So you’re enlightened.

[Nordicvs]

I doubt I'd admit being "enlightened" until (a) I was sure I were just about to die and (b) it was in fact the case.

Actually, it would suit me better in old age---sitting and doing nothing but thinking, flat-lining in terms of emotions and passion...this doesn't strike me as a way I'd want to be right now.

Frankly, some modern "enlightened" people that I have come across (at least, they considered themselves enlightened) struck me as somewhat left brained still; too logical, analytical, organizing; confusing talent for genius, misconstruing reading for wisdom and euphoria for Zen.

Or maybe I just have different ideas of enlightenment (an enlightened person would be more right brained, masculine, spiritual---someone who does things as well as thinking about things; someone with a brilliant philosophy which he lives rather than merely talks about; someone who lives with very little, virtually nothing, has no wants, has no master or deity he worships, and is in close proximity to nature; someone who can arrive at something intuitively the same way he could arrive at it logically; and so on).

Huh. According to that, no one's enlightened...

[Dan Rowden]

Actually, it would suit me better in old age---sitting and doing nothing but thinking, flat-lining in terms of emotions and passion...this doesn't strike me as a way I'd want to be right now.

It doesn't strike me as being what enlightenment is remotely like either.

[Katy]

Wise person: spontaneously consistent, rational, calm, carefree yet purposeful, non-attached, magnanimous yet judgemental, logical rather than moralistic, has no concern for love and happiness, desireless, mechanical, individualistic, unherdly, unfashionable, realistic, ghostlike.

Nordicvs wrote:
Actually, it would suit me better in old age---sitting and doing nothing but thinking, flat-lining in terms of emotions and passion...this doesn't strike me as a way I'd want to be right now.


It doesn't strike me as being what enlightenment is remotely like either.

So, how does this work? The two seem somewhat contradictory...

Is it that there is no concern for whether one is happy, but one still is happy? - that one feels emotion, but it doesn't matter? Or are you saying that passion can exist without emotions if it is a rational passion? (is that even possible?)

[tooyi]

Nordicvs,

What you are thinking is Arete. Can you trace that from ancient Greece into its soon homosocialized caricature of today? (Mr. Bond, I presume.) Arete is a sort of Magic the Gathering pack of rule-of-thumb enlightenment cards. Can you tell, why it would suck if Achilles was... you know, perfect?

[clyde]

Dan;

I thought I was clear,

My question was not about the process, but how you discern the behavior of an enlightened human being from the behavior of an ignorant (unenlightened) human being; i.e., what characteristics of the behavior (not the human being) would discriminate ignorant behavior from non-ignorant behavior. For example, what behaviors would you ascribe to an enlightened human being and what behaviors would you ascribe to an ignorant (unenlightened) human being? [emphasis added]

While ignorant (unenlightened) human beings may have difficulty distinguishing between the two, I was asking about how you, as an enlightened human being, distinguish between the two. And your answer appears to be lists of characteristics to distinguish between ignorant (unenlightened) human beings and enlightened human beings. Your reply (& Kevin’s essay), though worthy, did not address my question.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[Nordicvs]

It doesn't strike me as being what enlightenment is remotely like either.

Aye---but Katy brought up an interesting point.

Actually, her second point intrigues me more...

Is it that there is no concern for whether one is happy, but one still is happy? - that one feels emotion, but it doesn't matter? Or are you saying that passion can exist without emotions if it is a rational passion? (is that even possible?)

In my experiences, happiness seeking (like "chasing the dragon"---an addictive behaviour) is primarily a female goal, or feminine want---and I have yet to meet an enlightened female, in any respect (I've met a few and have read stuff from some others with great potential, though---I don't claim to be enlightened, obviously, but I have more than enough perception to recognize potential); I haven't met very many men, either, but there are plenty throughout history. As for women, 'peace pilgrim' might be one of the few I'd say were definitely enlightened and spiritual, as well.

Anyway, "happiness" is a nice fluffy little word that means absolutely nothing---literally, it's a hole you fill with crap, like an alcoholic in a bottle, to keep you from feeling "bad" or unhappy (again, and again, and again).

Really, though, what the hell is "happiness?" (I've seen it defined as "an extended period of joy"---wow, like jerking off all day ...sounds like a great waste of time, and frankly, I have more important things to do than sit and grin all day like an egg-sucking monkey...there's morphine if I really want that.) An emotion? A series of them? A chemical buzz in your head and not an emotion at all?

Have you ever met a "happy" person? I have, in bars, in comedy clubs, snorting white lines, eating chocolate, having sex. And the "happiness" always wears off, leaving them down and unhappy...junkies coming down.

If you are non-happy, there is no unhappiness or need for happiness, which is an illusion. I'd say I'm non-happy---my overall emotional state is irrelevant to me. I have loads of humour and passion in my life, but I seek nothing much (well, I keep my addictions down to air, water, food, and cigarettes), materially anyway. In youth I was into the unhappy-happy trap, and never again. Not that unhappiness is unpleasant (I mean, I know how great suffering can be for the mind and spirit, so I didn't avoid unhappiness because of unpleasantness, which doesn't bother me). It's an addiction, and I've had enough of those to know where they end up---quick fixes and meaninglessness.

I'd say that trying to "find" happiness---whatever that really means or if it really exists as an emotion---is another type of addiction. So, I think that experiencing a sudden moment of something that one might call "happy," wouldn't matter. (I've never met another non-happy person, so I have no frame of reference other than myself. I feel stuff all the time, but I don't name them, let them happen, use them if possible, and move on. Like wind and rain---I don't try to change or control or chase after feelings, rather I just experience them.)

As for passion, I'm kind of curious about that myself. How many enlightened people are poets or artists, or could they be?---if enlightenment means, apparently, being so numb or deadened, lifeless, inside...? How is it possible to be creative and enlightened at once?

Nordicvs,

What you are thinking is Arete.

Damn, and here I thought I was thinking my own thoughts...

Seriously though, Arete of Cyrene, you mean? Or the Greek goddess of virtue? (In either case, I'm not too familiar with them relating to what you mean.)

Can you trace that from ancient Greece into its soon homosocialized caricature of today? (Mr. Bond, I presume.) Arete is a sort of Magic the Gathering pack of rule-of-thumb enlightenment cards. Can you tell, why it would suck if Achilles was... you know, perfect?

I suppose---not too sure. I have heard of "Magic the Gathering" but am not too hip on what it's all about (D & D style role playing game, I suspect). So, as a result, I don't follow what reference you're using it for concerning Achilles...

[tooyi]

Magic the Gathering is an RPG played with collectible cards that have properties (spells) that give the owner power.

Arete, the Greek ideal.

[Dan Rowden]

Clyde,

Dan; I thought I was clear,

I thought I was too :)

My question was not about the process, but how you discern the behavior of an enlightened human being from the behavior of an ignorant (unenlightened) human being; i.e., what characteristics of the behavior (not the human being) would discriminate ignorant behavior from non-ignorant behavior. For example, what behaviors would you ascribe to an enlightened human being and what behaviors would you ascribe to an ignorant (unenlightened) human being? [emphasis added]

My list surely answers that question. I'm not sure why you can't distill behaviours from what I said. Plus it's obvious from the list how I distinguish between ignorant and enlightened people. Obviously, also, I can tell (within certain parameters) from what they say whether they are ignorant or not, which is a method not available to an ignorant person.

Are you wanting me to provide practical examples of each of those things I listed? Are they not obvious in human behaviour?What characteristics have I listed for either type of person that you can't translate into behaviours?

[Katy]

Are you wanting me to provide practical examples of each of those things I listed? Are they not obvious in human behaviour?What characteristics have I listed for either type of person that you can't translate into behaviours?

Well, I'd like an explanation of why "moralistic" is on the list of ignorant behaviors. Is morality not wise?

[clyde]

Dan;

You wrote that you distinguish an Ignorant person from a Wise person by the following characteristics:

Ignorant person: spontaneously inconsistent, emotional, insecure, selfish, vindictive, moralistic, given to belief in fantasies, believes in and desires love and happiness, is driven by desire per se, herdly, follows trends and fashions and barracks for a football team, highly anthropomorphic (talks to dogs), possessive, materialistic, superficial, romantic, myopic, tends to think he exists.

Wise person: spontaneously consistent, rational, calm, carefree yet purposeful, non-attached, magnanimous yet judgemental, logical rather than moralistic, has no concern for love and happiness, desireless, mechanical, individualistic, unherdly, unfashionable, realistic, ghostlike.

And you referred me to Kevin’s essay. Kevin wrote the following,

The sage is like an ocean. There may be an occasional surface storm, but deep down there is stillness. His occasional anger is only an appearance. It is like burnt string, which looks like string, but a mere puff blows it away. His attachment is like that of a child. He makes a play house, and if anyone touches it, he will jump up and cry; the next moment he himself will break it. The sun undoubtedly has dark spots, but these do not obstruct its light. It says nothing against the ripeness of a spirit that it has a few worms.

How would you know whether a display of anger or attachment is that of an enlightened human being or that of an ignorant (unenlightened) human being? How do you distinguish the behavior of one with “a few worms” from an ignorant (unenlightened) person?

It seems to me that from observing a behavior one can’t distinguish an “ignorant behavior” from a behavior of an enlightened human being. To be clear, I am not implying that you cannot distinguish an enlightened human being from an unenlightened human being, nor am I suggesting that one cannot distinguish behaviors that are (relatively) beneficial from behaviors that are (relatively) harmful.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Well, I'd like an explanation of why "moralistic" is on the list of ignorant behaviors. Is morality not wise?

There is a huge difference between being moral and being moralistic. Being truly moral means applying reason to the situation. Being moralistic just means blindly following a set of rules deemed "moral."

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Given the definition of "enlightenment" I've seen 'round these parts, I'm pretty sure I'd hate being enlightened. I'm oh so attached to my love and happiness. Plus, I occasionally like to talk to my dog. He's a fantastic listener. Well, save for the whole comprehension bit.

[Katy]

Plus, I occasionally like to talk to my dog. He's a fantastic listener. Well, save for the whole comprehension bit.

haha. I talk to mine too, because raising my voice about an octive and babbling makes her wag her tail and get all excited and then she'll go chase tennis balls or something and get some exercise which the vet tells me she must.
I think anthropomorphic usually means there's some belief that the dog might actually understand rather than just the act of talking though.

There is a huge difference between being moral and being moralistic. Being truly moral means applying reason to the situation. Being moralistic just means blindly following a set of rules deemed "moral."

Oh, so blindly following rules and tattletailing on someone would be moralistic while speaking to them and finding out what's actually going on would be wise?

Gotcha.

[Nordicvs]

Magic the Gathering is an RPG played with collectible cards that have properties (spells) that give the owner power.

Arete, the Greek ideal.

Ah. Okay, thanks.

[tooyi]

clyde,

"Do no harm"

... is too late.

Harm well.

[clyde]

tooyi;

You heard "do no harm,"
. . . so it was not too late for you :)

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[DHodges]

Plus, I occasionally like to talk to my dog. He's a fantastic listener. Well, save for the whole comprehension bit.

I certainly talk to my dog, although he has a fairly limited vocabulary - he knows a few commands, but he can also answer a few questions (like "Outside?"). Dog language is pretty easy to understand. "Arf!" means "Hey!"

Hell, I talk to my cat, and she's deaf. She does know how to ask for treats, though.

The lizards don't seem to respond to words, but they do seem to enjoy acoustic guitar playing. Between themselves, they communicate by bobbing their heads or by color changes, they don't talk. If I move a hand up and down the way the bob their heads, they get very excited. (I usually don't do that, since I don't know what I'm saying, and it gets them pretty riled up.)

When out for a walk, I sometimes talk to the squirrels. Mostly, I just say, "Hi, Mr. Squirrel!" I'm just being friendly; we don't really have that much to talk about. They are kind of obsessed with that whole acorn thing.

Occasionally on a walk, l'll even stop to talk with a human. Not that we have information to exchange, but it's something to do while our dogs sniff each other's butts.

[Leyla Shen]

DHodges wrote:

If I move a hand up and down the way the bob their heads, they get very excited. (I usually don't do that, since I don't know what I'm saying, and it gets them pretty riled up.)

[laughs] That's particularly funny.

Do they get riled up with eachother when they bob their heads, or just when you mimic them with your hand?

.

[Leyla Shen]

It might be a bit like calling them wankers...?

.

[Dan Rowden]

Are you wanting me to provide practical examples of each of those things I listed? Are they not obvious in human behaviour?What characteristics have I listed for either type of person that you can't translate into behaviours?

Well, I'd like an explanation of why "moralistic" is on the list of ignorant behaviors. Is morality not wise?

No, it isn't. And I don't just mean moralistic, btw, I mean moral. Morality is something adopted by people who believe in some kind of objective reality, in this case an objective standard of good and bad. Certainly the specific expressions of morality tend to flow along social meme style lines, which makes it deluded in itself, but it is at bottom based on the false view that good and bad exist in the world itself somehow. But nothing is good or bad until we make it so. The wise person makes logical, pragmatic judgements rather than moral ones. His "good" is what is benefical to his purpose and his "bad" what is harmful to it. Everything else has a neutral status.

When a bolt of lightning strikes your child and incinerates them, or a tree branch falls and crushes their skull, we don't ascribe a moral dimension to such events (unless one is a retarded animist). So too ought we not do so with respect to human behaviour, and for the very same reasons. Morality is for people who believe in free will, which is ignorant. I mean, it's "bad" that a tree crushed your child's skull because he was about to be a piano prodigy and make you a squillion, but it's not morally bad.

No event or action is good or bad till such time as we measure it against our purpose or values and make a pragmatic, logical judgement thereby. In short, morality is ignorant because it is driven by ego and emotion. I guess, to be fair, we could say that true morality arises when we become wise and understand its nature, but I'd rather just associate morality with ignorance and be done with it.

To be "moral" really means nothing more than to have an opinion about something measured against how we want the world to be. But is how we want the world to be sane or deluded? People should attend to that matter before they go off half cocked making moral judgements about everything.

[Dan Rowden]

How would you know whether a display of anger or attachment is that of an enlightened human being or that of an ignorant (unenlightened) human being? How do you distinguish the behavior of one with “a few worms” from an ignorant (unenlightened) person?

For the most part, based on any single event or action you can't. There are exceptions which I'll mention later. You can't really tell if a person is a wise person based on any single thing; it's a judgement that has to be made over time. This applies not only to actions but also words. I would never expect to be able to judge a poster at a board such as this to be wise until after a reasonable amount of time. Part of the reason for that is even ignorant people (or, say, poor quality guru types) can say things that are valid. This is primarily because they are drawing from traditions that contain many vaild ideas. Richard from Actualfreedom is a good example of this.

It seems to me that from observing a behavior one can’t distinguish an “ignorant behavior” from a behavior of an enlightened human being. To be clear, I am not implying that you cannot distinguish an enlightened human being from an unenlightened human being, nor am I suggesting that one cannot distinguish behaviors that are (relatively) beneficial from behaviors that are (relatively) harmful.

Well, there are certain behaviours that a wise person simply wouldn't engage in. A judgement of ignorance could be made instantly if a person was, say, extolling the virtues of religion, or exhorting people to believe in God, or proposing marriage to someone, or beating a small child, or giving money to a Salvation Army Officer. There are many things that you just wouldn't ever see a wise person doing. But generally speaking it takes more than one event to make these judgements.

[Katy]

To be "moral" really means nothing more than to have an opinion about something measured against how we want the world to be. But is how we want the world to be sane or deluded? People should attend to that matter before they go off half cocked making moral judgements about everything.

But there are certain things we know are just wrong. Your next post refers to beating a child, murder and rape are wrong. Are these not moral judgements?

A judgement of ignorance could be made instantly if a person was, say, extolling the virtues of religion, or exhorting people to believe in God, or proposing marriage to someone, or beating a small child, or giving money to a Salvation Army Officer.

What's wrong with the Salvation Army Officer?

[Dan Rowden]

To be "moral" really means nothing more than to have an opinion about something measured against how we want the world to be. But is how we want the world to be sane or deluded? People should attend to that matter before they go off half cocked making moral judgements about everything.

But there are certain things we know are just wrong. Your next post refers to beating a child, murder and rape are wrong. Are these not moral judgements?

No, not really, they are logical judgements in that such things express ignorance, which is bad (it's bad because it goes against my purpose).

A judgement of ignorance could be made instantly if a person was, say, extolling the virtues of religion, or exhorting people to believe in God, or proposing marriage to someone, or beating a small child, or giving money to a Salvation Army Officer.

What's wrong with the Salvation Army Officer?

They wear silly hats. Apart from that heinous crime, they peddle fundie Xianity.

[Katy]

No, not really, they are logical judgements in that such things express ignorance, which is bad (it's bad because it goes against my purpose).

So, if a murder didn't express ignorance, would it be ok? Like killing someone to prevent a crime? Or killing massive numbers of people to end a war (my brain is on Hiroshima at the moment)?

Or what if my purpose is to not be homeless, rather than to avoid ignorance? Is it then not-bad to steal? I mean, that will let me pay my rent...

They wear silly hats. Apart from that heinous crime, they peddle fundie Xianity.

So is there a problem with charity in general, or just that specific one?

[Pye]

.

Katy writes:

Well, I'd like an explanation of why "moralistic" is on the list of ignorant behaviors. Is morality not wise?

An interesting linguistic thing is happening here, too. We have:

(Noun >>> verb >>> adjective)
Reason/Rationale >>> rationalize >>> rationalistic
Commerce/Commercial >>> commercialize >>> commercialistic
Moral/Morality >>> moralize >>> moralistic

The latter two terms and their suffixes describe an originally neutral item that has become pathological -- worn a path or a deep groove that eventually everything flows into. Like all wheel-ruts, it becomes difficult to jump. A value judgment is built into the linguistic progression, for we use the words "commercialized" or "rationalizing" or "moralizing" most commonly with a pejorative spin. The problem of the rut is self-explanatory - one is no longer able to flex to the immediate circumstances.; be alert to the present. Instead, their own pathology has become pathological - no more becoming, just This Is How I Be (rotting away . . . .)

Dan writes:

No, it isn't. And I don't just mean moralistic, btw, I mean moral. Morality is something adopted by people who believe in some kind of objective reality, in this case an objective standard of good and bad. Certainly the specific expressions of morality tend to flow along social meme style lines, which makes it deluded in itself, but it is at bottom based on the false view that good and bad exist in the world itself somehow. But nothing is good or bad until we make it so. The wise person makes logical, pragmatic judgements rather than moral ones. His "good" is what is benefical to his purpose and his "bad" what is harmful to it. Everything else has a neutral status.

. . . for which I mostly agree, although the hanging back and letting shit happen is not what someone might do who has the efficacy to put forth an effective word or deed that raises the awareness of others or prevents something happening that is not to their scale; or causes something to happens that is.

A moral or morality does in one sense imply an objective judgment source or system, but it can also be an expression of one's personal alignment to things as well, without anyone else telling them what to do. I doubt there is a person on this forum (or elsewhere) that does not have some sort of subjective standard for when they would judge their own behavior as over the line or off the scale; everyone has an inner line, a scale. If one person wants to call it "moral" and another "wise," this is to their tastes; it's still a neutral description of a person's inner code as it manifests itself in the 'outer' world.


.