Human

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres, welcome back!

Thanks, but I never really left, just reduced frequency, been busy. Good to see you're still here though!

[SpheresOfBalance]

The dictionary is working overtime.
At some point one asks for an understanding beyond official doctrine but all a cow can offer are simplistic, official dogma and references.

He can break bricks with his balls but this retard can';t break out of his mental jail.

Once more the turd replaces one word with a simile.
Human? It's a man...

Turd, how do they designate a species, in this case human?
In simpler terms, simpleton, what makes a man a man rather than a chimp, like you?
Chimps are primates...cows are mammals...ostriches are bipedal....your entire family can p[ass for human...but we both know you are a bovine.

I see that human is simply a label applied to our species. The primary difference between us and other species is our abilities, which are attributed to the capabilities of our brain.

Now could you please dispense with the ridiculous badgering, I know you're capable of engaging in mature conversation, I've seen it once or twice.

[Satyr]

Excellent...now since human is a mental attribute is it not also so that not all "humans" posses the same mental qualities to the same degree?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Excellent...now since human is a mental attribute is it not also so that not all "humans" posses the same mental qualities to the same degree?

Well, first I see that many humans believe that their mental attributes are superior to that of other animals, but I ask, by what standard, by what measure; what is it to be superior, what criterion; and who is to say, a human? A bit biased I'd say, from a place where it lives, how could it possibly be objective? Where is it, that the universal scale of mental capability, superiority, is written by other than a humans hand. In the greatest arena of all, considering the totality of the universe, how is it to be determined?

And by the way Satyr, I use colors as a tool for rapid delineations sake, so as to quickly parse a message as to author or time, it's not that I like coloring books. It's a tool that is present on this forum, such that I use it to aid me.

And thanks for talking to me straight, not that you have to, but I appreciate cutting to the chase, and dispensing with needless aggression, that should be saved for another type of arena.

[Satyr]

Well, first I see that many humans believe that their mental attributes are superior to that of other animals, but I ask, by what standard, by what measure; what is it to be superior, what criterion; and who is to say, a human?

Did you not answer this?
You said the "brain", and what is the product of the brain's processes?
The mind.

What is power then?
Power over one's self. also called "freedom"...detachment...distinguished...independence,, the absence of dependence.

What is male then?
Is it cocks and muscles? Is it fast cars and diplomas? Is it social status?
No, it is the masculine in the individual overpowering the female within himself: overpowering his own nature.
Masculine is order, control, domination, the feminine is surrender, the status quo, the release, the abandonment of entropy, to nature; female is nature personified.
You can call them Ying/Yang or Ordering/Disordering.

What is consciousness?
A tool for discriminating, for becoming aware of divergence, for distinguishing?
Similarity is how we comprehend what is different. It is making of the alien something recognizable; it is used to categorize diversity...and so it uses general/simplifications or patterns of persistent predictability.
So, when the system makes of the "ego" an insult or when it teaches to not discriminate it is teaching a leveling, a self-induced blindness. It is a way of controlling those who are not fully human.

Those who desired to enter the order created by Prince Siddhattha were specifically asked: Are you really a man? It is taken as a premise in this case that not all those who appear to be human are really "men." The views, widespread in ancient India as elsewhere, that in some men animal beings were reincarnated – or vice versa: that some men would be "reborn" in this or that ‘animal womb’ – may be understood symbolically: they refer, that is, to human existences whose central element is guided entirely by one of those elemental forces that externally manifest themselves in the normal way in one or other animal species. We have, moreover, already spoken of the limitations arising out of various "races of the spirit".

A third point is that an original condition imposed by the canon for admission into the order was of being of male sex. Eunuchs, hermaphrodites, and women were not accepted. The Ariyan road to awakening was considered as substantially and essentially manly. "It is impossible, it cannot be"–says a canonical text(Bardo Thodol) –"that a woman should arrive at the full enlightenment of a Buddha, or become a universal sovereign" [cakkavatti]; likewise it is impossible for her to "conquer heaven, nature, and the universe," to "dominate celestial spirits."
The Buddha considered women insatiable in respect of two things: sex and motherhood; so insatiable that they cannot free themselves from those cravings before death.

He repeatedly opposed the entry of women into the order: when he finally admitted them he declared that, as a flourishing field of rice prospers no longer when a parasitical grass invades and spreads in the field, so the saintly life in an order does not prosper if it allows women to renounce the world – and he tried to limit the danger by promulgating opportune rules.
Later, however, less intransigent views became widespread: even in the canonical texts – in spite of these words of the Buddha – There figure women who have entered into the current of awakening and who expound the doctrine of the Ariya, until the texts of the prajnaparamita, instead of the simple mode of address “noble sons,” there appears, without further ceremony, “noble sons and noble daughters” – a sign, among others, of the easing of the spiritual tension of original Buddhism.

And by the way Satyr, I use colors as a tool for rapid delineations sake, so as to quickly parse a message as to author or time, it's not that I like coloring books. It's a tool that is present on this forum, such that I use it to aid me.

I thought it was meant to match your piercing eyes.

And thanks for talking to me straight, not that you have to, but I appreciate cutting to the chase, and dispensing with needless aggression, that should be saved for another type of arena.

I respond in kind; no more, no less.

Did you see yourself in him?
Was he a mirror?
Did you see how thoroughly he revealed his true nature; is he human?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well, first I see that many humans believe that their mental attributes are superior to that of other animals, but I ask, by what standard, by what measure; what is it to be superior, what criterion; and who is to say, a human?

Did you not answer this?
You said the "brain", and what is the product of the brain's processes?
The mind.

Not at all, here is the sequence:

I see that human is simply a label applied to our species. The primary difference between us and other species is our abilities, which are attributed to the capabilities of our brain.

Excellent...now since human is a mental attribute is it not also so that not all "humans" posses the same mental qualities to the same degree?

Well, first I see that many humans believe that their mental attributes are superior to that of other animals, but I ask, by what standard, by what measure; what is it to be superior, what criterion; and who is to say, a human? A bit biased I'd say, from a place where it lives, how could it possibly be objective? Where is it, that the universal scale of mental capability, superiority, is written by other than a humans hand. In the greatest arena of all, considering the totality of the universe, how is it to be determined?

Did you not answer this?
You said the "brain", and what is the product of the brain's processes?
The mind.

No, it has not been answered, but rather you seemingly misunderstand my meaning. You asked about differing quantities of mental capabilities, and I asked by what singular measure are we to quantify. Pretty simple, I'd say! So how do you answer?

And this is Philosophy!




What is power then?
Power over one's self. also called "freedom"...detachment...distinguished...independence,, the absence of dependence.

What is male then?
Is it cocks and muscles? Is it fast cars and diplomas? Is it social status?
No, it is the masculine in the individual overpowering the female within himself: overpowering his own nature.
Masculine is order, control, domination, the feminine is surrender, the status quo, the release, the abandonment of entropy, to nature; female is nature personified.
You can call them Ying/Yang or Ordering/Disordering.

What is consciousness?
A tool for discriminating, for becoming aware of divergence, for distinguishing?
Similarity is how we comprehend what is different. It is making of the alien something recognizable; it is used to categorize diversity...and so it uses general/simplifications or patterns of persistent predictability.
So, when the system makes of the "ego" an insult or when it teaches to not discriminate it is teaching a leveling, a self-induced blindness. It is a way of controlling those who are not fully human.

Those who desired to enter the order created by Prince Siddhattha were specifically asked: Are you really a man? It is taken as a premise in this case that not all those who appear to be human are really "men." The views, widespread in ancient India as elsewhere, that in some men animal beings were reincarnated – or vice versa: that some men would be "reborn" in this or that ‘animal womb’ – may be understood symbolically: they refer, that is, to human existences whose central element is guided entirely by one of those elemental forces that externally manifest themselves in the normal way in one or other animal species. We have, moreover, already spoken of the limitations arising out of various "races of the spirit".

A third point is that an original condition imposed by the canon for admission into the order was of being of male sex. Eunuchs, hermaphrodites, and women were not accepted. The Ariyan road to awakening was considered as substantially and essentially manly. "It is impossible, it cannot be"–says a canonical text(Bardo Thodol) –"that a woman should arrive at the full enlightenment of a Buddha, or become a universal sovereign" [cakkavatti]; likewise it is impossible for her to "conquer heaven, nature, and the universe," to "dominate celestial spirits."
The Buddha considered women insatiable in respect of two things: sex and motherhood; so insatiable that they cannot free themselves from those cravings before death.

He repeatedly opposed the entry of women into the order: when he finally admitted them he declared that, as a flourishing field of rice prospers no longer when a parasitical grass invades and spreads in the field, so the saintly life in an order does not prosper if it allows women to renounce the world – and he tried to limit the danger by promulgating opportune rules.
Later, however, less intransigent views became widespread: even in the canonical texts – in spite of these words of the Buddha – There figure women who have entered into the current of awakening and who expound the doctrine of the Ariya, until the texts of the prajnaparamita, instead of the simple mode of address “noble sons,” there appears, without further ceremony, “noble sons and noble daughters” – a sign, among others, of the easing of the spiritual tension of original Buddhism.

And by the way Satyr, I use colors as a tool for rapid delineations sake, so as to quickly parse a message as to author or time, it's not that I like coloring books. It's a tool that is present on this forum, such that I use it to aid me.

I thought it was meant to match your piercing eyes.

And thanks for talking to me straight, not that you have to, but I appreciate cutting to the chase, and dispensing with needless aggression, that should be saved for another type of arena.

I respond in kind; no more, no less.

Did you see yourself in him?
Was he a mirror?
Did you see how thoroughly he revealed his true nature; is he human?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well, first I see that many humans believe that their mental attributes are superior to that of other animals, but I ask, by what standard, by what measure; what is it to be superior, what criterion; and who is to say, a human?

Did you not answer this?
You said the "brain", and what is the product of the brain's processes?
The mind.

Not at all, here is the sequence:

I see that human is simply a label applied to our species. The primary difference between us and other species is our abilities, which are attributed to the capabilities of our brain.

Excellent...now since human is a mental attribute is it not also so that not all "humans" posses the same mental qualities to the same degree?

Well, first I see that many humans believe that their mental attributes are superior to that of other animals, but I ask, by what standard, by what measure; what is it to be superior, what criterion; and who is to say, a human? A bit biased I'd say, from a place where it lives, how could it possibly be objective? Where is it, that the universal scale of mental capability, superiority, is written by other than a humans hand. In the greatest arena of all, considering the totality of the universe, how is it to be determined?

Did you not answer this?
You said the "brain", and what is the product of the brain's processes?
The mind.

No, it has not been answered, but rather you seemingly misunderstand my meaning. You asked about differing quantities of mental capabilities, and I asked by what singular measure are we to quantify. Pretty simple, I'd say! So how do you answer?

And this is Philosophy!

<snip just for this round>

[Satyr]

My suggestion is that the old designation of what "human" means is too simplistic to be applicable.

Mankind? It is an abstraction. There are, always have been, and always be, men and only men.

Since I deny the old biological designation as being too simple it is up to you, who holds onto the label of "human", to define it.

What is occurring here, if I be so bold as to actually offer a personal opinion that does not conform to modern moral standards and social mythologies, is that evolution has taken a new route.

No longer are only the genes being selected but, because our environments are becoming increasingly artificial (manmade), and because genes have been allowed to replicate uncontrollably amongst the species once known as human, that mutations are multiplying and propagating at rates unprecedented in past more natural environments.

To deal with this memetic evolution takes over.
Memes work on the same principles as genes do, since they are rooted in genetics; they are an added outer layer of complexity which at times contradicts natural selection principles.
Just with genes there are mimetic populations and memes vying for control over populations.