Right and Wrong?

[Orenholt]

The concept of self may be imaginary but that doesn't make it bad.

Up to the point where the imagined/practical concept becomes a belief in something more real and inherent; then the trouble begins.

Well sure.
I know some people would disagree but having money isn't bad even though its value is imaginary. Just because you realize that it has no inherent value doesn't mean that you just burn it all in a fire. You keep using it the same way you always would. It would be silly for example to starve yourself to death because you don't want to spend money on food.

[Russell Parr]

I don't see how it's self defeating.
If you look at my example from the "Necessity is the Mother of Invention" thread that's like saying that having a physical body and a stomach is bad.

No, the body and the stomach are appearances in consciousness. Giving them the attribute of good/bad comes after the fact.

The stomach cannot cause you to do anything more than become hungry and find something to eat. But you enjoy the feeling of being full with food that you like.

Lots of people around here where I stay enjoy fatty greasy food, and opt for it over healthy food despite it's nutritional value (or lack thereof). Therefore the ego's enjoyment of food really has nothing to do with the act of filling the stomach with food for nutrition, and believing otherwise is the first step to unhealthy eating. Gluttons enjoy immense egotistical satisfaction.

I know what you're going to do, which is implant another egotistical motive (like enjoying fitness) as a way to back out of your first point (we eat because the ego enjoys the food we eat). But the point remains the same, the ego creates attachment to delusional thoughts (e.g. fast food = enjoyment = good for well-being) until one implements reason in order to sort the ego out.

The concept of self may be imaginary but that doesn't make it bad.

I never said it was "bad." As I stated earlier, nothing is good/bad in any objective sense. It can be applied in an emotional context, sure, but it can be used in pure conceptual thought as well.

Once again, Egotism expresses itself in consciousness as a belief in an inherent existence of the self and/or things. In one's behavior, this belief expresses itself as emotional hang ups/attachment to outcome/appearances. As wisdom entails that since all things are merely appearances of the perspective (this includes feelings, thoughts, physical objects, the self, etc.), egotism represents a delusional state of mind and restrains one from becoming fully conscious.

Please address my post that I made to you specifically.

If I'm skipping over anything, its because I have already addressed the point being made and addressing it over and over again has become redundant.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"No, the body and the stomach are appearances in consciousness. Giving them the attribute of good/bad comes after the fact."


Lol love being on these forums, wouldn't hear such blunt enlightenment anywhere else.

[Russell Parr]

Honestly, John, I usually try to avoid wording that way in order keep you from getting you all fired up :p

[SeekerOfWisdom]

hahahaha,

I heared everythin' you said.

[oxytocinNA]

The question of whether or not it is "wrong" to punish criminals, given that causality is ultimately responsible for his actions, is meaningless.
.......
Trying to ascertain right and wrong in these kinds of matters is futile. Right and wrong are subjective judgments. They chop and change depending on a person�s fundamental values.

Gasp!

How can he say that right and wrong are totally subjective?

Does he not do a 180 in the next few sentences?

A far more intelligent approach would be to simply accept the obvious truth that the issue of punishment is determined by practical concerns only. Since a measure of order and social harmony is needed for the maintenance of civilized life, deterrents are needed for those who wish to behave in a mindless destructive fashion. If these deterrents were to be removed, the rule of the jungle would quickly take over and the very worst elements of the human race would soon be ruling society.

Wouldn't that mean that right and wrong behaviors are NOT subjective and based on how they affect or have the potential to affect society's order and harmony? Wouldn't that mean that there ARE ultimate rights and wrongs to be discovered?


Also on a related note, what about rehabilitation instead of "punishment"?



(sorry if I'm making too many threads I just have a lot on my mind)

You are right to question the statements.

First you have to understand that some things are objective whilst others are subjective.

The failure in the statements are do to the faulty breakdown of the subject matter. Context is critical!

For those wanting to argue:
I have participated in way too many threads, of this subject. I am unwilling to get into the same time wasting faulty arguments. So if you carefully break it down, you might see what I am referring to.

[Orenholt]

No, the body and the stomach are appearances in consciousness. Giving them the attribute of good/bad comes after the fact.

Attributes of good and bad are subjective to the ego.

Lots of people around here where I stay enjoy fatty greasy food, and opt for it over healthy food despite it's nutritional value (or lack thereof). Therefore the ego's enjoyment of food really has nothing to do with the act of filling the stomach with food for nutrition, and believing otherwise is the first step to unhealthy eating. Gluttons enjoy immense egotistical satisfaction.

Just because it's possible to be dumb and irresponsible doesn't mean that you inherently are.

I know what you're going to do, which is implant another egotistical motive (like enjoying fitness) as a way to back out of your first point (we eat because the ego enjoys the food we eat). But the point remains the same, the ego creates attachment to delusional thoughts (e.g. fast food = enjoyment = good for well-being) until one implements reason in order to sort the ego out.

No matter how much reason you put into it the ego will still be there until you die.

I never said it was "bad." As I stated earlier, nothing is good/bad in any objective sense. It can be applied in an emotional context, sure, but it can be used in pure conceptual as well.

If the ego is not bad then why would you want to get rid of it?

Once again, Egotism expresses itself in consciousness as a belief in an inherent existence of the self and/or things. In one's behavior, this belief expresses itself as emotional hang ups/attachment to outcome/appearances. As wisdom entails that since all things are merely appearances of the perspective (this includes feelings, thoughts, physical objects, the self, etc.), egotism represents a delusional state of mind and restrains one from becoming fully conscious.

You can still have an ego knowing that all things are caused.

If I'm skipping over anything, its because I have already addressed the point being made and addressing it over and over again has become redundant.

Well I'm really interested to know how you "rationally" decide to wear a blue or green shirt.

[Russell Parr]

If the ego is not bad then why would you want to get rid of it?

Because it inhibits reason.

Once again, Egotism expresses itself in consciousness as a belief in an inherent existence of the self and/or things. In one's behavior, this belief expresses itself as emotional hang ups/attachment to outcome/appearances. As wisdom entails that since all things are merely appearances of the perspective (this includes feelings, thoughts, physical objects, the self, etc.), egotism represents a delusional state of mind and restrains one from becoming fully conscious.

You can still have an ego knowing that all things are caused.

Agreed, and as one gains a better understanding of causation, the more apparent it becomes just how detrimental the ego is to consciousness, especially if enlightenment is the goal. The ego must then be prioritized to become less important than reason.

Well I'm really interested to know how you "rationally" decide to wear a blue or green shirt.

Flip a coin.

Say I was emotionally attached to characteristics of each shirt, like the embroidering of the green shirt and the vibrant colors of the blue one. I might spend 20 minutes experiencing each shirt back and forth until I 'settled' for one experience, or run out of time. Then I'd be a woman.

[Kunga]

as one gains a better understanding of causation, the more apparent it becomes just how detrimental the ego is to consciousness, especially if enlightenment is the goal. The ego must then be prioritized to become less important than reason.

But isn't it the ego that WANTS Enlightenment ?

What is the motivation for people wanting to be wise ?

Seems to me that many here use their so-called enlightened wisdom to lord over others & make them feel inferior.

The wise ones I'm attracted to incourage me ....not discourage me.

It is a selfless motivation to help others that should be the impetus for wanting to be Enlightened....not to be admired or to impress others.....

[Russell Parr]

For those wanting to argue:
I have participated in way too many threads, of this subject. I am unwilling to get into the same time wasting faulty arguments. So if you carefully break it down, you might see what I am referring to.

I'm going to respond just because of this statement.

Let's take a look at the passage as a whole. First of all, we can see that it's found in chapter 4, over halfway through the book, so for any statements drawn upon and examined this far into the book, it should be noted that the context built up to that point is left out, and can hinder proper examination.

The question of whether or not it is "wrong" to punish criminals, given that causality is ultimately responsible for his actions, is meaningless. After all, the punisher himself is also a part of the larger realm of causality and equally not responsible for his actions. How can he do "wrong" in metering out punishment? This point was nicely illustrated by the great sage of Ancient Greece, Diogenes:

"It's my fate to steal," pleaded the man who had been caught red-handed by Diogenes. "Then it is also your fate to be beaten," said Diogenes, hitting him across the head with his staff.

Trying to ascertain right and wrong in these kinds of matters is futile. Right and wrong are subjective judgments. They chop and change depending on a person's fundamental values. A far more intelligent approach would be to simply accept the obvious truth that the issue of punishment is determined by practical concerns only. Since a measure of order and social harmony is needed for the maintenance of civilized life, deterrents are needed for those who wish to behave in a mindless destructive fashion. If these deterrents were to be removed, the rule of the jungle would quickly take over and the very worst elements of the human race would soon be ruling society. This isn't good for anyone.

-Source

Before the passage quoted, David goes into length about the role of emotionalism as the judging factor in punishing criminals. That's why "wrong" is placed in quotations in the first sentence. The rest of the quote, without the nitpicking, speaks for itself and makes perfect sense to me.

[Russell Parr]

But isn't it the ego that WANTS Enlightenment ?

Then it unwittingly wants to destroy itself.

What is the motivation for people wanting to be wise ?

To become wise. What is the motivation for people wanting to be happy?

Seems to me that many here use their so-called enlightened wisdom to lord over others & make them feel inferior.

Projection on your part, I'm afraid.

[Kunga]

Then it unwittingly wants to destroy itself.

Then what part of the human mind is it, that DESIRES to be Enlightened ?

[Russell Parr]

Then what part of the human mind is it, that DESIRES to be Enlightened ?

I'm sure you've read this plenty of times by plenty of members here, including myself, but yes, Kunga, wisdom is an egotistical goal for those that have not yet attained it.

I don't say this to demean you and any way. I would rather encourage to take a closer, more serious look into these things. This question is answered all the time.

Since philosophical wisdom entails the uprooting of the ego as the basis of thought, then the ego ceases to play any role in one's thinking upon enlightenment.

When you desire a cake, what happens when you eat it?

[Kunga]

When you desire a cake, what happens when you eat it?

I gain 100 pounds. Ok, my desire goes away....temporarily.

wisdom is an egotistical goal for those that have not yet attained it.

Yes....funny & a paradox how the ego that wants to survive get's tricked by itself to kill itself, through Enlightenment.

Actually.....don't you have to be pretty ego-free in the begining of the quest for Enlightenment ?

In otherwords...people that are truely interested in wisdom and Enlightenment are not as egotistical....or are at a point in life where they are READY to explore the truth about themselves....someone that has no interest in Enlightenment will never get to the point of wanting to learn.

[Russell Parr]

In otherwords...people that are truely interested in wisdom and Enlightenment are not as egotistical....or are at a point in life where they are READY to explore the truth about themselves....someone that has no interest in Enlightenment will never get to the point of wanting to learn.

Can't disagree here.

[Kunga]

Also, I think it's a natural tendency of our own nature (we are driven), to understand and figure out the Universe and where we stand in it. It's like a seed laying dormant within us....given the correct balance of nurturing (air,water,fire, earth), the seed will blossom.....like a lotus in the mud.

[Orenholt]

Because it inhibits reason.

Nay, I say. I contest that reason cannot exist without ego itself and this will become apparent in the shirt example.

Agreed, and as one gains a better understanding of causation, the more apparent it becomes just how detrimental the ego is to consciousness, especially if enlightenment is the goal.

How can you have an ego and understand the nature of reality through causality at the same time then if it's detrimental to consciousness?

Flip a coin.

Flipping a coin is not rational.
Would you flip a coin to decide whether to kill a person or not? I would hope not.
The only reason you decided to flip a coin for choosing what shirt to wear is because you think that it wouldn't effect the outcome of your life significantly.

[Russell Parr]

How can you have an ego and understand the nature of reality through causality at the same time then if it's detrimental to consciousness?

One is delusional to the nature of reality to the degree that egotism is the basis of thought.

Flipping a coin is not rational.

You provided no reasons for picking one shirt over the other, so flipping a coin (or just grabbing one) works fine. The shirts might as well be the same color.

The only reason you decided to flip a coin for choosing what shirt to wear is because you think that it wouldn't effect the outcome of your life significantly.

If, however, I was egotistically attached to how I was perceived in wearing the blue shirt, then I might pick the green one so that 'attachment to outcome' (egotism) doesn't hamper my conscious throughout the day.

I really can't add much more to this. It's just going around in circles. The way you define egotism is completely useless to nearly everyone that takes philosophy seriously, within and outside of this forum, in my opinion. I suspect you stand by that position even stronger in response to finding out that many members here relate it to femininity. It strikes a nerve in you as a woman.

Perhaps once you've spent more time reflecting on the matter, you can see where we're coming from. But surely you can see we're at a standstill at this point.

[Orenholt]

You provided no reasons for picking one shirt over the other, so flipping a coin (or just grabbing one) works fine. The shirts might as well be the same color.

Well you could have said something like "rationally I know that my date prefers when I wear green rather than blue so I will pick the green shirt" or "rationally I know that it's blue shirt day at work so I will wear the blue shirt" couldn't you?

If, however, I was egotistically attached to how I was perceived in wearing the blue shirt, then I might pick the green one so that 'attachment to outcome' (egotism) doesn't hamper my conscious throughout the day.

My point is that it DOES. You simply aren't recognizing it.
You're pretending to base everything solely on "rationality" but the fact of the matter is that what you consider "rational" is dependent on what the expected outcome is.
To borrow an example from Kunga:
You would choose an expert brain surgeon over an amateur self taught one because you expect that the expert brain surgeon will give you a better out come.

I really can't add much more to this. It's just going around in circles. The way you define egotism is completely useless to nearly everyone that takes philosophy seriously, within and outside of this forum.

I simply define it as the emotional self. Why is that wrong? It doesn't seem like a joke to me.

But surely you can see we're at a standstill at this point.

It's not that I'm just being stubborn because of some kind of womanliness attachment. It's that I genuinely believe that emotional satisfaction is the source of all reasoning.
If you can successfully show me how I'm wrong I will change my mind. I've changed my mind about a few things just since I've been here even if I haven't necessarily said so. For example, I used to not understand how the universe doesn't exist but now I do.

[Kunga]

I used to not understand how the universe doesn't exist but now I do.

So what do you call this then ? Chopped liver ?

[Orenholt]

I used to not understand how the universe doesn't exist but now I do.

So what do you call this then ? Chopped liver ?

Well you have to understand what people on this forum mean by "exist" by reading Wisdom of the Infinite.
"Exist" means "to have an appearance".
So what I'm really saying is "the universe doesn't have an appearance".
And that's because the universe is infinite so that means that it doesn't have a shape etc.
It has a lot of things in it that have appearances but the universe itself cannot be seen because it is far too expansive.

[Kunga]

So whaddya call this ? This that appears before your eyes ? What is this ? If there is no physical Universe...... what is this ?????

[Orenholt]

So whaddya call this ? This that appears before your eyes ? What is this ? If there is no physical Universe...... what is this ?????

There is a physical universe, it just can't be seen ENTIRELY.
What we're seeing is just a part of it.

Does that make sense now?

[Kunga]

Let's go back to this first:

I used to not understand how the universe doesn't exist but now I do.

How is it you understand this....by reading words of someone ?
How do you know this person knows ? Is he a astro physicist that has studied the Universe ?
Why should you base your understanding on the understanding of someone else ?
Is there empirical evidence that the Universe is even infinite ?
How can they possibly know that ?

[Orenholt]

How is it you understand this....by reading words of someone ?
How do you know this person knows ? Is he a astro physicist that has studied the Universe ?
Why should you base your understanding on the understanding of someone else ?
Is there empirical evidence that the Universe is even infinite ?
How can they possibly know that ?

Well he laid it out in a way that seemed logical.
Let me ask you this, if the universe is finite, then how would you be able to tell?
If I have a ball you can tell that it is finite. You can see the outside of it and you can distinguish it from other things.
How would you do this with the universe?
If the universe is like a ball then what's outside of the universe? Wouldn't that just be "more universe"?