of either believe or die! Ashoka. What an asshole!

I noticed about 20 years ago that all of our supposed "heroes" and "leaders" were fascist assholes. That's when I started fighting with my husband about each and every one of them, taking them down one at a time, while he screamed bloody murder: Aldous Huxley, Timothy Leary, Stan Grof, Alan Watts, the Tibetan, Chinese, and Japanese saints, all of his heroes tainted by fascist ideology and women-hatred.

Black people see the same problem, as all over America, and all over the world, we have elevated racist ideologues for centuries, to where a Black person can't go outside without getting killed. Can't stay inside either without getting killed. Can't exist on the planet without getting killed.

And I hold a real bad grudge against Theosophy, the people who say they aren't racists, but they absolutely are. What do you think all that race ideology is about, idiots? "Oh, it's spiritual." So, what's the difference?

But standing behind the Theosophists are the Rosicrucians, the biggest, baddest people who ever lived. They are behind every revolution that ever happened in the world. They are masters of murder and mysticism. The inventors of terrorism.

Admin
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:56 am

Re: Random Spiritual Thoughts

Post by Admin » Tue Sep 01, 2020 1:57 am

Tara wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 9:36 pm
I don't see why we can't consider this a personal matter, and leave it to our own musings and wonderings, while in real life, we concern ourselves with real life things.
The Line Between Public Reality and Private Belief

That is precisely the demarcation point where we need to take notice that we are leaving the world of "shared meanings," and entering into the realm of "unconfirmed hypotheses," or even "un-confirmable hypotheses," that we can believe, but cannot prove. When I say "prove," I mean "prove to the satisfaction of an objective viewer who does not share our disposition to believe an unprovable thing."

Some will say that no one should indulge in un-confirmable beliefs, but it runs counter to a deep inclination that most people seem to have, to turn their ideas into a version of reality. The next inclination is to find someone who shares those beliefs, so they can enter into the shared version of reality.

Sharing Perceived Realities Based on Shared Language

We can share "preceived realities" based on shared languages. Music, for example, is a shared language that musicians use to create realities built on rhythm, melody, harmony, and silence. We can share those experiences more richly when we understand the methods that the musicians are using, either intuitively, because musical can "speak to us directly," or expressly, because we can learn to sing, read musical notation and play instruments using the established set of twelve half-tones that can be structured into all of the popular "musical scales." However, cultural language differences in upbringing dispose some of us to hear music from other cultures as dangerous, weird, or stupid, as in "colored music will cause young people to lose their inhibitions and engage in loose sex," or "we were plagued by a dissonant Asian melody," or "heavy metal is a joke."

Marshall McLuhan argues that we submit to a reality as soon as we accept a message, in any medium. His concept, "the medium is the message," is easily understood with the help of the right question: "What's more important, watching TV, or watching a particular show?" Obviously, for TV watchers, the content is secondary. They'll switch channels until they find something. The important thing is to continue the experience of consuming media. Call it addictive, but for most TV-watchers, the addiction is as invisible as the water a fish is swimming in. They do not realize, or care, that they have outsourced the process of thinking, feeling, seeing, hearing, and conceiving their world to teams of video creators who are focused on a commercial mission -- keeping viewers watching.

Implicit Limitations in All Languages

Every language has implicit limitations. If we're going to talk numbers, we can speak of integers, both odd and even, square roots, prime numbers, imaginary numbers, polynomials, quadratics, calculus, and whatever lies beyond that in the same vein. We cannot speak of other things, however. We can model what we see and observe with numbers, describing relationship of all types -- speed, distance, weight, elapsed time, luminosity, vibrational spectra, quantum valences -- but ultimately all of that speech is in numbers. When mathematical modeling is translated into English, the result is a further approximation of an approximation. You cannot speak mathematics, as the gifted Prof. Arvid Lonseth once told me, until you have "collided with an equation."

Euclid's postulates of plane geometry are a good example of why definitions must come first in any logical structure:
  • The Point: A point is that which has position but not dimensions.
  • The Line: A line is length without breadth.
  • The Plane: A surface is that which has length and breadth.
Here, in three statements, a three-dimensional definition of space is presented. The definitions build upon each other, each one providing a definition that is useful in presenting the next definition. The definitions work because they identify three categories of form with exclusive descriptions. Of course, these descriptions do not correspond perfectly to reality, where we find no absolute points, perfectly straight lines, or perfectly flat surfaces. But they are coherent, comprehensible, and when allowances are made for the roughness of our physical world, turn out to be very useful for calculating all manner of relationships.

The Language of Science

The language of science actually is a sort of Swiss army knife. It applies several other human languages to define perceived reality. The most basic tenet of the scientific language is that only publicly observable facts will be admitted as valid observations. If the scientists falls asleep while he is supposed to be counting bugs, but dreams he is counting bugs while asleep, and enters the dream number into his observations, he is cheating. While he might be right about the number of bugs available for counting, he's likely wrong, and a comparison with the counts of others working in the same field may prove him false. Thus, scientists are supposed to keep each other honest, by cross-checking each other's work, and no one can cross-check work with anything but publicly observable facts.

So now we come back to our inclination to believe things that can't be publicly observed. So long as they're wearing their lab coats, scientists are, supposedly, not permitted such indulgences. But this too is a myth. Without "inductive and abductive reasoning," that infer conclusions from incomplete evidence, we could not formulate testable hypotheses:
Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. Basically, there is data, then conclusions are drawn from the data. *** An example of inductive logic is, "The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. That coin is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies."

Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations [and is] is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.

Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning
Use the Right Language for the Job

So how we think may depend on the job we have to accomplish. If we want to build a dam, we'll need lots of numbers. We'll need to know the height of the dam, the width of the stream, the swiftness with which it's flowing, and a great many other facts that can only be accurately described using mathematical language.

If we want to determine whether the dam should be placed in one place or another, we need to talk to people about what will get drowned by the lake we're creating, and we need to talk to people who live there, who can tell us what we'll be losing, and some of that may be scientific -- wildlife statistics and food production and demographics -- but a lot of it should be human factors -- how people feel about having this lake there, who will be hurt, who will benefit? Some of those human factors will not be "publicly verifiable," but they are still important. For example, assume your proposed dam will drown an ancient native pilgrimage destination. Although the pilgrimage destination may seem important only as a place native people want to go, as human beings with respect for other humans, we should give their desires serious weight in the decision to build a dam in that location. We may need to listen to their unverifiable beliefs about the dreamtime and the ancestors, and give them greater weight than "science" compels. Dawkins might scoff, but decency compels respect.

Limits on Our Right to Believe

I don't know if anyone can live without un-confirmable beliefs. Nor do I know whether it would be entirely desirable to be free of certain beliefs. I think it's rather unlikely that any individual can weed their intellectual garden so effectively that only publicly confirmable facts reside there. Even making a serious effort to do that could get out of hand, and generate an intellectual climate of sterility and premature judgment of imaginative notions that might prove productive. It might lead to a smug, Dawkins-style damnation of those heretics who insist on "believing the unprovable" to the hell of "unscientific thinking."

I think Dawkins goes too far. What is damnable is unthinking advocacy of beliefs that:
  • affect our shared physical reality, and
  • do not stand the test of public verifiability.
It has been said that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Similarly, your right to believe in the unprovable ends where your beliefs begin to affect my reality. If, like Chogyam Trungpa, your tell a disciple like Thomas Rich that he is so blessed that even his HIV-tainted bodily fluids will not cause sickness in others, then your words are criminal lies that should lead to imprisonment. If a PR flack for oil companies, or drug companies, or the Government, tells us that toxins in our environment are really no problem, those are more counter-factual tales that need to exposed and punished. And when fools who will substitute faith for knowledge in matters of fact reach for power, their hands should be slapped, and we should all say: "This is no place for imagination. We need real solutions. Sit down and let those of us who are talking about reality take control of this conversation. Because fantasy isn't going to solve our problems."

Post Reply