Does it matter or not?

[brokenhead]

If you can't pick a million and one other similar flaws and deficiencies in the QRS philosophy then you're just not analysing it carefully enough.

This is the exact feeling I get from the QRS literature. There's a bunker-like mentality about the philosophy. It's like Teflon, nothing sticks to it. It can be logically defended, but logically defended against what? My answer: thoughts that are not offensive to begin with.

I do happen to think that the QRS version of enlightenment is weak, yes. It amounts to an intellectualisation and an attitude resulting in behaviour that - as I've demonstrated - can be fairly easily mimicked. I don't think that there's a lot of substance to it either. I don't think that there's anything particularly impressive about devoting one's life to "the propagation of wisdom" when this planet is beset by all manner of practical problems which are unaffected by this abstract "wisdom". QRS wisdom doesn't put food in the starving bellies of children in Africa.

It is not intented for that, Laird, as I'm sure you know. The point is so obvious that I guess I just kept on not making it. There doesn't seem to be logical room for caring in what I take for the QRS Weltanschauung. The QRS response would be that only the unenlightened would give a shit about "starving bellies" or "children in Africa." I am saying that you can be enlightened and divest yourself of the QRS viewpoint at the same time; in such a state, it becomes unnecessary to go to Africa to find the starving bellies. If you pay enough attention to the world around you, you will encounter times when your caring makes a difference.

[Laird]

Hi Sam,

I still think you are missing a key point.

And I still think that our disagreement is mostly semantic, revolving around differences in what we understand a "motive" to be. I'll respond in detail to try to clarify my own understanding.

Animals for instance don't act with motive. They simply do what is in their nature to do.

Sure they act with motive, it's just that a lot of that time that motive is to satisfy an instinctual drive. In this case, however, I am less comfortable with the word "motive" and more comfortable saying - as I suggested in my previous post - that their actions are the result of a set of causes (their instincts). The point remains - and you have completely failed to respond to this point even though it was pretty crucial to my arguments - that there is always a reason behind an action when you are a conscious agent.

When a lion kills a zebra, we don't say the lion is evil because it has motive to kill.

No, we say that it is motivated by hunger. But let's try a harder one: a well-fed household cat who captures, torments and finally kills a mouse. It's obviously not motivated by hunger, so is it still reasonable to frame its actions in terms of having a motive? I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to say: yes, its motive is to please/satisfy itself through the expression of its cruel instincts.

In the same way we can't say an enlightened person deserves our praise because of their motive for compassion.

Who said anything about praising their motivations? I didn't. Now that you say it though, I would say that such a person deserves to be recognised as a meritorious human being, but that it's not necessarily appropriate to praise him/her in the sense of providing him/her with a reward (because s/he is beyond caring about ego-stroking gifts).

As long as you seek to act out of pure motive, you are trying not only to live out of an image but assuming that a selfish motive can create an unselfish result.

Who said that a motive needs to be selfish? Arguments that "every motive is selfish because every motive is borne of the ego" notwithstanding, I think that it is meaningful to talk about more and less selfish actions. Compassionately motivated actions fall towards the "less selfish" end of the spectrum.

Living out of an image requires you to adopt someone else's idea of what is best way to live, living by your own nature doesn't.

And what if your motivations are the result of your own nature, such that you're adopting nobody else's idea of the best way to live but rather your own?

Assuming your motive is not harmful is self-serving,

One doesn't have to assume anything, one simply formulates the best possible motive that one can and runs with it. Is it self-serving to "do your best"?

whereas one's own true nature doesn't create harm.

What if one's own true nature through some genetic horror story is sadistic? Then one's own true nature does create harm.

One chooses motive, one doesn't choose nature and as long as you are choosing, you can be sure the ego is involved.

OK, here's where I think that we can come to an understanding. How about if I say that in the case of an enlightened person, one doesn't "choose" one's motives any more than one chooses one's nature: one's motivations are "natural" and are the inevitable product of one's true nature?

Look, Sam, we can't really resolve this unless you respond to my assertion that no action (of a conscious agent) occurs without a reason. In my opinion this is fairly undeniable. What is debatable is whether we call that reason a "motive". All I'm really saying is that it's fair in most cases to do that, but that the reason (motive) might very well be a "natural" one.

[Laird]

There's a bunker-like mentality about the [QRS] philosophy. It's like Teflon, nothing sticks to it. It can be logically defended, but logically defended against what? My answer: thoughts that are not offensive to begin with.

The only parts of their philosophy that I find "offensive" are their dimunition of women and their insistence that they have found Absolute Truth but that the rest of mankind is deluded, and I'm not even sure if "offensive" is the right word for the latter: more like brazenly and dogmatically arrogant.

As for whether their philosophy can be logically defended, well I probably disagree with you about how well it holds up. Much of it isn't even logically based but is more opinion based on observations - for example their take on women. As for that of it which is logically based, the strongest thing that they've got going is their construction of the Totality as the set of all causes and therefore itself uncaused since there are no causes outside of itself. Yes, I'll admit that it seems pretty watertight at the first and even on many subsequent examinations. The problem that I have with it is that it's presented as The Ultimate Understanding of Reality such that it answers all meaningful questions. Well, if that answers all of your questions about the nature of reality then all I can say is - and please forgive me for this, I'm being a little blunt - that you don't have a very active imagination. My intuition is that there's more to it than that. Not being an absolutist, I'll admit to the possibility that my imagination is simply over-active and that the QRS model is after all sufficient explanation, but for the reasons that I've argued in the "How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?" thread I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case.

There doesn't seem to be logical room for caring in what I take for the QRS Weltanschauung. The QRS response would be that only the unenlightened would give a shit about "starving bellies" or "children in Africa."

I'm not sure whether that would be their response, but I'd definitely like to know. Dan, David, Kevin: will you explain your position?

I am saying that you can be enlightened and divest yourself of the QRS viewpoint at the same time; in such a state, it becomes unnecessary to go to Africa to find the starving bellies. If you pay enough attention to the world around you, you will encounter times when your caring makes a difference.

I'm not so sure how truly enlightened that approach is though. I agree that it's enlightened to care in one's everyday life as the opportunity arises, but enlightened people are rational and it's most rational to devote most energy to the most pressing problems in the world. On the other hand, life goes on and there are a million and one mundane but essential tasks required to keep a society going, so it's perfectly "enlightened" to settle down into one of those jobs. The version of enlightenment preached here, however, is one of detachment from the world of employment, and if one is going to deliberately shun an everyday lifestyle, then what is the most effective use of one's time? Is it in "propagating wisdom" (with the end result that more people simply "drop out" and cease to practically affect the world) or is it in attempting to attack the roots of the more entrenched injustices of the world?

Edit: corrected "effect" to "affect".

[brokenhead]

I'm not so sure how truly enlightened that approach is though. I agree that it's enlightened to care in one's everyday life as the opportunity arises, but enlightened people are rational and it's most rational to devote most energy to the most pressing problems in the world.

Charity begins at home, it need not end there.

[Laird]

Sher,

It took me a while to decipher my position on this issue, but here it finally is:

I was quite impressed with your sagerage incarnation too -

Not me.

There ought to be a limit as to how many times a poster can be banned and let back in under another name. The game is getting old.

I think that in this case engagement is better than banning. Fair enough, unrepentant trolling deserves a banning, but rpl is no mere troll. He's demonstrated that he's capable of serious, meaningful and intelligent contributions and he clearly keeps on coming back here out of an abiding interest in the philosophy. He obviously suffers existentially - isn't that exactly the sort of person who according to this forum begins to search for Truth? Isn't it then important to encourage him to continue to engage seriously on this forum?

Yes, he occasionally makes inappropriate posts and I certainly don't absolve him of culpability for that. It was telling to me though that in his most recent post he mentioned that he expected me to have recognised him for stupidity. In other words, he doesn't expect to be taken seriously and welcomed here. It's a lot easier to act like an idiot around people whom you think are going to reject you anyway than around people whom you feel are welcoming of you. I'm not saying that people here have been unwelcoming of him - quite the contrary - but I am saying that if we're seeking to become compassionately enlightened beings then it can't hurt to make a little bit of extra effort in this case to extend the hand of friendship. Perhaps if rpl felt more like an insider than an outsider then he'd settle down a bit and those inappropriate posts would stop. Perhaps not, but it can't hurt to try.

I'm sorry to be talking about you rather than to you, rpl, but do you see what I'm saying? I'm saying that from my perspective you're welcome here, especially when you contribute like you've been contributing in this thread - just try to quit the nonsense posts because they don't help anyone, least of all yourself. Get serious about not getting banned again. By all means express your existential and psychological torment, just don't be inappropriate about it.

Laird: How do you think that we (you included) might avoid that happening this time?

Sher: Encourage him to keep taking his pills. That would really help.

The decision of whether to take medication or not is one that I leave entirely up to each individual person. I'll let his psychiatrist do the encouraging.

Charity begins at home, it need not end there.

Great response, brokenhead. Pithy and to the point.

[Shahrazad]

The decision of whether to take medication or not is one that I leave entirely up to each individual person. I'll let his psychiatrist do the encouraging.

Well then, you can encourage him to follow his psychiatrist's advice. I don't believe he does, at least not all the time.

Of course, your idea of encouraging him to "try harder" is not without merit. But I can't say that I'm convinced that is going to work -- it depends on when he does the trying. Keep in mind that the kid tends to get suicidal. Those kind of people need the support of others. And like Dan would say, they need to stop thinking philosophically while they are having a depressed, manic, schizo or otherwise mentally ill episode.

-

[samadhi]

Laird,

Look, Sam, we can't really resolve this unless you respond to my assertion that no action (of a conscious agent) occurs without a reason. In my opinion this is fairly undeniable.

It's true that any action can be rationalized. It doesn't mean the agent necessarily has a reason in the same way you do. You will always be on the outside looking in so what you see will always be a reflection of your own ideas and beliefs on motivation. People who I've heard and read who are enlightened always say there is no reason for their action. Although it looks obvious from our standpoint why they do what they do, I think it's worth pondering why they would say such a thing.

What is debatable is whether we call that reason a "motive". All I'm really saying is that it's fair in most cases to do that, but that the reason (motive) might very well be a "natural" one.

Again, from the standpoint of an ego, all action is motivated. That's all the ego understands. All I am suggesting is, perhaps there is something else going on the ego is missing.

Mikiel, if you're reading this, maybe you can offer your perspective.

[Laird]

It's true that any action can be rationalized. It doesn't mean the agent necessarily has a reason in the same way you do.

Well then why did it do what it did? Isn't the fact that such a question is so inevitable and meaningful proof that there must always be a reason of some sort? And I'm cool with an answer of "it did it because it's in its nature to do it", but even that is a reason. In that case we could start off by saying that it is motivated by its nature and from there examine exactly what its nature is and eventually end up pointing to more specific motives.

People who I've heard and read who are enlightened always say there is no reason for their action. Although it looks obvious from our standpoint why they do what they do, I think it's worth pondering why they would say such a thing.

My guess would be that they want to add a certain mystique to the concept of enlightenment - "Ooo, being enlightened is so magical that you don't even have a reason for acting anymore!"

Again, from the standpoint of an ego, all action is motivated. That's all the ego understands. All I am suggesting is, perhaps there is something else going on the ego is missing.

The only time that the ego is missing is when you're dead. And perhaps also when you're asleep, although not when dreaming. And yes, in those cases you most certainly are lacking in motives.

[samadhi]

Laird,

me: It's true that any action can be rationalized. It doesn't mean the agent necessarily has a reason in the same way you do.

you: Well then why did it do what it did?

I don't know. That's the point. Sure, you can ascribe a motive to any action; it doesn't mean that person has that motive or any motive for that matter. If they tell you, "I don't know why I did it, I just did it," you can either not believe them or find out for yourself what is true.

Isn't the fact that such a question is so inevitable and meaningful proof that there must always be a reason of some sort?

Hardly. It just means egos will always look for motives.

And I'm cool with an answer of "it did it because it's in its nature to do it", but even that is a reason. In that case we could start off by saying that it is motivated by its nature and from there examine exactly what its nature is and eventually end up pointing to more specific motives.

Nature isn't a motive, it is a description. Gravity has no motive, it just does what it does, that's all. Sure, you can say leaves want to fall to earth but that misses something important, namely that no one is deciding anything.

me: People who I've heard and read who are enlightened always say there is no reason for their action. Although it looks obvious from our standpoint why they do what they do, I think it's worth pondering why they would say such a thing.

you: My guess would be that they want to add a certain mystique to the concept of enlightenment - "Ooo, being enlightened is so magical that you don't even have a reason for acting anymore!"

You are implying a motive, a need to be mysterious. You overlook the fact that mystery is present regardless of whatever motive is later decided to be operative. Motive is always after the fact. People act and then decide why they did what they did. Enlightenment doesn't need that kind of pretense. It is not afraid to say what it doesn't know nor need it pretend to know what it doesn't.

me: Again, from the standpoint of an ego, all action is motivated. That's all the ego understands. All I am suggesting is, perhaps there is something else going on the ego is missing.

you: The only time that the ego is missing is when you're dead. And perhaps also when you're asleep, although not when dreaming. And yes, in those cases you most certainly are lacking in motives.

The egoless state is not as dire or unconscious as you make it out to be. I'm sure there have been many times in your life when the "me" forgot that it was there. In such times, the spontaneity of your actions can be a delightful and telling aspect of the me’s absence.

[Laird]

samadhi: It's true that any action can be rationalized. It doesn't mean the agent necessarily has a reason in the same way you do.

Laird: Well then why did it do what it did?

samadhi: I don't know. That's the point. Sure, you can ascribe a motive to any action; it doesn't mean that person has that motive or any motive for that matter. If they tell you, "I don't know why I did it, I just did it," you can either not believe them or find out for yourself what is true.

If someone told me that then I would conclude that s/he was not particularly conscious, and since I agree with QRS that a high degree of consciousness is entailed by enlightenment, I would conclude that s/he was not, after all, particularly enlightened.

The only way in which I could find justification for a person who says such a thing to after all be enlightened is to posit that enlightenment is a state of communion with the divine/Tao/God/whatever-you-want-to-call-The-Higher-Source, such that one's personal will is largely inoperative and motivation for one's actions springs instead from a higher consciousness/will/source, of whose specific intent one might not be personally conscious despite being guided by this source. Is that what you mean?

Laird: Isn't the fact that such a question is so inevitable and meaningful proof that there must always be a reason of some sort?

samadhi: Hardly. It just means egos will always look for motives.

So what's the alternative to acting with a motive? The only alternative that I can see is to act randomly, and that's hardly enlightened behaviour - at least not by my definition of enlightenment.

Laird: And I'm cool with an answer of "it did it because it's in its nature to do it", but even that is a reason. In that case we could start off by saying that it is motivated by its nature and from there examine exactly what its nature is and eventually end up pointing to more specific motives.

samadhi: Nature isn't a motive, it is a description. Gravity has no motive, it just does what it does, that's all. Sure, you can say leaves want to fall to earth but that misses something important, namely that no one is deciding anything.

That's quite disingenuous of you: comparing the highly complex, intelligent consciousness of a human being with the completely inanimate and simple force of gravity (and when I say simple I mean in terms of being able to describe it: we have a pretty much complete description of gravity thanks largely to Newton and Einstein whereas studies of intelligent consciousness are very much in their infancy). Sure, you might posit that human will is the result of a process of causality, just as gravity is a process governed by causality, but that's about where the similarity ends. Human consciousness is a complex causal process by which sensory inputs, memory and presumably (semi-)random/(semi-)directed thoughts are synthesised to produce willful action. That's just the way that consciousness works, whether you're enlightened or not. Enlightenment might be about a more effective and appropriate will, but due to the very fact that the enlightened person is nevertheless a human being with a brain and a complexly intelligent consciousness, enlightenment can't be about a complete lack of will, which is what you seem to be implying it is - unless of course you are talking about deferring one's will to a higher source as I described in my second paragraph in this post, but even in that case one still retains some of one's will - enough to be constantly making the choice to defer to this higher source and to choose as an answer to people who ask you what your motivations for your actions are that you "don't know".

samadhi: People who I've heard and read who are enlightened always say there is no reason for their action. Although it looks obvious from our standpoint why they do what they do, I think it's worth pondering why they would say such a thing.

Laird: My guess would be that they want to add a certain mystique to the concept of enlightenment - "Ooo, being enlightened is so magical that you don't even have a reason for acting anymore!"

samadhi: You are implying a motive, a need to be mysterious.

Yes, and more than simply implying it, I'm specifically asserting deliberate mystification in order to enhance the prestige and intrigue of enlightenment. I'm furthermore implying that people who make such statements are acting dishonestly in that they are misrepresenting the nature of human consciousness, and that I don't regard them as particularly enlightened in the sense of being able to cogently describe reality (or at least the reality of one's mind).

You overlook the fact that mystery is present regardless of whatever motive is later decided to be operative.

For sure there's plenty of mystery. I don't completely understand my own mind and its motivations. I'm open to strange explanations of my will.

Motive is always after the fact.

Nonsense. By definition motive precedes action.

People act and then decide why they did what they did.

People act and then try to analyse their motivations, which motivations aren't always particularly conscious. Enlightenment is in my opinion about becoming more conscious of one's motivations and about more deliberately choosing them in the first place.

Enlightenment doesn't need that kind of pretense. It is not afraid to say what it doesn't know nor need it pretend to know what it doesn't.

That version of enlightenment seems to me to be more like a decision to lapse into unconsciousness: to stop trying to perfect one's will through self-analysis and to rather mindlessly accept whatever happens to come into one's mind, somehow (how exactly?) presuming that by virtue of it being one's nature it is already perfect.

I'm not so willing to trust in my innate abilities. I didn't sit down in front of a keyboard for the first time and begin to touch-type effortlessly.

I can, however, accept such "unconscious" behaviour where it is the result of training or good genes. I now, through training, touch type reasonably proficiently. If you were to ask me, however, where on the keyboard any particular key is, I probably wouldn't be able to tell you without first imagining how my fingers would move to get to it. When I first learnt to touch type I had in my head a concrete map of each key's position and could have answered your question without recourse to imagining myself typing.

In this way, I can accept that an enlightened person might be unconscious of his/her motivations simply because s/he has trained his/her mind to a point that s/he no longer has a need to know them. But, and here's the point that I've been trying to make in our exchange: those motivations still exist.

In any case, this is to me a poor-man's version of enlightenment. My kind of enlightenment is one where a person can not only touch type proficiently, but where that person is also conscious of where each key is on the keyboard.

samadhi: Again, from the standpoint of an ego, all action is motivated. That's all the ego understands. All I am suggesting is, perhaps there is something else going on the ego is missing.

Laird: The only time that the ego is missing is when you're dead. And perhaps also when you're asleep, although not when dreaming. And yes, in those cases you most certainly are lacking in motives.

samadhi: The egoless state is not as dire or unconscious as you make it out to be. I'm sure there have been many times in your life when the "me" forgot that it was there. In such times, the spontaneity of your actions can be a delightful and telling aspect of the me’s absence.

I'm not sure that I've ever "forgotten" that I have an ego. Certainly, though, there have been times where I have been acting very spontaneously, and even times where I have been acting so spontaneously and responding so effortlessly that I'm not even sure how I can honestly say that it's even me acting. I put that down though to temporarily achieving the same sort of unconscious skill/ability in my everyday (interpersonal) behaviour as I have in my touch typing. I have, after all, been training in that all of my life...

Sam, I'd also like to request something of you, and that is that rather than using "me" and "you" to prefix quotes, you use our names. I have two reasons (in no particular order) for requesting this. The first is that when I respond, "me" and "you" reverse their meaning so I have to edit them, which I wouldn't have to do if you'd used names. The second is that it takes less effort for the reader to comprehend when there's a specific name there rather than having to perform the additional step of deducing who "me" and "you" refers to by virtue of remembering who's involved in the conversation.

Geez, I seem to have been able to identify my motivations for making that request quite clearly, haven't I? I guess I'm not particularly enlightened... ;-)

[divine focus]

Laird,

Look, Sam, we can't really resolve this unless you respond to my assertion that no action (of a conscious agent) occurs without a reason. In my opinion this is fairly undeniable.

It's true that any action can be rationalized. It doesn't mean the agent necessarily has a reason in the same way you do. You will always be on the outside looking in so what you see will always be a reflection of your own ideas and beliefs on motivation. People who I've heard and read who are enlightened always say there is no reason for their action. Although it looks obvious from our standpoint why they do what they do, I think it's worth pondering why they would say such a thing.

They say there's no reason because they don't want to explain themselves! They just felt like it. It's a very selfish motivation, but their sense of self is enlarged. The feminine that is put down on these boards allows them to be everything and everyone while they follow their masculine motivation and self-direction as individuals.

[brokenhead]

My kind of enlightenment is one where a person can not only touch type proficiently, but where that person is also conscious of where each key is on the keyboard.

Agreed. It is the same with playing a musical instrument. You do not need to know how to read music or to know which notes and/or chords you are playing. But I don't think that ability impedes playing. Relying on it might: the purely classical musician plays only what he reads and interprets as the conductor instructs. But ususally, a competent classical musician can riff freely just fine, the eye-hand coordination being present. In cases such as jazz riffing, "correct" decisions are made on the fly, but the player might not be conscious of "why" s/he played one thing instead of another in a certain situation during a performance. It is interesting to hear jazz musicians discuss their musical choices. They often use analogies to describe them, such as "I did that because I was starting to play myself into a corner and I wanted to make sure I could get out." On the other hand, one who plays entirely by ear or feel cannot render written music as it is wrtten.

[Ataraxia]

Motive is always after the fact.

Nonsense. By definition motive precedes action.

Libet's experiments seem to suggest otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereitschaftspotential


Libet concludes that we have no free will in the initiation of our movements, while in movement control we have, since subjects in his experiments were able to successfully pose a last minute 'veto' to the intended movement, i.e. Libet links will totally to consciousness. However, it has to be taken into account that in our brain we have conscious and unconscious matters and both are important. Furthermore, consciousness always has a delay in both the sensory system (e.g. awareness of pain) and in the motor system.

Hopefully Dan can get Chalmers on the Reasoning Show -I'd certainly be interested to learn what he has to say about it. :)

[Laird]

samadhi: Motive is always after the fact.

Laird: Nonsense. By definition motive precedes action.

Ataraxia: Libet's experiments seem to suggest otherwise.

Interesting reading - thanks. Anyhow, it doesn't refute my claim that motive precedes action, it just means that some (physical - this research says nothing about purely mental decisions) actions are motivated by subconscious processes not subject to what we might call conscious will, and that there is probably no way to become consciously willful initiators of those actions because this is a fixed part of our biology.

[Unidian]

I don't think that there's anything particularly impressive about devoting one's life to "the propagation of wisdom" when this planet is beset by all manner of practical problems which are unaffected by this abstract "wisdom".

Again, and as I mentioned elsewhere, I think this a key mistake on Laird's part that prevents him from focusing on what might be very valid criticisms of "QRS" and casing him to get bogged down in misguided ones instead.

ALL problems on earth are affected by "this abstract wisdom" in the sense that almost the entire spectrum of human behavior (beyond basic bodily functions) is entirely dictated by ideas, values, and beliefs. Again, I need to add the all-important disclaimer that I'm not saying the QRS version of "wisdom" is necessarily the right answer. It some senses it may be, and in others it strikes me as deeply flawed. However, the basic idea that doing "cultural work" by discussing perceived problems in a rational manner and thereby contributing to the "meme pool" is an inferior sort of contribution is profoundly mistaken, in my view. To put it bluntly, nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Ataraxia]

samadhi: Motive is always after the fact.

Laird: Nonsense. By definition motive precedes action.

Ataraxia: Libet's experiments seem to suggest otherwise.

Interesting reading - thanks. Anyhow, it doesn't refute my claim that motive precedes action, it just means that some (physical - this research says nothing about purely mental decisions) actions are motivated by subconscious processes not subject to what we might call conscious will, and that there is probably no way to become consciously willful initiators of those actions because this is a fixed part of our biology.

Libet uses the word unconscious rather than sub-conscious.Maybe thats a significant difference,I'm not sure.

If it is unconscious does that make 'motive' a useful word in this context?Seems not,to me.

[Laird]

Libet uses the word unconscious rather than sub-conscious.Maybe thats a significant difference,I'm not sure.

If it is unconscious does that make 'motive' a useful word in this context?Seems not,to me.

Hmm, I'm not sure that it's a significant difference. The key to me is that it's meaningfully effective, whether under conscious control or not - who can deny that our ability to act (physically move with a purpose) is essential to our survival? In other words, I'm suggesting that at the very least we can attribute a significant motive to our unconsciously/subconsciously triggered actions as "survival", with secondary ones being perhaps satisfaction, pleasure, soothing of irritations, to mention but a very few.

Laird: I don't think that there's anything particularly impressive about devoting one's life to "the propagation of wisdom" when this planet is beset by all manner of practical problems which are unaffected by this abstract "wisdom".

Unidian: Again, and as I mentioned elsewhere, I think this a key mistake on Laird's part that prevents him from focusing on what might be very valid criticisms of "QRS" and casing him to get bogged down in misguided ones instead.

Nat, please note that I used the word "this" when talking of abstract wisdom. It's not my contention that the propagation of wisdom in general is ineffective, it's specifically that the propagation of QRS-style wisdom is ineffective. But you cause me to qualify my claim, because you have reminded me that, as I wrote in my opening post to the Common ground thread, I do recognise some value in their philosophy. I'm not going to significantly adjust my opinion that their approach is "particularly unimpressive", but I will acknowledge that it does have some positive effects. In my opinion, however, these are more than outweighed by the negative effects: misogyny, a retreat from practical solutions and into scoffing at the world's insanity, and arrogance, to name but a few.

Again, I need to add the all-important disclaimer that I'm not saying the QRS version of "wisdom" is necessarily the right answer.

Yes, well to me this is more than a disclaimer, it's the key point. I will grant, however, that their presentation of an extreme, controversial set of memes stimulates the clarification in others of their own (hopefully more sensible) positions.

[Unidian]

Laird,

In my opinion, however, these are more than outweighed by the negative effects: misogyny, a retreat from practical solutions and into scoffing at the world's insanity, and arrogance, to name but a few.

But you're still naming the very "problem" I'm disputing. If a "retreat from practical solutions" is necessary to make time for a focus on cultural and ideological ones, then it is not necessarily a "negative" thing.

But yes, the indiscriminate misogyny is chief among the things that has simply got to go. You and I have always agreed on that. At the risk of sounding dismissive, I'd point out that I was here taking them to task for it day in and day out years before many of their current critics were ever heard of. Pointing out problems and attachments inherent to human pair-bonding is one thing, but slinging around some of the heavy-handed generalizations about an entire gender that are seen here is another thing altogether - and not a positive one.

A reasoned, rational, and compassionate discussion of cultural problems related to an excessive emphasis on femininity is one thing. The Cow Te Ching and the Book of Wife are quite another, and most reasonable people are quite clear on where the difference lies.

[samadhi]

Laird,

samadhi: Nature isn't a motive, it is a description. Gravity has no motive, it just does what it does, that's all. Sure, you can say leaves want to fall to earth but that misses something important, namely that no one is deciding anything.

Laird: That's quite disingenuous of you: comparing the highly complex, intelligent consciousness of a human being with the completely inanimate and simple force of gravity ...

It was a metaphor.

Sure, you might posit that human will is the result of a process of causality, just as gravity is a process governed by causality,

First, I am not talking about causality, which after all can be just another label used to disguise "I don't know." Second, gravity itself is not causality, it is a phenomenom.

Human consciousness is a complex causal process by which sensory inputs, memory and presumably (semi-)random/(semi-)directed thoughts are synthesised to produce willful action. That's just the way that consciousness works, whether you're enlightened or not.

Maybe, maybe not. The way consciousness works is just the way it works, no one knows why. No one knows why about gravity either, it just is.

Enlightenment might be about a more effective and appropriate will, but due to the very fact that the enlightened person is nevertheless a human being with a brain and a complexly intelligent consciousness, enlightenment can't be about a complete lack of will, which is what you seem to be implying it is - unless of course you are talking about deferring one's will to a higher source as I described in my second paragraph in this post, but even in that case one still retains some of one's will - enough to be constantly making the choice to defer to this higher source and to choose as an answer to people who ask you what your motivations for your actions are that you "don't know".

I am not arguing a lack of will, the power to act. I am arguing that motivation is about ego.

samadhi: People who I've heard and read who are enlightened always say there is no reason for their action. Although it looks obvious from our standpoint why they do what they do, I think it's worth pondering why they would say such a thing.

Laird: My guess would be that they want to add a certain mystique to the concept of enlightenment - "Ooo, being enlightened is so magical that you don't even have a reason for acting anymore!"

samadhi: You are implying a motive, a need to be mysterious.

Laird: Yes, and more than simply implying it, I'm specifically asserting deliberate mystification in order to enhance the prestige and intrigue of enlightenment.

Why would enlightenment care about prestige or intrigue? They are specifically about ego. Anyone who deals in them is obviously coming from ego.

I'm furthermore implying that people who make such statements are acting dishonestly in that they are misrepresenting the nature of human consciousness, and that I don't regard them as particularly enlightened in the sense of being able to cogently describe reality (or at least the reality of one's mind).

My experience tells me something else. I don't assume I know all there is to know about consciousness and that I can always apprise another's motives. And besides, the Tao itself speaks about this quite plainly:

The Master gives himself up
to whatever the moment brings.
He knows that he is going to die,
and he has nothing left to hold on to:
no illusions in his mind,
no resistances in his body.
He doesn't think about his actions;
they flow from the core of his being.
... (Mitchell v.50)

samadhi: Motive is always after the fact.

Laird: Nonsense. By definition motive precedes action.

You are conceptualizing it. I am talking about experience.

samadhi: People act and then decide why they did what they did.

Laird: People act and then try to analyse their motivations, which motivations aren't always particularly conscious. Enlightenment is in my opinion about becoming more conscious of one's motivations and about more deliberately choosing them in the first place.

That isn't enlightenment, it is simply self-awareness. Please note, there is nothing wrong with becoming more aware of your motives. For an ego, that's a good thing, by all means, become more aware. But you still seem to have the idea that enlightenment is about knowing more and having more control. Again, the Tao:

The Master doesn't try to be powerful;
thus he is truly powerful.
The ordinary man keeps reaching for power;
thus he never has enough.

The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.

...

Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go. (Mitchell v.38)

samadhi: Enlightenment doesn't need that kind of pretense. It is not afraid to say what it doesn't know nor need it pretend to know what it doesn't.

Laird: That version of enlightenment seems to me to be more like a decision to lapse into unconsciousness: to stop trying to perfect one's will through self-analysis and to rather mindlessly accept whatever happens to come into one's mind, somehow (how exactly?) presuming that by virtue of it being one's nature it is already perfect.

I am not saying to stop trying. Try all you want. If you think it's about perfecting yourself, have at it. Trying and not trying are both strategies. In that sense they are not different. Enlightenment is not about asserting one duality over the other. It is about seeing what isn't within duality.

I'm not so willing to trust in my innate abilities. I didn't sit down in front of a keyboard for the first time and begin to touch-type effortlessly.

My point isn't not to do anything. I would say that whatever you do, do it whole-heartedly. After all, you can only truly be yourself with your whole heart, not half of one.

I can, however, accept such "unconscious" behaviour where it is the result of training or good genes. I now, through training, touch type reasonably proficiently. If you were to ask me, however, where on the keyboard any particular key is, I probably wouldn't be able to tell you without first imagining how my fingers would move to get to it. When I first learnt to touch type I had in my head a concrete map of each key's position and could have answered your question without recourse to imagining myself typing.

In this way, I can accept that an enlightened person might be unconscious of his/her motivations simply because s/he has trained his/her mind to a point that s/he no longer has a need to know them. But, and here's the point that I've been trying to make in our exchange: those motivations still exist.

In any case, this is to me a poor-man's version of enlightenment. My kind of enlightenment is one where a person can not only touch type proficiently, but where that person is also conscious of where each key is on the keyboard.

I don't think you see what I am pointing to. Enlightenment isn't about being trained into unconsciousness. That is already going on everywhere. Nor is it being conscious of every flicker of mind. It is not a rote process nor does it result in one. If you think you need to be conscious of every flicker, then you are still trying to be in control.

The Tao never does anything,
yet through it all things are done.
... (Mitchell v.37)

samadhi: Again, from the standpoint of an ego, all action is motivated. That's all the ego understands. All I am suggesting is, perhaps there is something else going on the ego is missing.

Laird: The only time that the ego is missing is when you're dead. And perhaps also when you're asleep, although not when dreaming. And yes, in those cases you most certainly are lacking in motives.

samadhi: The egoless state is not as dire or unconscious as you make it out to be. I'm sure there have been many times in your life when the "me" forgot that it was there. In such times, the spontaneity of your actions can be a delightful and telling aspect of the me’s absence.

Laird: I'm not sure that I've ever "forgotten" that I have an ego. Certainly, though, there have been times where I have been acting very spontaneously, and even times where I have been acting so spontaneously and responding so effortlessly that I'm not even sure how I can honestly say that it's even me acting. I put that down though to temporarily achieving the same sort of unconscious skill/ability in my everyday (interpersonal) behaviour as I have in my touch typing. I have, after all, been training in that all of my life...

Okay. You have your own experience. You can describe it any way you want. From my standpoint, spontaneity is about letting go. You can't try to do that, nor can you learn it. As soon as you attach a motivation or reason to spontaneity, it is no longer spontaneous. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

I'd also like to request something of you, and that is that rather than using "me" and "you" to prefix quotes, you use our names.

Done.

[Unidian]

Micthell really smears himself all over Lao-Tzu. It isn't to be considered a serious translation, any more than my own "Plain English Version" could be considered such. Both are interpretations, and thus are really not about the Lao-Tzu but about the interpreter.

Sorry Sam, just had to throw that little vinegar bomb in there. Nice to see you again, BTW.

[samadhi]

Look, Sam, we can't really resolve this unless you respond to my assertion that no action (of a conscious agent) occurs without a reason. In my opinion this is fairly undeniable.

It's true that any action can be rationalized. It doesn't mean the agent necessarily has a reason in the same way you do. You will always be on the outside looking in so what you see will always be a reflection of your own ideas and beliefs on motivation. People who I've heard and read who are enlightened always say there is no reason for their action. Although it looks obvious from our standpoint why they do what they do, I think it's worth pondering why they would say such a thing.

They say there's no reason because they don't want to explain themselves! They just felt like it. It's a very selfish motivation, but their sense of self is enlarged. The feminine that is put down on these boards allows them to be everything and everyone while they follow their masculine motivation and self-direction as individuals.

You are talking about QRS. Their motivation is quite obvious, no one would argue that.

[samadhi]

Motive is always after the fact.

Nonsense. By definition motive precedes action.

Libet's experiments seem to suggest otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereitschaftspotential


Libet concludes that we have no free will in the initiation of our movements, while in movement control we have, since subjects in his experiments were able to successfully pose a last minute 'veto' to the intended movement, i.e. Libet links will totally to consciousness. However, it has to be taken into account that in our brain we have conscious and unconscious matters and both are important. Furthermore, consciousness always has a delay in both the sensory system (e.g. awareness of pain) and in the motor system.

As I said to Laird, you are conceptualizing. Of course a scientist is going to talk about motive in terms of preceding action, it wouldn't make sense otherwise. It doesn't mean you figure out a motive before acting. If you are hungry, you eat; you don't say, hmm, "I need a motive to eat, am I hungry? Yes. Then I can eat."

[samadhi]

Micthell really smears himself all over Lao-Tzu. It isn't to be considered a serious translation, any more than my own "Plain English Version" could be considered such. Both are interpretations, and thus are really not about the Lao-Tzu but about the interpreter.

Sorry Sam, just had to throw that little vinegar bomb in there. Nice to see you again, BTW.

That's fine. I use it because it is pretty straightforward. I'm sure I could find another translation that would say pretty much the same thing.

Good to see you too, Nat.

[Unidian]

Sam, have you seen the Wikipedia article on Adya? In my opinion, it's a good article that presents his views in a persuasive light. I particularly like what the article describes as his position on the sanskaras, which is a view that makes a lot of sense to me.

[Dave Toast]

Laird & Sam,

It seems to me that you're conflating terms and not understanding each other thereby.

Laird: Look, Sam, we can't really resolve this unless you respond to my assertion that no action (of a conscious agent) occurs without a reason. In my opinion this is fairly undeniable.

Sam: It's true that any action can be rationalized. It doesn't mean the agent necessarily has a reason in the same way you do. You will always be on the outside looking in so what you see will always be a reflection of your own ideas and beliefs on motivation. People who I've heard and read who are enlightened always say there is no reason for their action. Although it looks obvious from our standpoint why they do what they do, I think it's worth pondering why they would say such a thing.

You can't go wrong saying anything happened for a reason because to do so is simply to say that this something was caused. We then go on to delineate those causes to some extent but it doesn't matter how accurate we are in doing so, the fact remains that everything happens for a reason, the actions of enlightened beings notwithstanding.

So reason isn't the word.

Laird: What is debatable is whether we call that reason a "motive". All I'm really saying is that it's fair in most cases to do that, but that the reason (motive) might very well be a "natural" one.

Sam: Again, from the standpoint of an ego, all action is motivated. That's all the ego understands. All I am suggesting is, perhaps there is something else going on the ego is missing.

Motive just means whatever impels one to act, whether it be cognizant or not. Just as there is always a reason for whatever happens, so too there is always a motive for whatever act of a conscious agent. Motive describes a subset of reasons specifically applied to the acts of consciousness agents. That is to say that whatever act a conscious agent performs is caused, ergo there is a reason for it, ergo there is a motive for it.

So the word motive fits the bill for Laird but not for Sam.

Sam: Sure, you can ascribe a motive to any action; it doesn't mean that person has that motive or any motive for that matter. If they tell you, "I don't know why I did it, I just did it," you can either not believe them or find out for yourself what is true.

Laird: Isn't the fact that such a question is so inevitable and meaningful proof that there must always be a reason of some sort?

Sam: Hardly. It just means egos will always look for motives.

Laird: And I'm cool with an answer of "it did it because it's in its nature to do it", but even that is a reason. In that case we could start off by saying that it is motivated by its nature and from there examine exactly what its nature is and eventually end up pointing to more specific motives.

Sam: Nature isn't a motive, it is a description. Gravity has no motive, it just does what it does, that's all. Sure, you can say leaves want to fall to earth but that misses something important, namely that no one is deciding anything.

You're talking about desires and needs Sam. This all started with the following:

Laird: Well sure, they act automatically and without thinking because there is nothing blocking their recognition of the right action for the right circumstances, but they nevertheless have a motive - it's just that their motive is always the correct/noble/righteous/appropriate/compassionate one.

Sam: You are confusing motive with nature. If one's nature is compassionate, there is no motive to acting with compassion. To make it into a motive is to posit some gain by acting compassionately. One can certainly benefit from the compassionate action but only in the sense that one always benefits in the fulfilling of one's nature. It doesn't mean one acts to benefit but that the benefit simply arises with the action.

Replace the word motive with desire in all of Sam's previous quotes above and you'll see what I mean. They also make a lot more sense that way.

Desires are a subset of motives. As such, desires are always motives but motives are not always desires.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Sam: Nature isn't a motive, it is a description.

One's nature has to be a motive. It's probably the only motive you could accurately ascribe to any conscious act whatsoever. Be it one's ego, intelligence, emotion, insight, height, strength, fearlessness, pain threshold, hair colour, cardiovascular health, that dodgy knee, or even one's enlightened consciousness; it's all one's nature.

Sam: Gravity has no motive, it just does what it does, that's all. Sure, you can say leaves want to fall to earth but that misses something important, namely that no one is deciding anything.

Just as we can say that leaves want to fall to earth, so too we can say that consciousnesses want to decide things. This is of course on the understanding that we know we are speaking allegorically. Just as the leaf is actually caused to fall to earth by, amongst other things (read all things), gravity; so too the consciousness is actually caused to decide by, for non-controversial example, the circumstances.