Do No Harm
.
What about circumstances where most would not identify harm or potential harm, but a wise person does, and acts accordingly? The affected then hiss in pain.
There will naturally be varying views, opposing views even (all too common in my experience), to what constitutes harmful and non-harmful behaviour. A key difference is whether the protection of attachments is considered to be good practise, or harmful.
I think these points should be noted in any "Do No Harm" introduction.
.
What about circumstances where most would not identify harm or potential harm, but a wise person does, and acts accordingly? The affected then hiss in pain.
There will naturally be varying views, opposing views even (all too common in my experience), to what constitutes harmful and non-harmful behaviour. A key difference is whether the protection of attachments is considered to be good practise, or harmful.
I think these points should be noted in any "Do No Harm" introduction.
.
Please do not confuse my philosophy with the Do No Harm movement. I wear many hats, but only one at a time.DavidQuinn000 wrote:It depends on which illusion he chooses to adopt, Kevin. You should know that.
Personally, I prefer to adopt the illusion that nothing I do causes harm. After all, this is just as real as any other illusion. The issue is thus resolved. I definitely don't harm anyone with my actions.
-
My friend Clyde, though respectful of my Poly-Solipsism philosophy, does not share the same perspective of it as I do. In fact to my knowledge he has never read the whole essay and we seldom discuss it.
So please, no matter how you may perceive me, do not label Clyde with your same assumptions.
The important thing we do share in common is our desire for a kinder and more compassionate world.
I would think that would be the aspiration of everyone.
Do No Harm
Chuck
Rhett;
What do you mean by the phrase "the protection of attachments"?
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
What do you mean by the phrase "the protection of attachments"?
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Chuck wrote:
So let's see if I've got it right:
Chuck believes that all views are illusions and that no one illusion should be valued above another. He does, however, seem to value this particular illusion over all the others.
Clyde disagrees with that all views are illusory, which mean that he must affirm a particular view to be reflective of reality. What is that view exactly?
-
You guys are confusing. Who am I talking to now?Please do not confuse my philosophy with the Do No Harm movement. I wear many hats, but only one at a time.
My friend Clyde, though respectful of my Poly-Solipsism philosophy, does not share the same perspective of it as I do.
So let's see if I've got it right:
Chuck believes that all views are illusions and that no one illusion should be valued above another. He does, however, seem to value this particular illusion over all the others.
Clyde disagrees with that all views are illusory, which mean that he must affirm a particular view to be reflective of reality. What is that view exactly?
-
Rhett;Rhett Hamilton wrote:.
Wherever there is not enlightenment there is attachment.
.
Yes, and where there is attachment there is suffering.
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
David;
I read on your web-site that you are “A follower of the Infinite†and
And if by “awaken†you mean to make aware, then our aims are similar, although “Do No Harm†also calls upon people to act according to that understanding. Isn’t that logical?
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
I read on your web-site that you are “A follower of the Infinite†and
Who isn’t immersed in the Infinite?I am a highly logical thinker who spends his days immersing himself in the Infinite. My aim in life is to awaken as many people as possible to this marvellous reality, which I sometimes call God or Tao.
And if by “awaken†you mean to make aware, then our aims are similar, although “Do No Harm†also calls upon people to act according to that understanding. Isn’t that logical?
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
One can not achieve enlighten in this life because no
one can be perfect. We want to be enlighten because it is
something we do not have. I believe on the time of your death
in this life you became enlighten or fallen. The Creator gave us
this option of doing so. For in order to be love there must be
hate, in order to have light there must be darkness. For life
and beyond life is a double sided coin. For I died in the womb
of my mother but came back to life to bring other’s to
understand. To inform you whom argue with fools is not
enlighten but yet a fool, but he who makes his statement on
the table and make you chose is a Wiseman.
one can be perfect. We want to be enlighten because it is
something we do not have. I believe on the time of your death
in this life you became enlighten or fallen. The Creator gave us
this option of doing so. For in order to be love there must be
hate, in order to have light there must be darkness. For life
and beyond life is a double sided coin. For I died in the womb
of my mother but came back to life to bring other’s to
understand. To inform you whom argue with fools is not
enlighten but yet a fool, but he who makes his statement on
the table and make you chose is a Wiseman.
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Clyde wrote:
It depends. How do envision such action?
-
DQ: I am a highly logical thinker who spends his days immersing himself in the Infinite. My aim in life is to awaken as many people as possible to this marvellous reality, which I sometimes call God or Tao.
C: Who isn’t immersed in the Infinite?
And if by “awaken†you mean to make aware, then our aims are similar, although “Do No Harm†also calls upon people to act according to that understanding. Isn’t that logical?
It depends. How do envision such action?
-
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
David;
I’m not certain what exactly you’re asking. Perhaps you could rephrase your question?
And in what way could acting according to one’s understanding of the Infinite not be logical?
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
I’m not certain what exactly you’re asking. Perhaps you could rephrase your question?
And in what way could acting according to one’s understanding of the Infinite not be logical?
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
.
Given the role attachments play in the occurence of harm, and by extension, the role the protection of attachments plays, can you tell me why these are not focused upon in your introduction to "Do no harm"?
Can you tell me why common attachments such as partnering, family, materialism, sex, happiness, and religion, are not spoken against? And why the vocal majority that speak of these as cure-alls, in particular the mass media and authority figures, are not spoken against?
A lot of suffering happens because of relationships, familial expectations, greed, sexual gratification, emotional longing, and herdly dogma. This is even seen by most, but is accepted.
.
Yes.clyde wrote:Rhett: Wherever there is not enlightenment there is attachment.
Clyde: Yes, and where there is attachment there is suffering.
Given the role attachments play in the occurence of harm, and by extension, the role the protection of attachments plays, can you tell me why these are not focused upon in your introduction to "Do no harm"?
Can you tell me why common attachments such as partnering, family, materialism, sex, happiness, and religion, are not spoken against? And why the vocal majority that speak of these as cure-alls, in particular the mass media and authority figures, are not spoken against?
A lot of suffering happens because of relationships, familial expectations, greed, sexual gratification, emotional longing, and herdly dogma. This is even seen by most, but is accepted.
.
David & Rhett;
I will address both of your questions together as I think my responses are related.
There is no specific behavior that I can name, because any action, in and of itself, may or may not be consistent depending on one’s present understanding and the circumstances of the moment; i.e., it is the relationship of understanding and action.
And because we do not know the understanding another has or the circumstances they face, we do not advocate specific “do’s and don’tsâ€. We are advocating the each of us acts in accordance with our understanding to cause the least suffering.
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
I will address both of your questions together as I think my responses are related.
There is no specific behavior that I can name, because any action, in and of itself, may or may not be consistent depending on one’s present understanding and the circumstances of the moment; i.e., it is the relationship of understanding and action.
And because we do not know the understanding another has or the circumstances they face, we do not advocate specific “do’s and don’tsâ€. We are advocating the each of us acts in accordance with our understanding to cause the least suffering.
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Lets get back to your core idea for a bit, like on the donoharm.us websiteclyde wrote: I “assume†that one may choose to act this way or that way and I understand that each potential act will have its own set of consequences. I do not assume that we know or can know all the consequences of our actions (or inaction), but that we can act with our current understanding to cause the least harm.
Is here imagining the same as understanding (the pain and suffering of others)?We believe that the first and most basic moral law is, "Do no harm." Why? Because we can feel pain and suffering, we can imagine the pain and suffering of others.
I believe these are two different things, often colliding. Understanding causes itself a degree of suffering and frustration that causes people to run away into other 'lighter' suffering. Suffering is not something we all distribute, force upon others; much of it is received and engaged in, drawn into by our attachments. It's actually quite rare to be at the receiving end of harm without having part in it. One attempt to describe this was the idea of 'karma'. It's like having as basic moral law "have no karma". What does that help exactly in terms of education? And what would be moral about it?
So to call it the "first and basic moral law" looks delusional to me, because understandings might lead to the opposite, that some harm has to be inflicted, that nature has to be conquered, to a degree, that the earth and our soul has to be penetrated. With consideration yes, but the message of doing no harm is just plain confusing and deceiving in this respect.
Diebert;
Thank you for visiting the web-site. I hope you also read the web-page titled “reflections†( http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ).
We did not write “understandâ€, but “imagine the pain and suffering of others.†It is not necessary to understand the suffering of others – only that we can envision the suffering of others. And you left off the last sentence of that paragraph:
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
Thank you for visiting the web-site. I hope you also read the web-page titled “reflections†( http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ).
We did not write “understandâ€, but “imagine the pain and suffering of others.†It is not necessary to understand the suffering of others – only that we can envision the suffering of others. And you left off the last sentence of that paragraph:
Finally, are you confused by the message, “do no harm� And if so, what confuses you about the message whose intent is to promote less suffering?We believe that the first and most basic moral law is, "Do no harm." Why? Because we can feel pain and suffering, we can imagine the pain and suffering of others. Because we can imagine the pain and suffering of others, we can act accordingly.
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
My only point so far is about the three words that are seen as a proper 'hook' into deeper realizations. If people have to start browsing around for further qualifications to find what is intended with the phrase: is the phrase then still a good choice, one could ask?clyde wrote:Diebert;
Thank you for visiting the web-site. I hope you also read the web-page titled “reflections†( http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ).
All suffering is understandable, quite easily, once the root is known.We did not write “understandâ€, but “imagine the pain and suffering of others.†It is not necessary to understand the suffering of others – only that we can envision the suffering of others.
Basically what I'm not agreeing with is the apparent wish that people should stop harming each other. Sounds like the philosophy of a dog beaten once too often. What I find way more important is to understand the cause of all suffering. And thereby eliminating it. Why starting to confuse it with a term that relates to "injury", "wrong' and "evil", or in other words: mostly moral or relative terms.Finally, are you confused by the message, “do no harm� And if so, what confuses you about the message whose intent is to promote less suffering?
Most people I meet would learn way more by learning to be more assertive, find the courage to hurt people's feelings, to become an outcast if that's the result of speaking out. To live and think a bit more dangerously. To grow a healthy and strong ego or sense of self before undermining it.
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Clyde wrote:
Okay, let's examine this a bit more closely.
Why do you believe that the principle of "causing the least suffering" is consistent with a good understanding of the Infinite? You haven't really spelt this out yet.
Earlier in this thread, you wrote:
-
DQ: What specific behaviour do you think is consistent with a good understanding of the Infinite?
Clyde: There is no specific behavior that I can name, because any action, in and of itself, may or may not be consistent depending on one’s present understanding and the circumstances of the moment; i.e., it is the relationship of understanding and action.
And because we do not know the understanding another has or the circumstances they face, we do not advocate specific “do’s and don’tsâ€. We are advocating the each of us acts in accordance with our understanding to cause the least suffering.
Okay, let's examine this a bit more closely.
Why do you believe that the principle of "causing the least suffering" is consistent with a good understanding of the Infinite? You haven't really spelt this out yet.
Earlier in this thread, you wrote:
What happens if the "best possible outcome for all concerned" requires people to go through a great amount of suffering?“Do no harm†challenges us to exercise “thoughtful considerationâ€, which requires us to apply mindfulness, wisdom and compassion to the process of determining the best possible outcome for all concerned.
-
-
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Kevin:
I agree - I think the most beneficial work I have done has been for free. Are you sure you posted this on the right thread, though?I've been earning my own income for about the last eight years, but only because I've been able to do it with only a tiny bit of work. My good fortune probably won't last forever, and then I'll go back to being on a government benefit.
Not everyone in society is the same. Not everyone is made to go out and earn an income. Different people have different skills, and some skills are valuable even though nobody wants to pay for those skills in the marketplace. It is important to recognize this, and not be swept along by the religion of capitalism, where worth is measured only by what other people are prepared to pay.
-
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
It might be literally possible, but one would have to do absolutly nothing in order to do no harm. By becoming inert, one also does not do any good.G Shantz wrote:It is impossible to do no harm.
Doctors are taught "First, do no harm." but all drugs have side effects, surgery requires a form of injury to the patient - and the goal of curing an infection is to harm (actually to kill) the invading bacteria. Taken literally, it does become hypocracy.
-
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Diebert wrote:
This does not contradict my earlier post statement that doing nothing is the only way to not harm anyone, because by leaving the sandspur in, although is a harmful condition, no one is "doing' the harm by leaving it in.
A person can hurt another without harming them, and it sounds like you are referring to a helpful hurt rather than actual "harm." It hurts to remove a sandspur, but there is more harm to leaving it in than taking it out - which is helpful hurting.Basically what I'm not agreeing with is the apparent wish that people should stop harming each other. Sounds like the philosophy of a dog beaten once too often. What I find way more important is to understand the cause of all suffering. And thereby eliminating it. Why starting to confuse it with a term that relates to "injury", "wrong' and "evil", or in other words: mostly moral or relative terms.
Most people I meet would learn way more by learning to be more assertive, find the courage to hurt people's feelings, to become an outcast if that's the result of speaking out. To live and think a bit more dangerously. To grow a healthy and strong ego or sense of self before undermining it.
This does not contradict my earlier post statement that doing nothing is the only way to not harm anyone, because by leaving the sandspur in, although is a harmful condition, no one is "doing' the harm by leaving it in.
.
.
This means you think that some attachments are okay in some circumstances. The problem with this is all attachments harm the mind in one way or another.clyde wrote:I will address both of your questions together as I think my responses are related.
There is no specific behavior that I can name, because any action, in and of itself, may or may not be consistent depending on one’s present understanding and the circumstances of the moment; i.e., it is the relationship of understanding and action.
And because we do not know the understanding another has or the circumstances they face, we do not advocate specific “do’s and don’tsâ€. We are advocating the each of us acts in accordance with our understanding to cause the least suffering.
.
Diebert;
We seem to be covering the same ground again. I’ve acknowledged that the phrase may not be for everyone and I understand that you may prefer some other message or phrase.
You wrote,
The phrase “do no harm†is a motto or slogan, a way to convey an approach (“thoughtful considerationâ€) in a simple to remember phrase. A phrase cannot explain. That is why I referred to the “reflections†page ( http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ), as I believe the writings there may address some of your concerns and questions.
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
We seem to be covering the same ground again. I’ve acknowledged that the phrase may not be for everyone and I understand that you may prefer some other message or phrase.
You wrote,
Are you then in favor of people harming you? Is that the message you wish to promote?Basically what I'm not agreeing with is the apparent wish that people should stop harming each other.
The phrase “do no harm†is a motto or slogan, a way to convey an approach (“thoughtful considerationâ€) in a simple to remember phrase. A phrase cannot explain. That is why I referred to the “reflections†page ( http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ), as I believe the writings there may address some of your concerns and questions.
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
David;DavidQuinn000 wrote:Why do you believe that the principle of "causing the least suffering" is consistent with a good understanding of the Infinite? You haven't really spelt this out yet.
Excellent question.
Let me start with this question(s) to you: Have you in the past experienced suffering, such as a tooth ache or the prick of a thorn, sadness at a loss or anger at a slight, or confusion or uncertainty? Or do you now experience suffering? Or do you think you may experience suffering in the future, perhaps during the dying process? If you answered “No†to all those questions, then you do not know suffering and “do no harm†is meaningless to you. If, however, you answered “Yes†to even one of the questions, then you know what suffering is.
If you know what suffering is, then you can imagine another’s suffering. And if you can imagine another’s suffering, then you can act accordingly.
Why should you act to minimize suffering? Because if we understand that we are all inter-related and part of the Infinite (as you wrote in The Wisdom of the Infinite, “Separation is ultimately an illusion.â€), then we understand that all suffering is equally ours.
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde
Elizabeth;Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:A person can hurt another without harming them, and it sounds like you are referring to a helpful hurt rather than actual "harm." It hurts to remove a sandspur, but there is more harm to leaving it in than taking it out - which is helpful hurting.
This does not contradict my earlier post statement that doing nothing is the only way to not harm anyone, because by leaving the sandspur in, although is a harmful condition, no one is "doing' the harm by leaving it in.
I agree that some suffering prevents or ends greater suffering, such as your example of the sandspur.
I disagree with your analysis of “doing nothingâ€. Even as you state it, it is a doing. And doing nothing to prevent or end a greater suffering is a “doing†that causes suffering.
Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde