Tell me what offends you, and I will tell you who you are

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

 

If you never take offense, according to Schopenhauer it makes you a grandeur maniac.

 

 

My jar of strawberry jam never takes offence, no matter how much abuse I hurl at it from a safe distance across the room, I always new it had issues, now I actually know why.... I'll be using that that grandeur maniac phrase on it later, it's sure to at least give it pause for thought.

 

The days of strawberry jam dominating and ruining my life are coming to an end! The worm has turned!

[Sarnyn]

The existence of the ego is not an inherent weakness. It it only a weakness if you acknowledge that the existence of suffering is a real problem. If you accept the existence of suffering in the world, there is no reason to battle the ego. Indeed, the ego can be utilized as a tool.

 

Since nothing has any inherent value, we ascribe value to things according to our perception. When our perception is violated, it is not necessarily wrong to get angry or attempt to fight what jives with our aesthetic values of what we find to be pleasing to behold in the world in the manor of acts or states of being, objects, or relationships in the world.

 

If I am honest with myself and you all, I will admit that I am a violent person. I am prone to short burst of powerful emotion. However, that is part of my nature. Rather than eradicate that aspect of myself, I choose to learn to control my violence in such a way that my violence functions in accordance with my will and desire. Would you tell a wild animal not to act violently when its hunting ground, or domain is violated? Of course not because that act, the act of inaction, could be disastrous to the animal. But since we as human beings live in a higher realm of awareness and mentation, should we not learn to utilize our anger to even greater effect, to even higher manifestations of honestly and pure acts of identity?

 

If I am offended, its because somebody has gone against my aesthetic view of what is right (i.e. pleasing) or beautiful in the world. As a man living in the world it is my right to shape the world into the vision that I find most pleasing, just as it is the right of every living creature to exert their will in the world. Of course there will be conflict, but conflict is not to be avoided, but embraced as part of the natural manifestation of the presence and power of will and intelligence in the world. Harmony isn't always perfect balance, sometimes it is the endless interplay of opposite and opposing forces.

 

When I see a starving child, I am offended.

When I see an innocent man prosecuted, I am offended.

When I see a helpless person made the victim of violence, intolerance, or hatred, I am offended.

When I see a person who is sick but can not afford insurance or medical care, I am offended.

When I see a person denigrated or made low by a powerful majority, I am offended.

When I see a helpless ignorant majority, usurped and controlled by a selfish and elite minority, I am offended.

When I see an animal abused or mistreated, I am offended.

When I see a child abused or mistreated, i am offended.

When I see a person litter or throw trash on the street I am offended.

It offends me to see people destroy their beautiful bodies and minds.

Intolerance offends me

Apathy offends me

Laziness and Sloth, offends me.

 

Oh my, look at my ego, out of control.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Sarnyn

[goldisheavy]

I think it is important to have clarity of terms when we discuss that way we start from the same place.

 

i am talking about every day equanimity not transcendent equanimity. Equanimity doesn't mean someone doesn't care or not have values, transcendent or otherwise. It just means they have a calm mind.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equanimity

 

I would even go as far to say that if one can't have equanimity in everyday life then a transcendent equanimity is inauthentic because it is just the mind fooling itself.

 

All transcendent qualities are already present -- hence they are called "transcendent". If transcendent qualities had to be actualized, or in other words, brought into being, they wouldn't be transcendent -- they would have a beginning and an end, and would be relative.

 

So "attaining" a transcendent quality is a tricky thing, because it entails something like "waking up to the fact that you've never been without it in the first place." It's a realization rather than an attainment. But it's even hard to call it a realization because once you realize them, you can't be sure what is the difference between realizing and non-realizing.

 

So transcendent qualities are always authentic, even if the person is half-asleep, or whatnot.

 

Perfection of wisdom is something different. Perfection of wisdom is when you start to value wisdom and become wiser in the relative sense. As you become wiser and wiser in the relative sense, you also begin noticing that it's a fool's games and that wisdom is not something you can attain by modifying relative qualities. This is a rough description of the process, which is mystical at its core.

 

Let's take a different quality for example, such as patience. What is relative patience and what is transcendent patience? And what is the perfection of patience?

 

Relative patience is when your inner state of being proceeds at an even keel, even though you are expected something to happen, and it didn't happen yet. This is true whether you're patiently waiting for your wound to heal, or patiently waiting for an appointment with a plumber, or patiently waiting for peace on Earth. So if you pay attention, what this means, is that you still maintain a separation between inner and outer. You think that the inner world is a reaction to the outer. Inner is under control, and outer is out of control. Thus when the outer world serves up something that you think is delayed, and you are relatively patient, you also delay manifesting disappointment. So you are surprised, however slightly or subtly, by the outer world, and try to soothe and smooth out your inner world, because you think the inner world is your responsibility. So this process is juggling inner and outer worlds like that is what relative patience is.

 

Now let's look at transcendent patience. What is that? Well... it's everything. From a transcendent perspective inner and outer are not different worlds. Inner is not a response to the outer, it exists together with outer as one undifferentiated whole (that's not to say something got merged or was glued together... one just realizes there was never a split to begin with). Thus, whatever arises, the fact that it arises, changes "flavor" and passes away, is itself transcendent patience. Thus if anger arises, there is patience with the anger. If impatience arises, there is patience with the impatience. If rain falls, there is patience with the rain. If your butt is on fire, there is patience with that too. If you scream while your butt is on fire, there is patience with the phenomena of butt being on fire and with screaming as one whole. If one thinks that the inner world is a reaction to the outer world, there is patience for that somewhat painful perspective, and so on. Transcendent patience is not something you can attain. You can wake up and realize it's always there.

 

And perfection of patience is when you practice getting more and more relative patience, to the point where you realize that it's a fool's errand in the face of transcendent patience.

 

It's precisely because these non-attainments exists that there is authentic humility. Pretentious humility is simply kowtowing to other human beings and making sure you don't appear more "anything" than they are (refrain from appearing more knowledgeable, or stronger, or wiser, etc.). This allows one to save oneself from the effects of envy (I wish I was as strong as the person boasts strength) or anger (how dare this person boast strength, don't they know who I AM? do they think they are God?? How dare, blah blah blah). In the movie business people will say, "Don't upstage the main hero of the movie." Or we could say, "Don't upstage the one who thinks himself or herself a 'master'." This kind of humility is pretentious because you have to practice it regardless of your honest self-opinion to avoid the repercussions of other people's uncultivated minds. If other people had cultivated minds, there would be no need to lower yourself or to hide your qualities, thus no need for pretentious humility. Basically people are insecure, and pretentious humility is how you can protect the insecure people from their own insecurities.

 

But there is real humility too. Real humility is a realization that all the best qualities you have, the transcendent ones, are non-attainments. Since you simply woke up to something that was always there from the beginning, since you didn't have to work up a sweat to attain it in the relative sense, how can you be proud of it? It would be like being proud of one's "attaining" one's belly button. It would be absurd. This kind of non-pride is authentic and has nothing to do with kowtowing to others. In fact, you can be arrogant to others and rile them up constantly and still be a humble person deep down. None of you would like such possibility, but it exists if the person who displays such behavior has a high degree of realization/spiritual awakening.

 

The existence of the ego is not an inherent weakness. It it only a weakness if you acknowledge that the existence of suffering is a real problem. If you accept the existence of suffering in the world, there is no reason to battle the ego. Indeed, the ego can be utilized as a tool.

 

Since nothing has any inherent value, we ascribe value to things according to our perception. When our perception is violated, it is not necessarily wrong to get angry or attempt to fight what jives with our aesthetic values of what we find to be pleasing to behold in the world in the manor of acts or states of being, objects, or relationships in the world.

 

If I am honest with myself and you all, I will admit that I am a violent person. I am prone to short burst of powerful emotion. However, that is part of my nature. Rather than eradicate that aspect of myself, I choose to learn to control my violence in such a way that my violence functions in accordance with my will and desire. Would you tell a wild animal not to act violently when its hunting ground, or domain is violated? Of course not because that act, the act of inaction, could be disastrous to the animal. But since we as human beings live in a higher realm of awareness and mentation, should we not learn to utilize our anger to even greater effect, to even higher manifestations of honestly and pure acts of identity?

 

If I am offended, its because somebody has gone against my aesthetic view of what is right (i.e. pleasing) or beautiful in the world. As a man living in the world it is my right to shape the world into the vision that I find most pleasing, just as it is the right of every living creature to exert their will in the world. Of course there will be conflict, but conflict is not to be avoided, but embraced as part of the natural manifestation of the presence and power of will and intelligence in the world. Harmony isn't always perfect balance, sometimes it is the endless interplay of opposite and opposing forces.

 

When I see a starving child, I am offended.

When I see an innocent man prosecuted, I am offended.

When I see a helpless person made the victim of violence, intolerance, or hatred, I am offended.

When I see a person who is sick but can not afford insurance or medical care, I am offended.

When I see a person denigrated or made low by a powerful majority, I am offended.

When I see a helpless ignorant majority, usurped and controlled by a selfish and elite minority, I am offended.

When I see an animal abused or mistreated, I am offended.

When I see a child abused or mistreated, i am offended.

When I see a person litter or throw trash on the street I am offended.

It offends me to see people destroy their beautiful bodies and minds.

Intolerance offends me

Apathy offends me

Laziness and Sloth, offends me.

 

Oh my, look at my ego, out of control.

 

Beautifully said. It makes me glad there are some beings who can think this way.

Edited January 3, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

I find strawberry jam highly offensive.

 

 

I love strawberry jam! Second only to orange marmalade.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Schopenhauer asserted that offense can only come from someone you think of as higher than you -- he gave an example of a donkey kicking you which you might find unpleasant but not offensive, and suggested that you don't find it offensive because you don't think of the donkey as a creature higher than you.

 

If we follow his logic, people who don't ever get offended believe they are higher than everybody else.

 

If you never take offense, according to Schopenhauer it makes you a grandeur maniac.

 

Interesting consideration and I would agree that it is true in many cases but certainly not most cases. The lack of respect plays a very important part in this discussion as well.

 

Peace & Love!

[steve]

Schopenhauer asserted that offense can only come from someone you think of as higher than you -- he gave an example of a donkey kicking you which you might find unpleasant but not offensive, and suggested that you don't find it offensive because you don't think of the donkey as a creature higher than you.

 

If we follow his logic, people who don't ever get offended believe they are higher than everybody else.

 

If you never take offense, according to Schopenhauer it makes you a grandeur maniac.

This makes me think of Zhuangzi's parable about the empty boat:

 

If a man is crossing a river and an empty boat collides with his own skiff,

even though he be a bad-tempered man he will not become very angry.

But if he sees a man in the boat, he will shout at him to steer clear.

If the shout is not heard, he will shout again, and yet again, and begin cursing.

And all because there is somebody in the boat.

Yet if the boat were empty, he would not be shouting, and not angry.

 

If you can empty your own boat crossing the river of the world,

no one will oppose you, no one will seek to harm you....

 

Who can free himself from achievement, and from fame, descend and be lost amid the masses of men?

He will flow like Tao, unseen, he will go about like Life itself with no name and no home.

Simple is he, without distinction. To all appearances he is a fool.

His steps leave no trace. He has no power. He achieves nothing, has no reputation.

 

Since he judges no one, no one judges him.

Such is the perfect man:

His boat is empty.

 

This is one of my favorite parables of Zhuangzi and I think it can teach us a lot about the nature of offense in general. Zhuangzi doesn't really address higher and lower like Schopenauer, as much as the nature of our illusion of distinction - our sense of being separate from the Dao. Little egos bouncing around on the lake, eager to take offense from one another when we bump into each other.

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

 

I love strawberry jam! Second only to orange marmalade.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Don't get me started on marmalade!!

 

Offensive chicken.....

 

[Marblehead]

Don't get me started on marmalade!!

 

Offensive chicken.....

 

 

Hehehe. A rude and unreasonable chicken. I've known some people like that.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

The existence of the ego is not an inherent weakness. It it only a weakness if you acknowledge that the existence of suffering is a real problem. If you accept the existence of suffering in the world, there is no reason....

 

If one can control anger, is that really anger?

[Vajrasattva]

butter at movie theaters for popcorn.

[Pero]

Schopenhauer asserted that offense can only come from someone you think of as higher than you -- he gave an example of a donkey kicking you which you might find unpleasant but not offensive, and suggested that you don't find it offensive because you don't think of the donkey as a creature higher than you.

 

If we follow his logic, people who don't ever get offended believe they are higher than everybody else.

 

If you never take offense, according to Schopenhauer it makes you a grandeur maniac.

 

Damn, I never thought of it this way.

 

But, what about equality? Did he only talk about higher/lower?

[goldisheavy]

This makes me think of Zhuangzi's parable about the empty boat:

 

If a man is crossing a river and an empty boat collides with his own skiff,

even though he be a bad-tempered man he will not become very angry.

But if he sees a man in the boat, he will shout at him to steer clear.

If the shout is not heard, he will shout again, and yet again, and begin cursing.

And all because there is somebody in the boat.

Yet if the boat were empty, he would not be shouting, and not angry.

 

If you can empty your own boat crossing the river of the world,

no one will oppose you, no one will seek to harm you....

 

Who can free himself from achievement, and from fame, descend and be lost amid the masses of men?

He will flow like Tao, unseen, he will go about like Life itself with no name and no home.

Simple is he, without distinction. To all appearances he is a fool.

His steps leave no trace. He has no power. He achieves nothing, has no reputation.

 

Since he judges no one, no one judges him.

Such is the perfect man:

His boat is empty.

 

This is one of my favorite parables of Zhuangzi and I think it can teach us a lot about the nature of offense in general. Zhuangzi doesn't really address higher and lower like Schopenauer, as much as the nature of our illusion of distinction - our sense of being separate from the Dao. Little egos bouncing around on the lake, eager to take offense from one another when we bump into each other.

 

Is this from the outer chapters? Only the inner chapters are considered to be Zhuangzi's actual writing to my knowledge. I've read the inner chapters and haven't found this parable therein.

 

I'd like to say that people don't have a problem with an empty boat precisely because empty boats do not travel anywhere. If you like your boat to move somewhere in a concerted way, you will need to cause some offense from time to time. If you don't mind just wobbling on the water, being haplessly shoved here and there by the boats with people in them, then of course you won't cause that much offense.

 

And how many times have you seen someone kick a stone in anger? I know I have both seen it and done it. And what did a stone do?

 

I don't think Zhuangzi would advocate this kind of spiritual absenteeism.

Edited January 3, 2010 by goldisheavy

[宁]

Pickles, Mustard, mayo , Nutella Sandwich.

 

...that, and tea without at least a spoonfull of honey. and, from time to time, mental masturbators

but situation no. 2 happens only their squirts make this forum REALLY slippery...

[Marblehead]

Is this from the outer chapters? Only the inner chapters are considered to be Zhuangzi's actual writing to my knowledge. I've read the inner chapters and haven't found this parable therein.

 

Hi GiH,

 

That is from the outer chapters. Specifically Chapter 20 - "The Tree on the Mountain"

 

And you are correct. Most scholars consider the outer chapters as being works by others.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

Hi GiH,

 

That is from the outer chapters. Specifically Chapter 20 - "The Tree on the Mountain"

 

And you are correct. Most scholars consider the outer chapters as being works by others.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Thank you Marblehead, I appreciate your reply.

[Taomeow]

Damn, I never thought of it this way.

 

But, what about equality? Did he only talk about higher/lower?

He doesn't, but I do. There's no such thing as equality. The inequality can be dynamic, situational, the same two people can exchange places many times, now you're higher, now you're lower -- but in every transaction one is the parent and the other one the child, and every time it is the parent who offends, the child who is offended. (If a dad gets offended by what his son does or says, it means the roles have been reversed for purposes of this particular situation and dad is being the child.)

 

Ta Chuan explains it in the opening line: "Heaven is high, the Earth is low; in accordance with this, higher and lower places in the human world are established." In the human world -- and in every single transaction taking place in it. This spacial relationship (high/low) is reflected in the size of the actual being (parent tall/child short) and in the size of one's authority (high -- parent, low -- child.) One who doesn't want to get offended must grow up... if he or she "chooses" to not get offended without having grown up big enough to naturally be bigger than the "parent" and reverse the roles, it's dissumulation, repression, pose, whatever... it's not real. One is still offended when someone bigger flexes his or her "I can do whatever I want with you because I'm bigger" muscles, whether physical, emotional or intellectual, but pretends (to self and others) he or she isn't offended. Quite unhealthy, IMO. If being or not being offended is an issue, grow big enough to minimize your chances of someone or something being even bigger... but try to remember there's still someone or something still bigger out there, always.

[Marblehead]

That is an interesting post Taomeow. Thanks for sharing.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

but try to remember there's still someone or something still bigger out there, always.

 

That's theory. In practice whales, polar bears and the Alaskan moose do not encounter bigger animals. Wolves can take down a moose on two conditions: the moose is scared and wolves act as a pack of 3 or more. But even if there is a pack of wolves, and the moose is not scared, the wolves are doomed.

 

One is alone when one is strong. You don't have peers. There is no community of strong people. You stand alone.

 

If you think about it, communal living is precisely a reaction to losing inner strength. It's a coping mechanism: "so we are too weak individually??? Fine, we will band together then. Safety in numbers." It's a defense. When you no longer need that defense, there is no longer a need to be social or to be a part of the community. You can still choose to be in a community, but it's not a need anymore. It's maybe a pleasure or an ornament.

[Guest paul walter]

Supercilious sacks of sanctimony. Who does that make me?

Much better. Thank you, Mama

 

My answer: Sitting quietly on the floor next to the piano with my eyes closed while my daughter works out a tough spot in a new song and being there when it clicks for her. I think that's about as high as it gets for me these days

 

You wouldn't have such a sad and self-defeated life if you made an effort. Just trying to help. Paul.

[Capital]

You wouldn't have such a sad and self-defeated life if you made an effort. Just trying to help. Paul.

 

What a helpful post. You really added something to the conversation.

 

 

 

Now, I think it's interesting how the idea of higher/lower keeps being addressed. It's interesting to me because a part of me says that it might be correct.

 

When I see a starving child, I am offended.

When I see an innocent man prosecuted, I am offended.

When I see a helpless person made the victim of violence, intolerance, or hatred, I am offended.

When I see a person who is sick but can not afford insurance or medical care, I am offended.

When I see a person denigrated or made low by a powerful majority, I am offended.

When I see a helpless ignorant majority, usurped and controlled by a selfish and elite minority, I am offended.

When I see an animal abused or mistreated, I am offended.

When I see a child abused or mistreated, i am offended.

When I see a person litter or throw trash on the street I am offended.

It offends me to see people destroy their beautiful bodies and minds.

Intolerance offends me

Apathy offends me

Laziness and Sloth, offends me.

 

This quote in particular introduces what I'm pondering.

 

It seems to me that any time any of the above occurs, I feel offended not truly for the innocent man or the denigrated minority or the animal or plant massacred, but towards those higher than me whom let it happen. One doesn't become offended when something bad happens unless one feels like he or she knows the cause of that 'bad' event, and can therefore blame the circumstances on that cause.

 

Steve's boat analogy was perfect.

[Lucky7Strikes]

You get offended when you see a hint of truth to that which offends you. It brings about something you did not want to face or acknowledge, and so you give it credibility.

 

But "offending" has many uses. And strawberry jam could as well offend as...baconaise....

[goldisheavy]

This quote in particular introduces what I'm pondering.

 

It seems to me that any time any of the above occurs, I feel offended not truly for the innocent man or the denigrated minority or the animal or plant massacred, but towards those higher than me whom let it happen. One doesn't become offended when something bad happens unless one feels like he or she knows the cause of that 'bad' event, and can therefore blame the circumstances on that cause.

 

Steve's boat analogy was perfect.

 

We feel offended when we feel like the source of offense is a conscious intention that violates our values. If whatever is happening is unintentional or if the intention is not totally conscious or realized, we don't get offended, but we do get upset though. So for example, if a bear is trying to eat me, I don't get offended, because I don't perceive the bear to have enough moral and spiritual development to be able to produce the same level of intention as a human being, in other words, the bear doesn't know with great insight what it is he's doing, he has no appreciation for what he is about to ruin by eating me. So I wouldn't get offended at an attacking bear. I would be upset though and I would kill the bear without hesitation or remorse.

 

Being offended is different from being upset or from being inconvenienced in that the source of the violation or inconvenience is a conscious intention, which normally means we perceive the source to be another human being.

 

If a human being is known to be mentally retarded or crazy, we don't hold them responsible for their actions, because their intentions are not fully conscious (in other words, just like bears, they don't fully understand what they are doing, don't know the significance of their actions, etc...). So if a retarded person said something insulting, there might be no offense generated, because we know they have no idea what they are saying.

 

Let me put it this way. We get offended when those whom we can consider to be full participants in society behave in ways that violate our values. Bears and retarded people cannot be full participants in a human society. Retarded people can participate partially, depending on the level of retardation, and bears not at all.

 

And our laws also reflect this. We put stricter punishments on those who did something knowingly, deliberately, with full intent, than we do on those who did something without full intent (like due to recklessness).

[Taomeow]

That's theory.

 

Not for me.

 

In practice whales, polar bears and the Alaskan moose do not encounter bigger animals.

Animals encounter bigger things as much as humans do. A military sonar owned by the US Navy is bigger than any whale. (I was talking the size of authority and/or the size of impact, the physical size ratio between an adult and a child being the model for all other power transactions, which are far from limited to physical size, in reality and in my post alike.)

 

One is alone when one is strong. You don't have peers. There is no community of strong people. You stand alone.

 

Um... one would just have to stop looking for peers in all the wrong places. You are never so strong as to stick out of ANY peer group like a sore... I mean, healthy... thumb.

 

If you excel in something to the point that you find yourself alone on top of Mount Olympus and it starts bothering you, drop it and do something else. Something any Joe Schmo is currently better at than you.

 

Above all, do not abuse power.

 

If you think about it, communal living is precisely a reaction to losing inner strength.

 

Historically and archeologically incorrect. Humans, unlike tigers and moles and like lions and apes, have always lived in communes. The loss of inner strength was to a bigger (power-wise, not in terms of the number of members) commune that took it away.

 

I am yet to meet a strong individual who can single-handedly reforest the Sahara desert, but if someone is strong enough for that, 'tis a noble task to undertake. Being strong for purposes of pushing others around and being alone if this option is not chosen, for lack of ideas of other things one might do with one's strength, is Ayn Rand-ish and rather pointless, don't you think?..

Edited January 4, 2010 by Taomeow

[goldisheavy]

Not for me.

Animals encounter bigger things as much as humans do. A military sonar owned by the US Navy is bigger than any whale. (I was talking the size of authority and/or the size of impact, the physical size ratio between an adult and a child being the model for all other power transactions, which are far from limited to physical size, in reality and in my post alike.)

 

Ok, so it looks like you pretty much agree with what I am saying. In practice whales do not encounter a sonar, and never mind a threatening one. I'm talking about pragmatic real day to day life of a whale. It just swims around, the biggest thing in the ocean. This shows that no, there is not always something bigger. It's not always true.

 

It's true that there always exists a potential for something bigger and/or stronger. I agree with that. But that potential can remain as potential. It doesn't have to become actualized. Universe doesn't have a point to prove, does it now?

 

Um... one would just have to stop looking for peers in all the wrong places. You are never so strong as to stick out of ANY peer group like a sore... I mean, healthy... thumb.

 

It depends on what you mean by strong, but yes, it's possible to be so strong that you don't fit in with anyone. It doesn't mean you beat people up. Gosh no. It just means other people are not interesting to you because they cannot challenge you or upset you in any important way. They cannot touch you anymore. They cannot make you care. They don't know how to understand you (hell, they don't understand themselves yet... never mind you). It's all possible. The potential is limitless.

 

If you excel in something to the point that you find yourself alone on top of Mount Olympus and it starts bothering you, drop it and do something else. Something any Joe Schmo is currently better at than you.

 

This works well if you're the best plumber in the world, and you then take up welding. Then you become the best welder in the world and take up pole vaulting and so on. In other words, this works with non-transcendent endeavors. However, if transcendent realization is what you want, there is no switching around. You can't say, well, I have reached perfection of wisdom, so let me try welding now. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying, "well I am the best among the wise... so let me try to become the best among idiots as well." It's nonsense.

 

Above all, do not abuse power.

 

Abuse, no. But use, yes.

 

Historically and archeologically incorrect. Humans, unlike tigers and moles and like lions and apes, have always lived in communes.

 

Always? Just how far back are you going? You know apes are not the starting point in evolution, right? But from a spiritual point of view, what I am saying is the same thing Zhuangzi says. He says it similar to this, "When fish are in a bucket, they can barely survive by frothing from their mouths on each others gills... but when fish hit the blue depths of an ocean, they disperse." Zhuangzi is saying that we need each other when we lack Dao, but when we return to Dao, we don't need each other anymore. Humans serve to each other as a poor man's Dao substitute.

 

I am yet to meet a strong individual who can single-handedly reforest the Sahara desert, but if someone is strong enough for that, 'tis a noble task to undertake.

 

I think you and I have very different understanding of strength and nobility, both. In my understanding, Sahara is a desert for a reason, and should stay that way. It would be the highest folly to go against nature and to try to reforest it. It will simply waste the trees and the land. It's like what people do in most of Southern California. They put land here, which was brought from else where. Then they have to water it every day. If they don't water even for one day, the grass dies, and the land is blown away by the air. So what do you call this? I call it "pissing against the wind" or "going against nature." The land is not meant to be here. This place is a desert. But people resist. And in resisting they create immense wasteful effort for themselves.

 

 

Being strong for purposes of pushing others around and being alone if this option is not chosen, for lack of ideas of other things one might do with one's strength, is Ayn Rand-ish and rather pointless, don't you think?..

 

Being alone is different from pushing others. Who pushes others around? Only someone who is jockeying for a top position in society -- that's who. People bully each other precisely because they are social. They are social and they value the top spot in the social order. The social order doesn't exist without the society. As long as the social order exists, top spots in that order exist too. And as long as those spots exists, people will want to reach them. Thus bullying. The higher the top spot is from the low spot, the more bullying there will be.

 

Someone who can live away from society doesn't push anyone around. They stand alone and Dao is enough for them to feel good. Of course if you trespass or piss such person off, you'll get what's coming to you. But it's not the same thing as pushing. This person doesn't jockey for anything. They are happy if you just leave them alone.

 

Personally, I enjoy society. I like human beings. This might be a fatal flaw in me. Even if I were strong, I would stay with humans or human-like beings just because I think it's fun and entertaining. Well that's what I think now, eh? I might change my tune when I get stronger.

Edited January 4, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Guest paul walter]

.

Personally, I enjoy society. I like human beings. This might be a fatal flaw in me. Even if I were strong, I would stay with humans or human-like beings just because I think it's fun and entertaining. Well that's what I think now, eh? I might change my tune when I get stronger.

 

 

I was wondering why you still post here so much given what you 'know' about the world you live in. Yeah, it is a fatal flaw trying to fit in with what you have already 'outgrown'. Your posts usually make a whole lot of lived sense but this paragraph is fraught with silliness.

There is a moment from Soviet film history I often have thought of concerning the meeting between the two 'greatest' film directors of the day: Andrei Tarkovski (USSR) and Sergei Paradjanov (Georgia). Tarkovski was known for his humanist centered films of spiritual quest and his complete unhappiness with the state he found himself in along with his 'fellow' man. Paradjanov made films grounded in the earth and traditions of the land, pagan almost in their lack of sentimentality and 'stand-alone' quality as compared to most filmmaking of the Soviet, or any other, filmmaking tradition. His personality was also one of resilience and adaptibility. Tarkovsky died of cancer (a grief/regret/unresolved issue disease) as an exile from his 'homeland' making films with titles like 'Nostalgia" and 'Sacrifice'. When they met each other Paradjanov was asked what he thought of Tarkovski's films. His reply was that he thought Tarkovski needed "three years in a Russian Gulag" in order for him to be free of the bourgeois art house sentiments and stylistics found in his films. Paradjanov had spent 3 years in a gulag for being gay. This is pretty much my guiding philosophy these days since all life and disappointment usually results from the trouble and contradiction that comes from not wanting to face the consequences of setting out on the 'search', of wanting to control it's outcome based on what we think is known and safe--not too much enlightenment, just enough to make us more interesting in the eyes of both ourselves and others. The dreaded 'hero's journey'. Paul

[Spectrum]

"what are you doing?"

 

planning my best said the owl

 

spontaneous things said rabbit

 

spring is around the corner said owl

 

this corner peeked rabbit?

 

Om shreaked owl