talk is cheap

[clyde]

Embodying Wisdom and Compassion

"How to make our lives an embodiment of wisdom and compassion is the greatest challenge spiritual seekers face. The truths we have come to understand need to find their visible expression in our lives. Our every thought, word, or action holds the possibility of being a living expression of clarity and love. It is not enough to be a possessor of wisdom. To believe ourselves to be custodians of truth is to become its opposite, is a direct path to becoming stale, self-righteous, or rigid. Ideas and memories do not hold liberating or healing power. There is no such state as enlightened retirement, where we can live on the bounty of past attainments. Wisdom is alive only as long as it is lived, understanding is liberating only as long as it is applied. A bulging portfolio of spiritual experiences matters little if it does not have the power to sustain us through the inevitable moments of grief, loss, and change. Knowledge and achievements matter little if we do not yet know how to touch the heart of another and be touched."

- Christina Feldman and Jack Kornfield, "Stories of the Spirit, Stories of the Heart" from the book "Everyday Mind", edited by Jean Smith

found on http://evolutionary-mind.blogspot.com/

[Dan Rowden]

What a load of ignorant, self-righteous twaddle. I presume you posted this, Clyde, to demonstrate how full of nonsense people can be?

[|read|]

I agree with what I take to be the central message: walk the walk. Ivory-tower residents make no difference to the rest of the world. If knowledge is not continually checked against reality, it quickly loses any relevance it may have had.

"To believe ourselves to be custodians of truth is to become its opposite, is a direct path to becoming stale, self-righteous, or rigid. Ideas and memories do not hold liberating or healing power. There is no such state as enlightened retirement, where we can live on the bounty of past attainments. Wisdom is alive only as long as it is lived, understanding is liberating only as long as it is applied."

Spot on. I also like the emphasis on compassion and positive emotional connection. Too many philosophic types ascribe to the Mr. Spock ideal. Problem with that is, you can't really kill your emotions, you can only suppress them to your own psychological pathology.

[Sapius]

Too many philosophic types ascribe to the Mr. Spock ideal. Problem with that is, you can't really kill your emotions, you can only suppress them to your own psychological pathology.

Yes, I believe one cannot really kill emotions, for suppression itself requires continuous enforcing of acquired logical conclusions, and that requires purely emotional strength, as in strong convictions; In other words; strong continuous passion is required to sustain ones logical conclusions itself.

[clyde]

No, Dan. No matter where you are in your life, in the beginning, the middle, near the peak, at the peak, or after the peak, your conduct is the direct expression and manifestation of your wisdom and compassion.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A bulging portfolio of spiritual experiences matters little if it does not provide us a firm crutch for all the times we're aware of a hurt and fletching ego. Knowledge and achievements matter little if we do not get laid once in a while.

[Sapius]

A bulging portfolio of spiritual experiences matters little if it does not provide us a firm crutch for all the times we're aware of a hurt and fletching ego. Knowledge and achievements matter little if we do not get laid once in a while.

Hahahaaa.... I guess it would be wise to permanently knot it up.

[Sapius]

No, Dan. No matter where you are in your life, in the beginning, the middle, near the peak, at the peak, or after the peak, your conduct is the direct expression and manifestation of your wisdom and compassion.

That doesn’t make much sense, Clyde. What are hatred and anger the expression and manifestation of? Such conduct reflects wisdom and compassion? I doubt it.

You have already had a long discussion over ‘compassion’ before, and seen how it reflects personal values, which actually defines it. So ‘compassion’ need not necessarily mean the same for two different individuals. Same goes for 'wisdom'.

[clyde]

Sapius; I think of wisdom and compassion like temperature. Things may be hotter or colder than other things, but all things have temperature. All human beings possess wisdom and compassion, but some actions are wiser and more kind than others.

[David Quinn]

Quality talk is priceless, and can only come from those who walk the walk. Speech is a mirror to the soul. For those who just play at spirituality, it shines through in their speech and writings.

-

[brokenhead]

Quality talk is priceless, and can only come from those who walk the walk. Speech is a mirror to the soul. For those who just play at spirituality, it shines through in their speech and writings.

-

I could not agree more.

[|read|]

Speech is a mirror to the soul. For those who just play at spirituality, it shines through in their speech and writings.

Sounds nice at first, but not when you think a little harder. Expository writing and speaking are both skills in and of themselves, independent from other skills such as logical deduction and inference. Fiction authors write eloquent prose full of plot holes, and gifted scientists often have trouble expressing themselves. Classic brain-function lateralization.

Insight shines through clumsily-written scientific journals because of the strength of the empirical evidence. Philosophy is different in that there is no empirical evidence per say, and the only way anything can shine is through polished exposition. Thus, the only people recognized for their spirituality are those who can write or speak well. Although, when a philosopher ostensibly puts so much stock in the quality of the medium, it makes me wonder if there is anything behind the shiny prose at all.

[|read|]

Yes, I believe one cannot really kill emotions, for suppression itself requires continuous enforcing of acquired logical conclusions, and that requires purely emotional strength, as in strong convictions; In other words; strong continuous passion is required to sustain ones logical conclusions itself.

Well put. I can't believe anyone who understands what logic is can embrace the idea of "pure logic". A conclusion is dependent upon premises.* The premises can be the conclusions of other logical proofs, but those also need premises. At some point, either one's thought-process is circular, or it's based on alogical axioms. Elementary. One believes some things "purely" out of emotional conviction.

[|read|]

* That is, unless the only thing the conclusion does is restate the inference rules in a different form. That's one way philosophers over the ages have tried to hide their assumptions: by surreptitiously slipping them into the inference rules.

Where the logical inferences rules come from in the first place is an interesting subject. (There are in fact several different "official" sets of them.) Some people try to say they're self-evident, or obvious to any rational person, which is of course just a wave of the hand, possibly with some emotional appeal thrown in for good measure - you are rational, aren't you?

I contend that logical inferences rules are the same as any scientific theory, in that we use them because they allow us to make accurate predictions about empirical evidence. However, logic is a more fundamental theory than biology, more so than thermodynamics also, more so even than quantum mechanics, in that logic and formal systems underlie all these other theories. Logic is a "meta-theory" if you will, applied not only to data but also to other theories. But like them, its soundness comes from its ability to accurately model observed evidence.

[David Quinn]

Speech is a mirror to the soul. For those who just play at spirituality, it shines through in their speech and writings.

Sounds nice at first, but not when you think a little harder. Expository writing and speaking are both skills in and of themselves, independent from other skills such as logical deduction and inference. Fiction authors write eloquent prose full of plot holes, and gifted scientists often have trouble expressing themselves. Classic brain-function lateralization.

Insight shines through clumsily-written scientific journals because of the strength of the empirical evidence. Philosophy is different in that there is no empirical evidence per say, and the only way anything can shine is through polished exposition. Thus, the only people recognized for their spirituality are those who can write or speak well. Although, when a philosopher ostensibly puts so much stock in the quality of the medium, it makes me wonder if there is anything behind the shiny prose at all.

Well, if there no substance to the prose, then I wouldn't consider it "quality talk". It would simply be sophistry.

Quality talk arises when a person sees deeply into the nature of Reality and can express it clearly in his observations and reasonings.

Where the logical inferences rules come from in the first place is an interesting subject. (There are in fact several different "official" sets of them.) Some people try to say they're self-evident, or obvious to any rational person, which is of course just a wave of the hand, possibly with some emotional appeal thrown in for good measure - you are rational, aren't you?

I contend that logical inferences rules are the same as any scientific theory, in that we use them because they allow us to make accurate predictions about empirical evidence. However, logic is a more fundamental theory than biology, more so than thermodynamics also, more so even than quantum mechanics, in that logic and formal systems underlie all these other theories. Logic is a "meta-theory" if you will, applied not only to data but also to other theories. But like them, its soundness comes from its ability to accurately model observed evidence.

You're merely referring to induction here, which is the type of logic most commonly associated with science. Deduction, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. When it is done properly in the hands of a decent philosopher, there is no reliance on empirical modelling, axioms or assumptions. Good deductive reasoning can cut to the heart of a matter in a way that leaves science and logical induction floundering.

-

[|read|]

No, I was referring to deduction. I had first-order logic in mind, but what I said also applies to higher-order logics, and thence to Peano arithmetic, the foundation of mathematics. I'd like to hear how logic can be used sans axioms and assumed inference rules.

[Sapius]

Sapius; I think of wisdom and compassion like temperature. Things may be hotter or colder than other things, but all things have temperature. All human beings possess wisdom and compassion, but some actions are wiser and more kind than others.

Ah! I see; but 'more' makes no sense without 'less' around. In other words, less-wise and less-kind actions, which according to you are relatively positive actions however, since the common denominator is 'temperature' (wisdom and compassion).

Would you say rape is a colder (less-wise and less-kind) act of wisdom and compassion?
That doesn’t make much sense, my friend.

Are you trying to emphasize on having a positive out look? As in always seeing a glass as half-full rather than half-empty.

If so, then good for you; I do too, but that does not really apply across the board I’m afraid. Things are exactly what they are, but how to handle them is totally a personal matter. Patting the back of a repeated rapist and telling him to do no harm, and that too according to what he thinks best, will neither help him nor others. The ‘do no harm’ applies only to those who consider wisdom as wisdom, and compassion as compassion, not as = temperature, Clyde.

I do respect your earnest awareness towards existence as a whole, but the “whole” necessarily is the division in action it self, as it were; positive and the negative; Yin AND the Yang itself. No?

[clyde]

Sapius; I think of wisdom and compassion like temperature. Things may be hotter or colder than other things, but all things have temperature. All human beings possess wisdom and compassion, but some actions are wiser and more kind than others.

Ah! I see; but 'more' makes no sense without 'less' around. In other words, less-wise and less-kind actions, which according to you are relatively positive actions however, since the common denominator is 'temperature' (wisdom and compassion).

I agree that 'more' and 'less' are mutually dependent relative terms. I did not mean to imply that "less-wise and less-kind actions . . . are relatively positive actions" and I don't think it necessarily follows from my statement. In any case, what I wrote was a merely a passing expression. If it doesn't work for you, drop it.

Things are exactly what they are, but how to handle them is totally a personal matter. Patting the back of a repeated rapist and telling him to do no harm, and that too according to what he thinks best, will neither help him nor others. The ‘do no harm’ applies only to those who consider wisdom as wisdom, and compassion as compassion, not as = temperature, Clyde.

I do respect your earnest awareness towards existence as a whole, but the “whole” necessarily is the division in action it self, as it were; positive and the negative; Yin AND the Yang itself. No?

To 'do no harm' does not mean to do nothing and how to 'handle' things as they actually are is NOT a personal matter, it is a matter that effects the whole of existence. To believe otherwise is to believe the illusion that you are are separate and independent thing.

[Sapius]

Clyde;

In any case, what I wrote was a merely a passing expression. If it doesn't work for you, drop it.

OK, fair enough.

To 'do no harm' does not mean to do nothing

Did I in some way imply that? ‘Do no harm’ necessarily implies NOT to do something that one personally considers as harmful. No? In that, one is not doing something that one would have otherwise. So one would act (handle things) in the least possible harmful way.

and how to 'handle' things as they actually are is NOT a personal matter, it is a matter that effects the whole of existence.

How ‘things actually are’ is a personal perspective to begin with, and then it is an individual that handles (acts, as in ‘do’) accordingly to that perspective; I did not say in any way that that does not affect the whole of existence, everything does; so what’s your point there, really?

To believe otherwise is to believe the illusion that you are are separate and independent thing.

Believe what illusion, Clyde? How do you know what I should automatically believe otherwise? I don’t have to believe anything “otherwise” at all. I am NOT a separate or an independent thing, and yet I AM an individual conscious thing that can and does operate from that point of view only; from that perspective only. I have absolutely no other perspective at my disposal to operate from; any other perspective that “I” may speak of is necessarily an emergent deductive conclusion, or say blind faith, but it is necessarily from that very one and only original perspective, “I” am. And any and all I do does effect the whole of existence, and I know it, but many others may not look at it that way, like that rapist I mentioned.

I say I don’t believe that I am separate or an independent thing in and of existence, and yet I can operate, or judge, or act, from the “I” perspective only, and that is absolutely real, not an illusion. Now what? Am I deluded? I actually believe otherwise according to you?

[clyde]

Sapius;

No, you did not state that ‘do no harm’ was doing nothing. I was responding to this which you did write,

Patting the back of a repeated rapist and telling him to do no harm

Acting in an ineffective way to lessen the suffering in the world is not doing no harm.

And since you do not believe that we are separate, independent things, there is no need or purpose to arguing about that. Nor do we disagree that we are individuals acting in the world.

So my question to you, as someone who understands “things as they actually are” (mutually interdependent), how does one act in the world?

[Sapius]

Clyde;

So my question to you, as someone who understands “things as they actually are” (mutually interdependent), how does one act in the world?

In my opinion, always through Self-centered-interests that lead to Self-centered-satisfaction; an absolutely Self-less act is impossible.

If you meant ‘how should one act in the world’ in that light; well, more compassionately of course, but then again, whatever that I may think or do, it would only be a matter of degree governed by my philosophy and what compassion means to me, but however would be a Self-centered act.

One can literally over-flow with “self-less” compassion over every jot or title in the universe, but that too necessarily brings Self-satisfaction however; self-less-ness remains but a matter of degree. I am all for 'do no harm', but it is my Self-centered-understandings that defines the way that I may act.

Do you disagree?

BTW, an old saying, (Indian I think); If a horse befriends grass, then what will he eat?
One has to unavoidably be practical to certain degree too.

[clyde]

Sapius;

I understand the impossibility of perfect harmlessness. That said, we know what pain and suffering are, we can imagine the pain and suffering of others, and we can avoid acts that cause unnecessary pain and suffering.

[clyde]

"Why aren’t we all Good Samaritans?", a short talk by Daniel Goleman
==> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/200

[Sapius]

Sapius;

I understand the impossibility of perfect harmlessness. That said, we know what pain and suffering are, we can imagine the pain and suffering of others, and we can avoid acts that cause unnecessary pain and suffering.

Yes, we do know, Clyde, and I do avoid as much as I possibly can, but I hope you do understand, there is a vast difference in how a particular Self interprets what “pain” and “sufferings” mean.

If you like to test others compassion, then create a thread with a few hypothetical situations and then ask how would each one react. Not a bad idea for a new thread I would say, given that most have a different interpretation of compassion, pain and sufferings. And then you can judge from your own compassionate point of view.

[clyde]

Sapius;

We agree on the primary issue, but we may see the details somewhat differently. For example, I think we understand pain and suffering similarly (that which we seek to avoid), while we may have greater differences on what causes us, as a unique human being, pain and suffering. But maybe that is what you meant.

And I have no interest in 'testing' the compassion of others; the world provides ample opportunity to each of us to demonstrate our compassion.