Aesthetic insights from spiritual practice?

[seeker36]

Hi Chaz,
I like you you know, you make me think and you don't just agree if what i say doesn't make sense to you.

Yes more or less. With the additional points that anything does not go and there are genuine moral standards. But that's another topic.
Er.... is it? Where do these genuine standards come from?

I believe these genuine moral standards(not absolutes,"right" and "wrong" are absolutes, standards is just saying there is a way to be more ethical, not absolutely ethical)come from awareness of one's feelings as in the above example,coupled with rational inquirey into the truth or reality of what the feelings mean. (Our ethical discussion seems to be spilling over into a different topic heading. Perhaps we shouuld confine this to ethical theory. Feel free to cut and paste what i've said here to the ethics forum).

I think it is almost impossible to separate our instinctive sense of beauty and ugliness from the culturally learned.

This sounds a bit overly fatalistic to me. It seems to imply that once you learn your standards of beauty and ugliness you're stuck with them. A bit robotic don't you think?

Well that's one way to do it. At least you look at how you feel - not everyone does. Racism and traditional values is more prevalent in the less endowed with intelligence.

I don't see this so much as a matter of intelligence, i see it more as a capacity to hold your beliefs up to scrutiny. Racism can be attractive if you believe you are the chosen people, the master race. I think racist beliefs can be hard to agknowledge(not many people these days want to admit to having such irrational beliefs or being a nasty nazi) and hard to let go of if you need to feel special or better.

Are you sure?

Quote:
All love is 'Self!' love!
All judgment is 'Self!' judgment!
All hate is 'Self!' hate!
All knowledge is 'Self Knowledge'!!!


This does not leave much room to draw any distinctions does it?

Taken in a holistic sense what Nameless has said makes sense to me:

All love is 'Self!' love!

When we feel love for another,we love ourselves too(I am a loving and compassionate person and this is an attractive indentity. Have you ever heard of an insecure pride march?)

All judgment is 'Self!' judgment!

If you see the universe as an interconnected web of elements then technically this is true.(We are made of star stuff, so are cornflakes and allbran,so technically a descision that you perfer cornflakes to allbran is a descision about the same stuff you are made of. In a sense it's a judgement about yourself.(Also in the sense that you are defining yourself with the judgement about food preferences)

All hate is 'Self!' hate!

This is precisely the point I am trying to make in the ethics forum.

All knowledge is 'Self Knowledge'!!!

Again, in the cosmic sense, all knowledge is "about us"

What do you think?

[chaz wyman]

Hi Chaz,
I like you you know, you make me think and you don't just agree if what i say doesn't make sense to you.

Yes more or less. With the additional points that anything does not go and there are genuine moral standards. But that's another topic.
Er.... is it? Where do these genuine standards come from?

I believe these genuine moral standards(not absolutes,"right" and "wrong" are absolutes, standards is just saying there is a way to be more ethical, not absolutely ethical)come from awareness of one's feelings as in the above example,coupled with rational inquirey into the truth or reality of what the feelings mean.

That is not what people generally mean by absolute. You are just re-iterating that they are subjective.
Let me have an example of an absolute moral standard and we can talk it over.

(Our ethical discussion seems to be spilling over into a different topic heading. Perhaps we shouuld confine this to ethical theory. Feel free to cut and paste what i've said here to the ethics forum).

I think it is almost impossible to separate our instinctive sense of beauty and ugliness from the culturally learned.

This sounds a bit overly fatalistic to me. It seems to imply that once you learn your standards of beauty and ugliness you're stuck with them. A bit robotic don't you think?

You misunderstand. I mean it is not possible to say what is given and what is learned - because it is not that important to know the difference. The innate potential for moral being is what makes us human; this is 'human nature' I just don't think it is particularly important or problematic to make the separation - afteral, what is human nature for one person is not likely to be the same for another, and culturally we change al the time. You ain't stuck with anything

Well that's one way to do it. At least you look at how you feel - not everyone does. Racism and traditional values is more prevalent in the less endowed with intelligence.

I don't see this so much as a matter of intelligence, i see it more as a capacity to hold your beliefs up to scrutiny. Racism can be attractive if you believe you are the chosen people, the master race. I think racist beliefs can be hard to agknowledge(not many people these days want to admit to having such irrational beliefs or being a nasty nazi) and hard to let go of if you need to feel special or better.

It just happens to be a statistical fact. This implies that intelligence helps us empathise, and enables us to change our ideas.

Are you sure?

Quote:
All love is 'Self!' love!
All judgment is 'Self!' judgment!
All hate is 'Self!' hate!
All knowledge is 'Self Knowledge'!!!


This does not leave much room to draw any distinctions does it?

Taken in a holistic sense what Nameless has said makes sense to me:

All love is 'Self!' love!

When we feel love for another,we love ourselves too(I am a loving and compassionate person and this is an attractive indentity. Have you ever heard of an insecure pride march?)

All judgment is 'Self!' judgment!

What about when I love another person. Am I just loving myself?
And can't I have knowledge of the world beyond my self?
If it is all about me me me. Then I will never change.


If you see the universe as an interconnected web of elements then technically this is true.(We are made of star stuff, so are cornflakes and allbran,so technically a descision that you perfer cornflakes to allbran is a descision about the same stuff you are made of. In a sense it's a judgement about yourself.(Also in the sense that you are defining yourself with the judgement about food preferences)

Knowledge of the universe might be connected, but that does not mean it is not useful to distinguish ME from IT.
If you think it is all self self self then you can never recognise the connections and distinctions the give the universe structure and meaning.

All hate is 'Self!' hate!

This is precisely the point I am trying to make in the ethics forum.

All knowledge is 'Self Knowledge'!!!

Again, in the cosmic sense, all knowledge is "about us"

What do you think?

Just no. It's not in any way helpful, just childishly solipsistic.

[..nameless..]

Isn't telling somebody that you ignore them a contradiction in itself? :)

Also, I think that "ignore" lists are for people who lack the character and moral strength to actually ignore. 8)

Whatever...

The great Acarya Maitreya says in his Saptadasa-bhumi-sastra-yogacarya:

"Before accepting a challenge for a debate, one should consider whether his opponent is
a person worthy of carrying on debate through the process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), etc. He should, before proceeding there, consider whether the debate will exercise any good influence on his opponent, the umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he should consider whether a debate - even won - would not bring him more harm than benefit."

[chaz wyman]

Isn't telling somebody that you ignore them a contradiction in itself?

Also, I think that "ignore" lists are for people who lack the character and moral strength to actually ignore.

Whatever...

The great Acarya Maitreya says in his Saptadasa-bhumi-sastra-yogacarya:

"Before accepting a challenge for a debate, one should consider whether his opponent is
a person worthy of carrying on debate through the process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), etc. He should, before proceeding there, consider whether the debate will exercise any good influence on his opponent, the umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he should consider whether a debate - even won - would not bring him more harm than benefit."

Slave mentality.

[seeker36]

Hello Chaz,

That is not what people generally mean by absolute. You are just re-iterating that they are subjective. Let me have an example of an absolute moral standard and we can talk it over.

Well then I am forced to agree with you by agreeing with the majority view of what a moral absolute is. From the majority point of view/your point of view you are correct that I am suggesting absolute moral relativism(Heh heh!). That's not what my personal meaning of moral absolute is to me.

You misunderstand. I mean it is not possible to say what is given and what is learned - because it is not that important to know the difference. The innate potential for moral being is what makes us human; this is 'human nature' I just don't think it is particularly important or problematic to make the separation - afteral, what is human nature for one person is not likely to be the same for another, and culturally we change al the time. You ain't stuck with anything

Okay yes fair point, thanks for clarifying.

It just happens to be a statistical fact. This implies that intelligence helps us empathise, and enables us to change our ideas.

I'm sure it is a statistical fact. But IQ tests don't just measure innate intellegence in some infallable way, they also inadvertantly measure how openminded people are. I suggest that this is more about using our intelligence rather than an direct measure of innate intelligence.

What about when I love another person. Am I just loving myself?
And can't I have knowledge of the world beyond my self?
If it is all about me me me. Then I will never change.

Well this is paradoxical. People are different from one another and they are different from the world(They think differently,look different,behave differently,believe different things etc). We are also the same as others because we all have thoughts,beliefs,are made of the same biological elements etc. So it comes down to seeing commonalities. In a sense we are loving ourselves, yes. To me, change is about recognising commonalities and seeing that we are all essentially the same stuff.

Knowledge of the universe might be connected, but that does not mean it is not useful to distinguish ME from IT.
If you think it is all self self self then you can never recognise the connections and distinctions the give the universe structure and meaning.

You'll get absolutely no argument from me there. As i said above, it is about a hamonious balance between self and not self.

Just no. It's not in any way helpful, just childishly solipsistic.

Possibly. I think it depends how you look at it.

[..nameless..]

Quote:
All love is 'Self!' love!
All judgment is 'Self!' judgment!
All hate is 'Self!' hate!
All knowledge is 'Self Knowledge'!!!

This does not leave much room to draw any distinctions does it?

I'm not sure to whom I respond here (seeker?), but;
There is literally all the room in the world to draw your distinctionc.
What I speak of is Universal Reality, the 'complete set'.
The sum-total of all (Perspectives) 'distinctions'!

Everything else is 'distinctions' (subsets). That is what 'thought' does. It is in/as 'thought' alone that subject/object distinctions are perceived.
'Thought' is the same as 'ego'. That is where our egoic 'self' construct exists, within a rather small 'circle' into which we have moved, distinct from that 'circle' (see below).
Imagine that there's a vast blast of music, every note from every instrument on the planet. All at the same moment! One major !!!!!!! (and a few squeaks)
No discernable melody or rhythm... So, in essence, 'thought' breaks out a Sharpie and draws circles in the air around a bunch of notes.

Every Perspective that looks upon that One Reality draws a unique 'circle' around it, Perspective.


Within that 'circle' is (perceived) Beethoven's genius 9th symphony, in another 'circle', a different Perspective, the Beatles' 'Yellow Submarine'.
There are many Perspectives of One Reality.
Thus;
"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

'Thought' (ego) draws a 'circle' and calls it 'Daisy' (not 'me') and falls in love, or hates 'her'...
She draws a 'circle' and loves that 'circle' or hates 'him' (vs 'me')...
All is 'Self!' perceiving 'Self!' (every moment of existence!)
All Knowledge (perception) is 'Self!' Knowledge!
One Omni 'Self!'!
We are always One! (Thinking/believing(!) otherwise is schizophrenia, the fragmentation of that which is One!)

It is in this soil that Agape Love can grow, without 'distinctions'! Unconditional...

Perhaps that clarifies a bit...

[chaz wyman]

Hello Chaz,

That is not what people generally mean by absolute. You are just re-iterating that they are subjective. Let me have an example of an absolute moral standard and we can talk it over.

Well then I am forced to agree with you by agreeing with the majority view of what a moral absolute is. From the majority point of view/your point of view you are correct that I am suggesting absolute moral relativism(Heh heh!). That's not what my personal meaning of moral absolute is to me.

Okay, good. Can I gather then, that you mean to say you have personal moral rules that you (absolutely) insist upon?
And so - can you give an aexample?

You misunderstand. I mean it is not possible to say what is given and what is learned - because it is not that important to know the difference. The innate potential for moral being is what makes us human; this is 'human nature' I just don't think it is particularly important or problematic to make the separation - afteral, what is human nature for one person is not likely to be the same for another, and culturally we change al the time. You ain't stuck with anything

Okay yes fair point, thanks for clarifying.

It just happens to be a statistical fact. This implies that intelligence helps us empathise, and enables us to change our ideas.

I'm sure it is a statistical fact. But IQ tests don't just measure innate intellegence in some infallable way, they also inadvertantly measure how openminded people are. I suggest that this is more about using our intelligence rather than an direct measure of innate intelligence.

WHich begs the questions; what do you mean intelligent, and what is innate intelligence?

What about when I love another person. Am I just loving myself?
And can't I have knowledge of the world beyond my self?
If it is all about me me me. Then I will never change.

Well this is paradoxical. People are different from one another and they are different from the world(They think differently,look different,behave differently,believe different things etc). We are also the same as others because we all have thoughts,beliefs,are made of the same biological elements etc. So it comes down to seeing commonalities. In a sense we are loving ourselves, yes. To me, change is about recognising commonalities and seeing that we are all essentially the same stuff.

That can be a recipe for disaster. We can look for commonalities, but that is not an excuse to demand that we all adhere to them. Variety is the spice of life and we are more abel to adapt to the future if we maintain a spectrum of cultural strategies. Homogeneity is death. I 'm having a discussion on another thread with Godfree who wants to stamp out religion to replace it with a 'system of belief' based on Atheism (despite it being a negation). He considers the findings of science to provide the commonalities necessary to build a new utopia. All I see is another religion in what he suggests.

Knowledge of the universe might be connected, but that does not mean it is not useful to distinguish ME from IT.
If you think it is all self self self then you can never recognise the connections and distinctions the give the universe structure and meaning.

You'll get absolutely no argument from me there. As i said above, it is about a hamonious balance between self and not self.

Thus; all knowledge/love/etc. is self knowledge/love/etc. is FALSE.

Just no. It's not in any way helpful, just childishly solipsistic.

Possibly. I think it depends how you look at it.

[seeker36]

Hi Chaz,
Your ingenius deconstruction of my arguements had led me to some interesting conclusions. A moral theory is impossible because moral reality is infinately complex and contextual and to try to tie morality up in a box and label it absolute moral truth is possessive and arrogant. An immoral act! At best we can only talk in generalsations about morality. I think morality is like chaos theory or the uncertainty principle.

Interesting points about intelligence. Definitions seem to be subjective and as you have pointed out, how can we know what is innate?

That can be a recipe for disaster. We can look for commonalities, but that is not an excuse to demand that we all adhere to them. Variety is the spice of life and we are more abel to adapt to the future if we maintain a spectrum of cultural strategies. Homogeneity is death. I 'm having a discussion on another thread with Godfree who wants to stamp out religion to replace it with a 'system of belief' based on Atheism (despite it being a negation). He considers the findings of science to provide the commonalities necessary to build a new utopia. All I see is another religion in what he suggests.

I think a balance between respecting differences and sharing commonalities is needed and i am suggesting that humanity is deeply out of balance in this respect. Take the absurd dualism of capitalism/communism for example.(Individual/collective) I am certainly not arguing for absolute uniformity of belief,just a relative shift towards a healthier balance.

Thus; all knowledge/love/etc. is self knowledge/love/etc. is FALSE

I think you may be misunderstanding me here Chaz. Knowledge of everything is indeed knowledge of nothing But you may be falling for the soup or soup paradox i think. One person all alone in nothingness cannot know himself.He is soup. but equally homogeneity is also soup.

I may be away awhile as the internet at home is messed up. Feel free to comment in the meantime.

Nameless. I think i just said what you said.