4 ms·

I don't hate anybody, I didn't need some crank who talks about omniscience to help me realize that. From a cosmological standpoint, of course one can argue tha

I don't hate anybody, I didn't need some crank who talks about omniscience to help me realize that. From a cosmological standpoint, of course one can argue that nobody has a free will and that nobody is ultimately responsible for anything. For practical purposes, this is a pretty useless insight. In practical terms, the people that cut you off in traffic for no good reason are what we humans call "assholes" (or similar). We sanction this behavior so that we can work better as a society. There's a purpose for you to get upset about such behavior. It is directly connected to your instinct for survival, your will to live. Yes, sometimes your will to live makes you suffer. That doesn't mean killing off that will is "enlightened", or that the people who "tune out" are to be revered for it. You're rebranding a thinly veiled "sour grapes attitude" into a virtue. > You treat people completely differently, you become kinder, more courteous, less hateful, and more patient, at larger scale animosity and hostility between peoples decreases to zero and world / universal peace is achieved. This is a foolish belief. If there is no such thing as an "asshole", there is no such thing as "murderer". Remember, nobody is responsible for anything. It's all just part of the cosmic ballet! That's how Zen Buddhism helped the Japanese commit all those atrocities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War Remember, not everyone actually buys into this philosophy, by their nature. Your brand of philosophy is one of weakness, of little resistance. It doesn't have the "tools" for survival on its own and it's easily exploited.

1000units 7y ago
Your posting in this thread and particularly this comment is well-reasoned, civil, and on target, and I think it's a shame you're being censored. If you (or any bystanders of similar mind) email the address in my profile, I will reach out with an invitation to a forum for hard-skinned rationalists if/when I get around to creating it. Cheers.
hooch 7y ago
I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. The comment I offered was an illustration that I found helpful in clarifying the Buddhist concept of non-self. In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never led to disappointment. Unless perhaps you were thinking I wrote omnipotence? As for the traffic examples, having spent a while in countries where nobody really bothers to sanction other motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, push carts, cows, etc, strangely it works out okay. It’s almost like the drivers stopping to blow their horn and yell “asshole” create exponentially more problems further back up the web of traffic, than had they refrained from doing that.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. It doesn't. Drawn to its logical conclusion, your philosophy can't prove anything. When challenged, you relegate to semantic games, diluting your terms and statements to the point where they can mean anything and nothing. You accuse me of being judgemental instead of actually defending your philosophy. Well, so what if I'm being judgemental? When it comes to philosophy, judgement is in order. > In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never disappointed. Omniscience not only is a superpower, it is a godlike superpower. It means "to know everything". Everything! Of course, if in "your book" omniscience means something else entirely, you shouldn't use that word without simultaneously giving your idiosyncratic definition. Otherwise, you're playing that semantic game where you can retreat from any position by changing the meaning of words after-the-fact. It's the cheapest trick in the book. > Unless perhaps you were thinking I meant omnipotence. No. To "know everything" is distinct from being able to "do anything".
  - hooch 7y ago
    Sorry, I don’t have a philosophical axe to grind. I wasn’t presenting a philosophy. I just spent a fair amount of time trying to unpack the Buddhist concept of non-self, and offered up something that I found to be a novel way of elucidating the significance and usefulness of non-self, and shone a light, for me at least, on the habits of mind which obscure the understanding. In the context of the quote, omniscience is a valid term. In a practical context, a literal adherence is not necessary to derive a meaningful understanding and experience. For example, a child may say “I’m no good at maths”. Yet you spend some time helping them patiently, and in time they gain some confidence, maybe even some mastery, and that particular once firmly-held notion is proven to be false, an obscuration. The first level being the thought “I’m no good at maths” and the second level being the firmly-held belief that it’s an immutable fact. Beyond all this, the identity you ascribe to me (“kook”, “my philosophy”) is all your creation. I appreciate now that you don’t like Buddhism. That doesn’t automatically mean that I came here to argue with you about that.
zzzeek 7y ago
> For practical purposes, this is a pretty useless insight. In practical terms, the people that cut you off in traffic for no good reason are what we humans call "assholes" (or similar). We sanction this behavior so that we can work better as a society. There's a purpose for you to get upset about such behavior. It is directly connected to your instinct for survival, your will to live. What if one of your family members accidentally cut you off on the road, is your Aunt Bea now an "asshole", seeking to hurt you or otherwise recklessly endanger your life, or did she make an unfortunate mistake? What if she feels really bad about it? Do you still decide she's an "asshole"? It is hate when you write someone off like that, and being angry at someone is not the same as hating them. You seem to have missed the larger point that a lot of strife around the world is caused by people who decide to hate others. This hatred arises from an emotional place and is the cause of a large majortiy of human conflict. Being in control of unbridled hatred for anyone that causes you an unpleasant emotion at some point is not a weakness, it's a strength. Being able to not write off someone who cut you off on the road is a very novice practice case in developing the same skill one would use when they decide not to hate an ethnic minority moving into their country, and this is a skill worth having. It is taught to children in preschool, in fact, in the form of, don't go beating on that kid who took your toy, go and talk to them instead. This isn't religiosity or mysticism or anything else, it's simply taking the practice of being a considerate person into more of a real lifestyle. Also this has nothing to do with buddhists and whether or not they've managed to be non-hateful people or not. You can pretty easily argue that humans are essentially hate-filled and that it's impossible to eradicate. It is our nature after all. But living a life drowned in hate is not how everyone chooses to live.

1000units 7y ago

Your posting in this thread and particularly this comment is well-reasoned, civil, and on target, and I think it's a shame you're being censored. If you (or any bystanders of similar mind) email the address in my profile, I will reach out with an invitation to a forum for hard-skinned rationalists if/when I get around to creating it. Cheers.

hooch 7y ago

I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. The comment I offered was an illustration that I found helpful in clarifying the Buddhist concept of non-self. In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never led to disappointment. Unless perhaps you were thinking I wrote omnipotence? As for the traffic examples, having spent a while in countries where nobody really bothers to sanction other motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, push carts, cows, etc, strangely it works out okay. It’s almost like the drivers stopping to blow their horn and yell “asshole” create exponentially more problems further back up the web of traffic, than had they refrained from doing that.

gridlockd 7y ago
> I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. It doesn't. Drawn to its logical conclusion, your philosophy can't prove anything. When challenged, you relegate to semantic games, diluting your terms and statements to the point where they can mean anything and nothing. You accuse me of being judgemental instead of actually defending your philosophy. Well, so what if I'm being judgemental? When it comes to philosophy, judgement is in order. > In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never disappointed. Omniscience not only is a superpower, it is a godlike superpower. It means "to know everything". Everything! Of course, if in "your book" omniscience means something else entirely, you shouldn't use that word without simultaneously giving your idiosyncratic definition. Otherwise, you're playing that semantic game where you can retreat from any position by changing the meaning of words after-the-fact. It's the cheapest trick in the book. > Unless perhaps you were thinking I meant omnipotence. No. To "know everything" is distinct from being able to "do anything".
- hooch 7y ago
  Sorry, I don’t have a philosophical axe to grind. I wasn’t presenting a philosophy. I just spent a fair amount of time trying to unpack the Buddhist concept of non-self, and offered up something that I found to be a novel way of elucidating the significance and usefulness of non-self, and shone a light, for me at least, on the habits of mind which obscure the understanding. In the context of the quote, omniscience is a valid term. In a practical context, a literal adherence is not necessary to derive a meaningful understanding and experience. For example, a child may say “I’m no good at maths”. Yet you spend some time helping them patiently, and in time they gain some confidence, maybe even some mastery, and that particular once firmly-held notion is proven to be false, an obscuration. The first level being the thought “I’m no good at maths” and the second level being the firmly-held belief that it’s an immutable fact. Beyond all this, the identity you ascribe to me (“kook”, “my philosophy”) is all your creation. I appreciate now that you don’t like Buddhism. That doesn’t automatically mean that I came here to argue with you about that.

zzzeek 7y ago

> For practical purposes, this is a pretty useless insight. In practical terms, the people that cut you off in traffic for no good reason are what we humans call "assholes" (or similar). We sanction this behavior so that we can work better as a society. There's a purpose for you to get upset about such behavior. It is directly connected to your instinct for survival, your will to live. What if one of your family members accidentally cut you off on the road, is your Aunt Bea now an "asshole", seeking to hurt you or otherwise recklessly endanger your life, or did she make an unfortunate mistake? What if she feels really bad about it? Do you still decide she's an "asshole"? It is hate when you write someone off like that, and being angry at someone is not the same as hating them. You seem to have missed the larger point that a lot of strife around the world is caused by people who decide to hate others. This hatred arises from an emotional place and is the cause of a large majortiy of human conflict. Being in control of unbridled hatred for anyone that causes you an unpleasant emotion at some point is not a weakness, it's a strength. Being able to not write off someone who cut you off on the road is a very novice practice case in developing the same skill one would use when they decide not to hate an ethnic minority moving into their country, and this is a skill worth having. It is taught to children in preschool, in fact, in the form of, don't go beating on that kid who took your toy, go and talk to them instead. This isn't religiosity or mysticism or anything else, it's simply taking the practice of being a considerate person into more of a real lifestyle. Also this has nothing to do with buddhists and whether or not they've managed to be non-hateful people or not. You can pretty easily argue that humans are essentially hate-filled and that it's impossible to eradicate. It is our nature after all. But living a life drowned in hate is not how everyone chooses to live.