leth

I like many forms of east asian arts, including chinese landscape paintings. Though my father is a painter i have very little skill in the field and don't really practice an form of art myself, hopefully this will change in the future, now I am so focused on other things though. There is so much in life. Please share your paintings, culture is best when shared.

We express our inner with our facial expression. As our inner changes so does our facial expressions.

Most likely exchange of ideas was made prior to anythign we call Buddhism and Daoism whcih of course influenced thought before the emergence of them, but the did probably aside from that arise independently.

That is an interesting way to put it. I like this way of putting it, but perhaps it is to be considered to describe the expereince of the effect that applying negative mind-weight has on an experience rather than the mind-weight itself? And in that sense it is an attribute of an experience, or perhaps an experience in itself. Now I'm confused by what an experience really is and what attributes an experience can have.. Hopefully this confusion is leads to understanding somehow. What is meant with experience and attributes of an experience?

It is certainly bad to be attached to the idea of non-attachment, for that is an attachment itself. But as is often with these perhaps that is the last attachment that should be erradicated if one is on the path towards non-attachment. And what was the masters intention with braking the cup? I think this story illustrates that even the greatest of masters are probably not perfect, but aside from that, the master might've broken the cup as a symbolic gesture to destroy the attachemnt in it's mind. It can be interepreted in many ways, and i think any interpretion should teach us something. Though we can't possible see every interpretion i think it's good to widen ones view and try to find as many interpretions as possible. Then there is teh quesiton of what sort of interpretions and lessons one is read for in life. When on needs to understand the fallacy of attachment to non-attchment then perhaps one makes that interpretion and i think that is an important lesson.

Sometimes the pebbles are gold nuggets.

It sure is bad to be combative, argumentative however is one of those words that can mean many things. Argumentative in the negative sense of aggresive contention i think we should avoid. However argumentative might just refere to the idea of using arguments in the sense of reasoning to dicssus a matter which is a rather neutral way to discuss things. And as such i think we should be argumentative, because arguments in the sense of logical reasoning and inquiries on the other persons statemants are constructive in communication, and a highly efficient way to gain understanding on the other persons thoughts. They do, and discussion is a great tool to gain further insight so that one can mature in ones reasoning, it is thanks to discussion and the exchange of ideas that allows us to develop our own cognition and knowledge. Personally i am a great fan of discussion for this very reason.

I read the article i think i understood the general idea hypothesis on bio-cultures. And while i agree to a certain extent, i would formulate it much differently, and I am very skeptical to the connections to certain areas of the brain in this area, such research is not yet mature enough to make such conclusions in my opinion. As a hypothesis, sure it and it's worthwhile to study. But We could just discuss such things withouth the need to discuss the brains function. We know more about how our mind works than we know how the mind realtes to the brain. We can make assertions on cultural and enviornemental factors in the midn without talking about the brain. And while it was interesting, i don't understand why you brought it up, or where you wanted the discussion to go from there. This addition to the discussion seemed to diverge from the discussion that was already had and in a sense just a distraction from that which was discussied. In other words digressing. Now there is nothing wrong with it, but i just can't understand what thepoint you where trying to make, or what it was that you wanted to discuss with me in regards to this. So I didn't know how to respond in any other way than to ask what your point was or what you wanted to discuss. I could discuss the hypothesis you poseted, but then I'd expect some sort of question or statment to discuss around. And i can't see a connection to it and the post that you responded to, so if you wanted to discuss something in connection to it you'd have to ask something or make a statement that is connecte to that post s taht i can understand what it is you're trying to communicate with me. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear in this metacommunication, but metacommuncation is hard for me (all communication really), and i hope we have communicated in a good way about this now, and i thank you for your metacommunication aswell as it has helped to bring clarity in this discussion.

I think that the idea that questions are considered aggressive, or a form of attack on statetment it is questioning is inherently bad for communication. It's rather common i have noticed, but i argue that questions are an important part of communication, and that reaction towards questions is an emotional repsons to some sort of cognitive dissonance around the logic of deconstructing statements to be able to understand them. Or perhaps an insecurity around communicating ones ideas. I think a lot of people have small insecurities around communication since childhood. No matter the reason for emotional responses to questions I think that trying to avoid questions in discussions to avoid such emotional responses are detrimental to the overal communication in that discussion. If we can't use questions as metacommunication I think we are much more prone to have miscommunication. What are your(/anyones) thoughts on this?

Is it my inability to understand how something is relevant that is interpreted aggresive? Is it my way of expressing this inability to understand? Could you please explain?

Surely cognition is really dependant on lingusitic context in one way or another. (and thus in extension cultural context), and this is very much how i interpreted your post. But one again I don't understand why you brought that up, what is the point you're trying to make? No aggression, i am just curious on what you're trying to communicate, so i am questioning you, my friend. Where does this thought of aggression arise? Is it something about my syntax? And why would you say that my syntax would indicate aggresion? Much of our way of interepretion of emotions dissapears when we communicate through text, it is in a way suboptimal way of communicating because of this. (but that is why we have smilies i guess) How come you're interpreting my semantics as aggression?

For the past few days (I have a bad sense of time, weeks?) i have had a fly flying around in my apartment. At first i didn't make much notice of it, but after a while i guess i started to be think about how it was probably stuck in my partment somehow because it still remained here. Usualy flyes come and go, and there nothing more to it. In a sense this was different, perhaps because it was trapped inside my apartment. It sometimes seemed to hang around me and on several accounts landed on me and just stayed there. I once opened a window for it when it was close, but it didn't fly out for whatever reason, so i let it stay with me. In a sense it sort of became a pet of mine, I even talked to it some times. Perhaps it had some other connection to me, that I don't understand. I had some thoughts on that subject, and although such thoughts can be interesting to persue I don't consider myself to know anything about such things, i am perhaps not even capable of knowing such things, so i remain agnostic on any such speculations. But today i sadly found it drowned in a glass of water i had left over the night in the sink. It made me sad, but then again i felt love for that dead fly, it had given me company for some time here in my otherwise rather lonely apartment. So i burried it in one the earht of one of my potted plants. A short and practical burrial ceremony, but nonetheless it was nice i think. Life and death, we will all die, flies, as humans, as dogs and so on, but it is all the same. (I once lost a dog aswell when I was younger. It was a family memeber of sort, that had been part of the family for some time. And I loved it greatly. But thats another story) So in a sense i said farewell to a friend when i buried that fly, albeit a shortlived friendship, and perhaps not as deep and giving as many others but yet a friendship. Atleast from my part, i don't know what that fly thought, perhaps it hated me or was afraid of me. But the point i want to make is that this did not really affect me in any way that brought distress to me. Life always ends with death. Not sure why i post this here, but I guess it put some perspective on death and loss. In one sense it is not different from other losses I've had, but yet it is not the same. We must all come to an end, perhaps it is better celebrating life instead of spending too much time clinging that which is now dead. While I know some very important person have died on me when i think of them I don't think of them as dead, i think of them and feel love. I think of the fly and i feel love. So how much difference is there?

Perhaps my view of Buddhism is flawed aswell, I am far from an expert on buddhism, i just thought i'd try to give my thoughts on the subject. In a sense, the idea is to reach a state of non-attachment the allwos you to break the cycle of birth. death and rebirth. But what is meant by non-attachment? Is love attachement? If so, then how can buddhists love, which seems to be a central part buddhist practice? There are, and i don't even fully understand Buddhism, i just stated my views on it's school of thought. I take no insult in what you say, i see nothing in it as insulting in any way, besides i do not consider myself a Buddhist, but i don't se how it would be insulting to a buddhist either. But i think that from my viewpoint you do seem to be more aligned with Buddhist thought than you might think. Even though Buddhism might not be for you, the statement "I am ok with the moments of suffering that come from attachment. I am human. I love, I lose, I suffer, and I laugh." is awefully close to buddhist thought in my book. I guess i just wanted to explain that somehow. It is not really important to you, but I would gladly discuss my views on Buddhism with you if you so wish. I agree with the first part the way we use and understand words are often the reason differences of this kind. I think it's important to question ones words and what they mean, and what other people men when they use words, because words don't always mean the same thing for everyone. This is further complicated by translation and cultural contexts. You might understand the word suffering, but the word Dukkha is different. Suffering is not a perfect translation.

Sure, people do behave and react different depending on who they are. I don't see how that is relevant to what i wrote, or what your point is in pointing this out in respons to my post. The most amazing part about that article is how it got published in Experimental Gerontology. And once again how is it relevant to the discussion?

What is meditation?

I have lost the one person I loved the most, and perhaps the person I will have loved the most in my life. I can't tell the future, perhaps if I find a partner to deeply love, get kids and form a family I will love as much again who knows, but I am only getting older. Granted there are people I love very much now , and a few that i have almost as much love for. But in either case, the death of that person was sadest event in my life, and will perhaps remain that. In a way I was profoundly taught something very important by that moment. While it was a very sad event of my life, it was also something which gave me great understanding of life and my own view of it. I will always carry the sorrow of that loss with me, and I will always feel a bit sad because that person is no longer in this world with me. But in a way the love goes far past death, and that love will still be there along with the sorrow. And the fact that I could appreciate the sadness and still manage my life while this all happened is I think that confirms my philosophy, atleast for myself. And i dare to say that buddhists are not to be emotionless, or free from sadness. They are simply not supposed to devestated by sadness, they should be able to see the beuaty of life even in death. And while I can't say that i am that enlightened or even that emotionally matured, i dare to say that I was emotionally matured to understand what is meant by that, and how much sense it makes to follow such a philosophy. To be able to feel sadness without actually suffering from it. Words can't really describe it, and as we all know suffering is not a good translation of Dukkha. I am rather satisfied even though I have gone throught this sad experience. I was sad, but i did not hold on to that sadness, i let it be in my and observed it, and in there somewhere I also found a deep love. And i find this to be inline with Buddhist thought. I am no Buddhist but i would like to point out that my view of buddhism (which is perhaps not the most educated, but atleast based in a curious interest in buddhism) is that my personal philosophy in this aspect is rather similar to Buddhism. And this also brings me to discuss attachment. Attachment is not an easy concept to grasp either. Do buddhists say that it is wrong to love someone? Do they say that loss is not something we should even consider? I don't think so, I personally think it is more about not being depenant on something, to not be attached to something in the sense that you will be dragged down by it. While I can't say that I wasn't attached to this person I dare to say that I was agreeing with that general thought that attachments are something that should be avoided and that I was trying to let go of any attachemnts that I had in my life. And I think that helped me deal with my sorrow aswell. But not only that, it has helped me much in life in general. But lack of attachments is not the same thing as being apathic or to avoid sadness. Life is filled with both happy events and sad events, and that is beautiful. Sadness does not have to be an unpleasant emotion, it can be a very beautiful emotion. And expressions of sadness is also beautiful thing. To feel despair or to become devestated by the loss of someone or something however is not very beautifull, or even helpfull in life. And in a sense I think this an unnatural emotional response. Sadnes is natural, and simple and beautiful. Despair and devestation is not very beautiful and comes from attachment which is unnatural. So i might not have reached enlightenment in a buddhistic sense (or any other for that matter), but from my experience I think i understand some aspects of it and I think I agree to that it is a form of enlightenment to not be attached. But i don't think that this excludes sadness, nor do I think that buddhists think that it excludes sadness. Having that said, I have to agree with Marblehead, it is better to have loved. And i think it is important to feel love, and to recognise that everything will end, and that love can prevail past that end. I don't know your relationship to Putty, but I have a feeling it was a very loving relationship and that it gave you both much love, and that is beautiful. And i think that your expression of sadness in your post is beautiful, because in it I see love. And this is aligned with my personal philosophy, and in a sense it is how i practice my philosophy in this regard. And it has helped me through my life. And I really like that I can see love in sadness, which is what what my philosophy has made me able to do. And this philosophy is very much influenced by both Buddhist and Daoist thought.

My purpose is to live, my passion is to live and my principle is to live. Life is full of so many things..

I agree that the economical facts are clear, the fact that meat is more costly to produce has been a fact for as long as we know, and still is. Meat has in many times in history been considered a luxury food, something which one could not eat as muhc of as we do today. The fat that meat is so abundance today is that our technology and industrial treatment of animal breeding allows us to produce meat in much larger quantities, unfortunatly this leads to a far wors treatment of animals. The idea that meat is cheaper than crops is mainly something that comes from the US, where meat is heavily subsidised. In most of the rest of the world meat is generally much more expensive, and it can be clearly seen that meat is a more resource heavy food by just looking at the price of meat in comparison to other foodstuffs.

Well is not the metacognition that one can have during this state state, also a form of understanding? What i'm tryint to say is that this awareness, which i term metacognition (while i have to say that it is not strictly speaking cognition) can be trained to be there and strong in many situations and i dare say even in quite meditation. This awareness which i have termed metacognition, is a bit like an experience of an expereince so perhaps it should better be termed metaexperience than metacognition, but it is not strictly speaking expereince either. It is hard to describe, but it is an awareness of internal process but also has the capability to alter those internal processes. It can ignore thoughts, it can folow lines of thought, it can explore memories and embrace emotions. It can do many things, yet is not simply cognition. And i would like to say that it is possible to deepen ones connection to it, to sort of train it to be more prevalent in life, this is in a sense what mindfullness is about. But we do actually experience it in the now, and not only analytically afterwards, and we are capable of actually describing it as it is happening, if we just direct it to start such cognitive processes and let cognition analyse it. That is my experience.

I've actually read a number of actuall studies on both the economical and environmental effects on breeding animals (from an academical viewpoint, becase i've actually studied nutritonal science), and while it is true that in certain places on earth it is not at all feasable to grow crops for human consumption while it might be possible to breed animals, It is also true that on a global scale it make more sense to grow crops that breed animals, and that the vast amount of land masses and water supply we use up on breeding animals is highly ineffcient ways to manage our resources. The earth is capable of sustaining a far larger populations of humans if we as a while change diet towards a more plant based diet than one based on animal products. This is supported by scientific studies in both enviornmental studies and economics, and is a comon academical standpoint. Furthermore the fact that animals are more economical to breed than it is to grow crops is only true in some very few circumstances, in general that argument falls on the same idea that animals need to be feed crops to eat and that the production of crops to feed animals always going to give is a net loss of energy and resources in sense of producing food. So yes understanding reality is far more important than ideology. If you have any serious studies in the field of economics that goes against this reasoning then please post them here so that i an read them and widen my views. Or you could just post the macroeconomical reasoning from a more theroretical level and let me judge for myself.

This is also true, but that does not in anyway argue for or against the ethics of killing. We are creatures able to think tehically about out choices and some would say that gives us responisbilities that are far greater that that of the wild animals. None the less, because someone else does something we consider wrong does not in any way justify us to do the same thing, and this applies to the behaviour of animals aswell. De is the Dao.

Some people chose to value violence and opression. Surely we need to educate people aswell. Which is in fact a way of saying that we need a new value system, because today violence and opression is part of our value system.

This is true, but how much damage do we do? Should we not strive towards causing as little suffering an pain as possible? Ethical is a relative concept, one thing can be considered more ethical than another. For instance when we feed an animal to be able to kill and consume it we are producing/using large amounts of food and water. If we instead focused all that land are on growing crops for human food we would save on the total usage of both land and water, but also suffering, becase we are killing one animal less. And while it can be said that there are issues with how we grow crop or the way we produce certain other plantbased foodstuff, it must be said that it is far worse to breeding animals to produce food from. Bananas are anoter great example of this, while most bananas than can be bought in around where i live are somewhat problamatic from an ethical standpoint there are those that are less problamtic. There are fair trade and ecological bananas which while not foolproof it should indicate that the bananas are a better choice from an ethical standpoint. Sure we can device an ethical argument on why most foodstuff is unethical in one way or another, but what really matters is practicability and which foodstuffs are more or less ethical to eat and our choices of foodstuff with this knowledge.

To be completely honest that sounded just like religious dogmatic bullshit. And no i don't think humaity chose to sleep, if if we regard humanit as an entity which actually makes choices as a sort of superset of individuals, then it's choice is not to sleep, for we have moral and ethics in most of our cultures. So you do not consider yourself to have mad the right choice or decision in this regard? Are you to say that you are amoral? I don't really like this comparison, mostly because it is offensive to many people who have been directly affected by the holocaust but also because the ethics behind it is not as sound as one might belive. Sure animals can suffer and that is a good point to why we should not make them suffer, but to compare it to human suffering is not so easy. Assumedly we are capable of suffering on a different intellectual level than animals, as such any comparison between animal suffering and human suffering must take that into account. And this is not an easy thing to do. However the fact that animals are capable of suffering is enought to form ethical arguments against hurting them, which make this comparison with the holocaust unnecessary. And without amoral, how are either of those events in any way more significant than the other? I disagree, but then again i am moral, while you seem to make an argument for amorality. (I've always found arguments of amorality from a personal perspective a bit odd and in a sense incoherent, but that is perhaps because I have a moral standpoint on moral statments and view tham as fundamentally moral) What is free will, if it is amoral? What are choices if none of them are considered good or bad, correct or incorrect, well chosen or not well chosen? What is the point of making decisions if one is amoral? I do, I care for my own and others health. I also care much for others opinions on caring. Arguable there is no reason without judgement. I care, because i consider these people to be misinformed and they also spread this misinformation. And while I might be wrong i do think it is right to voice my way of seeing things and give them more perspectives to be able to judge themselves, and perhaps they will respond with giving me another perspective. I care, because people like this affect other people, and even the ecosystem which in effect has a great inpact on many lives. If one individual can change everything, that means that one individual have power over all other indivuduals which i don't really belive myself. I belive many have free will not just one.

While it is true that people do kill people, I don't think this in any way speaks about how we should treat any living being or whether it is right or wrong to kill certain living beings for sustanance. Surely if we kill an animal and the make use of it's remains that makes more sense that just killing it, but it doesn't really justify killing it. Especially so if there are other ways to do things which does not require us to kill an animal.