Biological Conditioning Vs Logic

[Ryan Rudolph]

This is what it comes down to I suppose.

Is logic strong enough to override our biology completely and totally?

Some interesting case studies from history illustrate that not all organisms are conditioned to the same degree when it comes to certain drives. Some can easily negatve drives and desires while others experience more conflict. For instance: some individuals can easily negate the desire not to have children, while others cannot even entertain the thought. Differences in biological conditioning must be the culprit.

Soren Kierkeguard is a decent example. In my opinion, Kierkeguaard seemed heavily conditioned to want to marry a woman, have a family and experience what philosophers would call the conventional life. He chose to call off his engagement to Rosalind, but was tortured for much of his life for his decision to be alone and solitary. So tortured that on his death bed, he left his estate to Rosalind, to a woman that had probably long forgotten him, and never gave him a second thought after she married. So the questions that arise are: what was the source of Kierkeguaard's tortured soul? And was Kierkeguaard better off for trying to deny certain aspects of his biology?

First of all, a philosopher such as Kierkegaard, who is strongly biologically conditioned has a consciousness that is constantly at war with itself. On the one hand, there is logic that comes in and says - you do not want to experience these attachments, they will make you miserable, but then there are the contradictory biological drives controlling the cognition in the present, causing conflict, and misery in the present because the drives remain unfulfilled.

The result is a split consciousness, constant divsion, and constant contradiction in cognition.

What isn't discussed much on this forum is the risk of insanity to a mind that could possibly crack under this sort of conflict. I wonder how many philosophers this has happened to, so I suppose the question arises: Should one be honest of what drives they can personally override because not all organisms are created equal.

A metaphor I thought of is imagine that logic is an advanced software, and the organism is the hardware, the advanced software comes in as a means to try to alter the behavior of the hardware, but if the hardware is strongly wired, then the efforts of the advanced software will be futile because the hardware is still running the old version of the software in the background.

It would be like installing windows 7 on a pentium 2 machine already running windows 98. And the overlay doesnt work, so you have both operating systems installed at the same time, but not equally meaning sometimes windows 98 files run, while other times, windows 7 files run. And the fact is that the pentium 2 machine cannot handle the full install of an advanced operating system so both operating systems are constantly at war with each other.

The psychosis Kierkegaard experienced for much of his life is based on this conflict I believe. So would Kierkegaard have been more sane and stable if he would have just married Rosalind, knowing that she was an attachment, realizing the risk, and the compromise. And used his wisdom to try to keep both of their impulses at bay.

What would that Kierkegaard have looked like? Rather than dying lonely, in regret, and longing to connect to her in some manner, what would his consciousness have looked like?

Because Kierkegaard was damned because he attempted to live the life of a sage, as his organism wasn't wired in such a configuration to pull it off, while marrying a woman would have damned him as well, but he might have experienced more joy in his life, experienced less conflict, except for when she eventually died, and then he would have to experience the loss of an attachment.

[Kelly Jones]

Is logic strong enough to override our biology completely and totally?

I don't see that logic is separate from biology. Logic can override that part of biology that is conscious and capable of being overridden, like illogical ideas.

In my opinion, Kierkeguaard seemed heavily conditioned to want to marry a woman, have a family and experience what philosophers would call the conventional life. He chose to call off his engagement to Rosalind, but was tortured for much of his life for his decision to be alone and solitary. So tortured that on his death bed, he left his estate to Rosalind, to a woman that had probably long forgotten him, and never gave him a second thought after she married. So the questions that arise are: what was the source of Kierkeguaard's tortured soul? And was Kierkeguaard better off for trying to deny certain aspects of his biology?

I think your reading is not quite right here, Ryan, even though it is interesting and perhaps useful to you.

By the way, Regina Schlegel (nee Olsen) was the girl's name. Also, he was penniless when he died, so I'm not sure where you got your information. He was planning to live off the proceeds of the sale of the family house, but he invested the money in a company that collapsed. He also had some expensive tastes, liked giving presents to relations, and had no income apart from royalties from his decreasingly popular books (and he often absorbed losses from publishers who were cross at the slowing sales, primarily because he refused to write popular books).

She was much younger, perhaps 15 or so when he met her at the age of 27. He knew very clearly that she was just a girl, and a silly one at that. But she was innocent, headstrong, passionate, and whole-hearted, and Kierkegaard was a profound ethical poet. In other words, Regina symbolised his relationship to God, as the childlike and obstinate desire for the lover (for God). That was why he wrote and thought about her so frequently. He cared for her deeply, because he overlaid her identity (as an individual) with the thoughts of how God loved him. He wasn't in love with her as a human woman, but as this poetic symbol. One has to recognise just how profoundly immersed in the path he was.

Regina still "chased" (circumspectly, in those days) Kierkegaard during the years prior to and after her marriage to her tutor Schlegel, and still tried to meet him on his walks around Copenhagen. They attended the same church, as well, and Regina would sometimes try to leave at the same time, in order to time an encounter. After the engagement was broken, she would discretely mouth words at him, to show him that she understood his reasons and had forgiven him. But back then, it would have been a disaster for her if she actually arranged to correspond or even talk to him. Her marriage would be immediately broken. It was over such concerns that Kierkegaard did his utmost not to speak to her, and would change his walking route to avoid meeting her.

Kierkegaard knew from an early age that he couldn't be a "universal", a person able to immerse themselves in ordinary human life. He was never inclined to have children, and - in fact - regarded sexual intercourse as evil. He sublimated coarse sexual desires into eroticism, the study of love, which is what many poets do. Physical intercourse simply doesn't satisfy them. It's largely immaterial.

First of all, a philosopher such as Kierkegaard, who is strongly biologically conditioned has a consciousness that is constantly at war with itself. On the one hand, there is logic that comes in and says - you do not want to experience these attachments, they will make you miserable, but then there are the contradictory biological drives controlling the cognition in the present, causing conflict, and misery in the present because the drives remain unfulfilled.

The result is a split consciousness, constant divsion, and constant contradiction in cognition.

I think this probably says more about yourself than about Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was a deeply disciplined, stable individual, particularly from his most productive years (from his mid-thirties onwards). His last journal entry was breath-takingly wise, for someone knew that he was going to die quite soon.

What isn't discussed much on this forum is the risk of insanity to a mind that could possibly crack under this sort of conflict. I wonder how many philosophers this has happened to, so I suppose the question arises: Should one be honest of what drives they can personally override because not all organisms are created equal.

If there is a conflict, it has to be brought out into the open. It's been discussed before, and perhaps now is a good time to explore it. One's karma shouldn't cause all kinds of guilt and hang-ups, because it is Nature that does everything.

Suppressing "worldliness" does no good in the long term, but temporarily can help one to regain an even keel. Eventually, one has to bring it up to the surface, to shed light on the matter. As Kierkegaard put it, one needs to "go fishing for the monsters of the soul", and learn why one is experiencing that stuff, to be truly enlightened.

A metaphor I thought of is imagine that logic is an advanced software, and the organism is the hardware, the advanced software comes in as a means to try to alter the behavior of the hardware, but if the hardware is strongly wired, then the efforts of the advanced software will be futile because the hardware is still running the old version of the software in the background.

As Jesus said: one cannot pour new wine into an old wineskin.

It would be like installing windows 7 on a pentium 2 machine already running windows 98. And the overlay doesnt work, so you have both operating systems installed at the same time, but not equally meaning sometimes windows 98 files run, while other times, windows 7 files run. And the fact is that the pentium 2 machine cannot handle the full install of an advanced operating system so both operating systems are constantly at war with each other.

The mind is not one harmonious machine, but a collection of all kinds of disparate ideas and personalities. The aim is to let that compartment that loves truth most, predominate and alter the others, so that eventual intellectual coherence results. It is a war.

If one is really suffering from the battle of values, then one has to find more appropriate medicines. One that came to mind recently during my bicycle ride (through fog), was this:

- One man, just from being in the company of an enlightened man can reach enlightenment - without any study. It is like walking through fog or dew. Although you do not actually wet your garment, it gradually becomes damp.

and the memory of someone replying, "I stand under a waterfall."

The psychosis Kierkegaard experienced for much of his life is based on this conflict I believe. So would Kierkegaard have been more sane and stable if he would have just married Rosalind, knowing that she was an attachment, realizing the risk, and the compromise. And used his wisdom to try to keep both of their impulses at bay.

Kierkegaard wasn't psychotic. Show me one instance where he was psychotic.

He wrote extensively on the question of what would happen if he married Regina. He knew it would kill him spiritually to do so, but he thought about it for her sake.

What would that Kierkegaard have looked like? Rather than dying lonely, in regret, and longing to connect to her in some manner, what would his consciousness have looked like?

Again, I think this reading is not right, and says more about yourself. Kierkegaard wasn't lonely or regretful about his solitude, because that wasn't really a choice but a necessity. Partly it was necessary in order to focus better on God, partly because no one understood that it was Christianly necessary to be a single individual (and thus he had no companions and was forced to be alone), and partly because he refused to join a party and lead a revolution or incite a groupie-mentality of following the others. He wrote of being alone:

Solitude and silence as essential ingredients of personal life

I consider it my responsibility to the established — thus manifesting how I acknowledge an established as an authority — to express my view and opinion of the established as definitely and candidly as possible, thereby in every way enabling the established, if it regards this as justified, to take measures against me with the power and authority it has. [In margin: therefore after making every effort over the years to keep from being at the head of a party etc., taking care only to be a solitary (which, after all, is in harmony with my having in the highest sense this very special task)]

I am solitary and alone, I cannot hope to be understood: the young are too young, the old are too stodgy — or, as the beloved poet of incomparable language has the girl say incomparably of her suitors: "The one is too young to break my wreath, the other too heavy to enter my dance" — except that it does not end for me as for the girl — that I take the third one — no, there was no third one.

About Myself
If I would start a movement, form a party, etc., gather numbers — then I would be regarded as being a power. Well, good night! But I still would not be understood. Actually my life is one of the most profound satires on this generation: an altogether solitary man, apparently so weak externally that he scarcely exists — and then an initiation into the secrets of life such as is rarely found, and then only after a long period of time will I really be understood, although I do not mean that men will have become better or different than they are now.

Ryan: Because Kierkegaard was damned because he attempted to live the life of a sage, as his organism wasn't wired in such a configuration to pull it off, while marrying a woman would have damned him as well, but he might have experienced more joy in his life, experienced less conflict, except for when she eventually died, and then he would have to experience the loss of an attachment.

"more joy in his life" would not have been followed by "experienced less conflict". Kierkegaard believed that he would have experienced purely human joy in marrying Regina, for her sake since he was more suitable to her character than her rather stuffy husband, and he would have done anything for her if it had been for her god, but he wrote several times that the only way he could ethically take that route would be to kill himself soon afterwards. He would have died spiritually, you see. He wasn't so foolish as to confuse the poetic symbol with the reality.


...

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kelly,

I'm not denying that Kierkegaard possessed genius, I think he did, which is evident from his writing, but from the biography and other information I obtained, there was evidence that he was inwardly conflicted and tortured. Philosophers tend to filter out the stuff that makes them seem imperfect or irrational. They want to be remembered as gods, not mortal men with unresolved psychological business. Kierkegaard focused quite a bit on how he would be perceived in the future, which is evidence of an egotistical obsession.

Moreover, I suspect the perfect genius could be a fiction. This ideal is most likely a myth created on the forum as a means to worship, giving each imperfect person inward strength.

The ideal of 'perfect genius' is celebrated here just as a christian celebrates the fact that Jesus saved his soul because jesus died for him. Both seem like egotistical fictions, used to maintain sanity.

However, if we challenge the assumption that the ideal is even attainable, history takes on a much more sober outlook.

Rather then seeing stars burning brightly in the sky everywhere such as a Kierkegaard here, or a buddha there, we see flickering light, light that is not absolute, but rather dependent on fickle conditions.

Light that is burned out at some times, and shines at others. It gives a raw look at how mortal consciousness is. In this view, life is ours to create, and we have to make the hard decisions on what is necessary for our personal organism to maintain sanity.

Then truth does take on a more relative view, because not all organisms can live an 'ideal' life, but a life that is possible for their organism.

The problem I see with logic is that it isn't a match for certain parts of our biological conditioning. Conditioning that was millions of years in the making from the first cells to present. Even with the most recent mammal - we are talking about hundreds of thousands of years of programming within the cells that have caused the organism to behave in a certain pattern, and then logic jumps on the scene, which is a relatively new thing, and says - we have to change all this.

It is like going up against a massive tsunami with a boogie board. Sure, its brave and noble, but there is a good chance you will be picking shale out of your back for years to come.

[mensa-maniac]

Now, this is the kind of communication I like to read.

Great post and thread!

Back and forth pure intellect progressing to a harmonious level of achievement, sharing with the world.

Reasoning is the beauty of communication, the melding of great minds!

[Animus]

There has been developed methods for dealing with these apparent conflicts of interest. Methods that were developed probably before recorded history. Generally these methods are classed as either ascetic or hedonistic. The ascetic, like Pope John Paul II, might whip himself for his unrighteous thoughts and feelings, in order to provide a pain-response feedback to his biological organism. Effectively taking the job of child-rearing himself, upon himself, in adulthood. Alternatively, hedonism seems to take on this challenge through over-stimulation of senses. As anyone who has attempted to eat an entire chocolate cake in one sitting might admit, by the end of such events the desire for the thing consumed often turns into disgust. There are of course neuroanatomical reasons this would happen, but its not necessary to go into that here.

What I intend to show is that there are methods which don't necessarily avoid the use of logic, but may see logic and thought as inadequate means of significantly altering oneself. It may be argued, I don't know, that these methods actually predate the "middle way" taught by Jesus and Buddha. Isn't it the "middle way" which seeks to overcome the mind through the usage of the mind? Not entirely, both Gautama and Christ urged followers to practice what is being preached. Jesus instructed followers to give up everything they had, the purpose of doing this is not to be poor for the sake of being poor, IMO, but rather to experience the intense feelings of loss and lacking that need to be addressed. Again, this is not a purely logical/thinking exercise, but an action taken by the individual in order to stimulate their own subconscious into change.

So, even if logic isn't enough in and of itself to significantly change an organism, there does exist practices, ascetic, hedonistic and otherwise that might serve this end.

[cousinbasil]

The problem I see with logic is that it isn't a match for certain parts of our biological conditioning. Conditioning that was millions of years in the making from the first cells to present. Even with the most recent mammal - we are talking about hundreds of thousands of years of programming within the cells that have caused the organism to behave in a certain pattern, and then logic jumps on the scene, which is a relatively new thing, and says - we have to change all this.

At first blush this may seem true. Millions of years of evolution tell us that it would be fatal to become completely immersed in liquid and try to breathe. Yet the equivalent is done during liquid breathing. In order to successfully accomplish this, the practitioner must use his logic to overcome his inbred aversion to taking in lungfuls of fluid.

This struggle you point out is what makes philosophy so interesting (to me); it is clearly not for everybody. For instance, the Catholic Church maintains celibacy as part of the price of admission to its clergy. Could anything be more self-defeating? Catholic means universal: for it to be universal, the Church would require a large number of average (by definition) people as its de facto workforce. Yet the first thing it does it cut a potential priest off at the knees by requiring him to forgo any natural, healthy sexual outlets. This is done as most people know so the Church can save money by not having to support a priest's family and not losing material wealth such as land holdings through the institute of marriage as it exists around the globe. It has nothing to do with the aspirant's spiritual endeavors, as the Church officially claims.

Self denial can have its place, but it seems to me the truly wise person need not abstain from any activity simply for the sake of abnegation; once his rational self has mastery over the many attachments indulgence seems to foster, he can indulge to the extent that such mastery is not threatened.

[Animus]

I was pretty sure the issue of Marriage, from a Catholic perspective, is based on St. Paul's address to Corinthians

1 Corinthians 7 (New International Version)

1 Corinthians 7

Marriage

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

[cousinbasil]

I was really talking of the priesthood, specifically. The quote from Paul echoes Jesus' teaching in Matthew:

1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

As usual, he talks on several levels, realizing the futility of preaching one pat answer for every listener. His questioners were reminding him that Mosaic law, as they knew it, permitted a man to divorce at will, as long as he went through the legal machinations.

It is fairly widely accepted today that the RC Church requirement of celibacy for the priesthood is just as historically rooted in material concerns as in any dogmatic argument. This is a brief synopsis.

[Animus]

I was really talking of the priesthood, specifically. The quote from Paul echoes Jesus' teaching in Matthew:

1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

As usual, he talks on several levels, realizing the futility of preaching one pat answer for every listener. His questioners were reminding him that Mosaic law, as they knew it, permitted a man to divorce at will, as long as he went through the legal machinations.

It is fairly widely accepted today that the RC Church requirement of celibacy for the priesthood is just as historically rooted in material concerns as in any dogmatic argument. This is a brief synopsis.

"widely accepted" is a fallacious argument... are you sure it isn't that the priesthood should be of the highest quality Christian, I mean, after-all, Jesus left his ministry in the hands of one of his disciples, not Joe Blow or Herod. Isn't it possible that the requirment of celibacy in the Roman Catholic church is to ensure a degree of conviction, and of recognition of what Jesus said, that they did this "for the kingdom of heaven." What kind of Church would it be if it was brimming with polygynandry?

[jupiviv]

Whether logic can override our instinctual, animal drives or not depends on how much the person uses logic - in other words, how much the person incorporates logic into his biology. That in turn depends on how much consciousness the person has to start with, and that consciousness would also be part of his biology. Biology doesn't necessarily mean just our unconscious survival instincts and drives.

About Kierkegaard - it's all about priorities. Kierkegaard valued truth more than joy, even though a part of him(the animal part) wanted to become engulfed by the "Merged Void" by marrying some woman. If he had married the woman, then he'd probably not have produced the excellent work that he did produce.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly,

I'm not denying that Kierkegaard possessed genius, I think he did, which is evident from his writing, but from the biography and other information I obtained, there was evidence that he was inwardly conflicted and tortured.

Kierkegaard wasn't perfect, but he didn't suffer as greatly as you might think. His writings bring everything up to the surface, so it may seem that he was often depressed or melancholy. But one has to keep in mind that most people suppress their psychological issues, and for the conscious person, even the slightest blemish is a storm.

Something perhaps more pertinent to your reading, is that Kierkegaard wrote frequently about the struggle with society. It wasn't his struggle, in the sense of a fault of his own, or an inner conflict of his own. Rather, that struggle was with the outright mindlessness of others -- such as journalists like Goldschmidt, the riffraff that the journalists incited against him, the Bishop of Jaelland (Mynster), Mynster's successor Martensen, and a range of academic intellectuals in Denmark and beyond. That conflict is their doing, not his. But he wrote about it in his journals to clarify precisely what he disagreed with, and to ensure his attitude was rightly positioned in relation to his life in God.

Philosophers tend to filter out the stuff that makes them seem imperfect or irrational. They want to be remembered as gods, not mortal men with unresolved psychological business.

These are not philosophers, but egotists with attachment to their reputation.

The reason I don't talk about my everyday life is because it's my own concern. It adds nothing, and detracts attention from what is necessary to communicate.

Kierkegaard focused quite a bit on how he would be perceived in the future, which is evidence of an egotistical obsession.

Rubbish. It is evidence of his obsession with becoming perfect, and not creating bad karma. It is something every philosopher is concerned over.

Moreover, I suspect the perfect genius could be a fiction. This ideal is most likely a myth created on the forum as a means to worship, giving each imperfect person inward strength.

The ideal of 'perfect genius' is celebrated here just as a christian celebrates the fact that Jesus saved his soul because jesus died for him. Both seem like egotistical fictions, used to maintain sanity.

However, if we challenge the assumption that the ideal is even attainable, history takes on a much more sober outlook.

Rather then seeing stars burning brightly in the sky everywhere such as a Kierkegaard here, or a buddha there, we see flickering light, light that is not absolute, but rather dependent on fickle conditions.

I have never presented Kierkegaard, or any other of my colleagues or Dharma fathers as perfect. If their offerings to eternity were not as pure as possible, then that simply reminds me of what I ought to redeem.

I don't regard the inability of any human to be perfectly wise as a warrant for reducing the imperative for every individual. I really don't care that it's impossible. I still must do whatever I can, simply because that is the call of truth. Who cares if one is of low scope? That's nature's business. Nature never guaranteed one would be perfect, simply by having the will to truth.

The problem I see with logic is that it isn't a match for certain parts of our biological conditioning. Conditioning that was millions of years in the making from the first cells to present. Even with the most recent mammal - we are talking about hundreds of thousands of years of programming within the cells that have caused the organism to behave in a certain pattern, and then logic jumps on the scene, which is a relatively new thing, and says - we have to change all this.

It is like going up against a massive tsunami with a boogie board. Sure, its brave and noble, but there is a good chance you will be picking shale out of your back for years to come.

Thousands of years ago, humans were writing wise words. Being logical is not that difficult. If it's difficult and exhausting, then you're doing it wrong.

Just keep it simple.


...

[cousinbasil]

widely accepted" is a fallacious argument... are you sure it isn't that the priesthood should be of the highest quality Christian, I mean, after-all, Jesus left his ministry in the hands of one of his disciples, not Joe Blow or Herod. Isn't it possible that the requirement of celibacy in the Roman Catholic church is to ensure a degree of conviction, and of recognition of what Jesus said, that they did this "for the kingdom of heaven." What kind of Church would it be if it was brimming with polygynandry?

For one thing, it might be a church less crawling with pedophiles.

I was using "widely accepted" in terms consistent with the link I provided. You are correct that I cannot and should not speak for the majority of people.

Your argument of polygyandry - or even polygamy - doesn't really hold water. Most Christian sects permit marriage in their clergies, and the marriage norms usually observed are those which are prevalent in the respective communities of the individual sects. There is no evidence that married clergy are any less able to tend to their flocks, or any more, for that matter. It is merely that celibacy is an unnatural state, which leads to a decline in numbers of clergymen and the engaging in less accepted forms of sexual behavior among existing clergymen, as the natural sex drive seeks and finds its outlets.

[namae nanka]

widely accepted" is a fallacious argument... are you sure it isn't that the priesthood should be of the highest quality Christian, I mean, after-all, Jesus left his ministry in the hands of one of his disciples, not Joe Blow or Herod. Isn't it possible that the requirement of celibacy in the Roman Catholic church is to ensure a degree of conviction, and of recognition of what Jesus said, that they did this "for the kingdom of heaven." What kind of Church would it be if it was brimming with polygynandry?

For one thing, it might be a church less crawling with pedophiles.

I was using "widely accepted" in terms consistent with the link I provided. You are correct that I cannot and should not speak for the majority of people.

Your argument of polygyandry - or even polygamy - doesn't really hold water. Most Christian sects permit marriage in their clergies, and the marriage norms usually observed are those which are prevalent in the respective communities of the individual sects. There is no evidence that married clergy are any less able to tend to their flocks, or any more, for that matter. It is merely that celibacy is an unnatural state, which leads to a decline in numbers of clergymen and the engaging in less accepted forms of sexual behavior among existing clergymen, as the natural sex drive seeks and finds its outlets.

First 4
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... m0014.html

[Kelly Jones]

It is merely that celibacy is an unnatural state, which leads to a decline in numbers of clergymen and the engaging in less accepted forms of sexual behavior among existing clergymen, as the natural sex drive seeks and finds its outlets.

Celibacy is not about abstaining from the physical act of copulation. That's popular rubbish. Celibacy is mental abstinence from delusion, and all delusions manifest in desire.

Similarly, austerities are not about standing on one leg, sitting on a bed of nails, eating a handful of rice a day only, and other medieval conceptions of "pure lifestyles", which we are justified in smiling about. Austerities are refraining from delusional thoughts, pure and simple.

This is why no one who refrains from the act of sex ritualistically can ever hope to escape lust. It's only suppression, and does nothing to grow consciously out of the mental causes of lust.


...

[cousinbasil]

Celibacy is not about abstaining from the physical act of copulation. That's popular rubbish. Celibacy is mental abstinence from delusion, and all delusions manifest in desire.

It is about both. If there is a person who has conquered all delusions, that person can still physically experience a sexual encounter. The Church requires celibacy of the flesh from its priests, that is, to refrain from such encounters. It does not require the aspirant to abstain from delusion, at least not at once. Perhaps that is the goal, but it is certainly not the means. One could argue that overindulgence also leads to the same conclusion, that lust is a delusion and sating it is after all hollow.

The Church requires celibacy, as I said, because women are expensive. Or, more precisely, children are.

[Kelly Jones]

If there is a person who has conquered all delusions, that person can still physically experience a sexual encounter.

I don't think it would be natural. For instance, a male would need viagra and a lubricant. It'd also be uncomfortable, physically, if not somewhat painful.

Plus, I can't think of any reason why one would engage in sex.

The priests you referred to aren't celibate. They're just suppressing lust because they've been told it's a good thing to do.


...

[cousinbasil]

Plus, I can't think of any reason why one would engage in sex.

Any reason at all...?

[Kelly Jones]

Well, they're pretty far-out reasons. Like, escaping with at least a thousand other mentally stable, healthy, and genetically-screened humans from a seriously war-torn country that has been extremely badly polluted, such as by a nuclear power-plant explosion or uncontrollable viral epidemic, and, on finding a safe haven able to support life sustainably in a well-quarantined area, having no communication from any other countries for several years. But even this wouldn't be a good reason to engage in sexual intercourse, because even if by some ill-foreseen event all their medical equipment for IV fertilisation was destroyed, they ought to be able to recreate the laboratory in a few years.

Have you any better reasons?


...

[Nick]

The result is a split consciousness, constant divsion, and constant contradiction in cognition.

What conflicts do you find are most at the forefront of your consciousness?

[cousinbasil]

Well, they're pretty far-out reasons. Like, escaping with at least a thousand other mentally stable, healthy, and genetically-screened humans from a seriously war-torn country that has been extremely badly polluted, such as by a nuclear power-plant explosion or uncontrollable viral epidemic, and, on finding a safe haven able to support life sustainably in a well-quarantined area, having no communication from any other countries for several years. But even this wouldn't be a good reason to engage in sexual intercourse, because even if by some ill-foreseen event all their medical equipment for IV fertilisation was destroyed, they ought to be able to recreate the laboratory in a few years.

Have you any better reasons?


...

Yes - a bird in the bush is worth two in the hand.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Animus,

So, even if logic isn't enough in and of itself to significantly change an organism, there does exist practices, ascetic, hedonistic and otherwise that might serve this end.

Such practices would need to change the genetic makeup at the very root, which would effectively alter the hormonal cycles, hormonal cycles are one of the major causes of the trash in male consciousness that refuses to vanish.

Nick,

What conflicts do you find are most at the forefront of your consciousness?

This body is addicted to violent cognition that gives certain hormones an excuse to react. All sorts of aggressive fantasies manifest within this consciousness and it is a sort of a hormonal feedback loop that the whole system is dependent on.

Plus the hormonal system for sexuality in males is very strong, and if let unsatisfied for long periods, the mind creates involuntary types of cognition which serve as a fantasy allowing the hormones to react. For instance: the most twisted thoughts in males probably occur when a male needs to ejaculate.

Then there is also the ideal of solitude, but from my experience, if one stops social interaction, the mind loses contact with reality, and becomes increasingly psychotic. And this is why a female companion may not be a bad idea for some males, who are not wired properly for a hermit sort of lifestyle.

The choice becomes risking insanity for solitude, or dealing with the consequences of having an attachment. Personally, I would rather feel the loss of an attachment, realizing that is was an illusion, rather then risking insanity, from which you may not be able to return to a healthy equilibrium.

[Animus]

Animus,

So, even if logic isn't enough in and of itself to significantly change an organism, there does exist practices, ascetic, hedonistic and otherwise that might serve this end.

Such practices would need to change the genetic makeup at the very root, which would effectively alter the hormonal cycles, hormonal cycles are one of the major causes of the trash in male consciousness that refuses to vanish.

No,that isn't necessary, there exists secondary messenger molecules that can do this. Also, the epigenome can be altered to alter gene expression and carry over to offspring.

[Kelly Jones]

The pent-up feeling of dissatisfaction, that eventually culminates in "twisted thoughts" and sexual dreams, doesn't happen suddenly and overnight. It's usually the result of being open to those thoughts in everyday life, which stems from lacking mindfulness. A little whiff of flesh every day - even if it's a subtle thing like lingering over the picture of a pretty girl, or enjoying a love song - and then, bang! A raunchy sex-dream. It's inevitable, given the lead-up activity.

Though I haven't needed to do this recently, it can be quite helpful to go with the sex dream, and then add your philosophical goals to it. You rewrite the script, and direct the theatricals. Suddenly, the raunchiness is absurdly out of place, even comic. The object of affection can't compete with bodhicitta. And one's true mind returns.

It's funny how quickly the mind can lose its agitation.


...

[Nick]

This body is addicted to violent cognition that gives certain hormones an excuse to react. All sorts of aggressive fantasies manifest within this consciousness and it is a sort of a hormonal feedback loop that the whole system is dependent on.

Plus the hormonal system for sexuality in males is very strong, and if let unsatisfied for long periods, the mind creates involuntary types of cognition which serve as a fantasy allowing the hormones to react. For instance: the most twisted thoughts in males probably occur when a male needs to ejaculate.

I basically agree with this, but in my view it's nothing to get conflicted about. The best one can do is think and meditate on the truth and let things take their course. In reality we have very little control over things, including our own consciousness.

Then there is also the ideal of solitude, but from my experience, if one stops social interaction, the mind loses contact with reality, and becomes increasingly psychotic. And this is why a female companion may not be a bad idea for some males, who are not wired properly for a hermit sort of lifestyle.

The choice becomes risking insanity for solitude, or dealing with the consequences of having an attachment. Personally, I would rather feel the loss of an attachment, realizing that is was an illusion, rather then risking insanity, from which you may not be able to return to a healthy equilibrium.

Well, if you find solitude unbearable and are feeling the desire to find a companion of some sort, it probably would be in your best interest to explore other avenues to find peace of mind. Chances are you will probably find that potential mates are rather unsatisfactory on all levels and you'll quickly become bored with the prospect of finding one and decide that a mix solitude and an adequate amount of social interaction amongst other things is the best avenue, e.g. The Middle Way.

Personally I've been exploring the possibilities of finding a female companion with some seriousness as of late, but it's quickly becoming quite cumbersome with very view prospects having the potential to live up to my expectations with me being as idealistic as I am. Of course you can always compromise, but I don't find that is an option for me, so I imagine this little exploration of mine wont be lasting too much longer.

[awakeninggenius]

This body is addicted to violent cognition that gives certain hormones an excuse to react. All sorts of aggressive fantasies manifest within this consciousness and it is a sort of a hormonal feedback loop that the whole system is dependent on.

Plus the hormonal system for sexuality in males is very strong, and if let unsatisfied for long periods, the mind creates involuntary types of cognition which serve as a fantasy allowing the hormones to react. For instance: the most twisted thoughts in males probably occur when a male needs to ejaculate.

I basically agree with this, but in my view it's nothing to get conflicted about. The best one can do is think and meditate on the truth and let things take their course. In reality we have very little control over things, including our own consciousness.

Then there is also the ideal of solitude, but from my experience, if one stops social interaction, the mind loses contact with reality, and becomes increasingly psychotic. And this is why a female companion may not be a bad idea for some males, who are not wired properly for a hermit sort of lifestyle.

The choice becomes risking insanity for solitude, or dealing with the consequences of having an attachment. Personally, I would rather feel the loss of an attachment, realizing that is was an illusion, rather then risking insanity, from which you may not be able to return to a healthy equilibrium.

Well, if you find solitude unbearable and are feeling the desire to find a companion of some sort, it probably would be in your best interest to explore other avenues to find peace of mind. Chances are you will probably find that potential mates are rather unsatisfactory on all levels and you'll quickly become bored with the prospect of finding one and decide that a mix solitude and an adequate amount of social interaction amongst other things is the best avenue, e.g. The Middle Way.

Personally I've been exploring the possibilities of finding a female companion with some seriousness as of late, but it's quickly becoming quite cumbersome with very view prospects having the potential to live up to my expectations with me being as idealistic as I am. Of course you can always compromise, but I don't find that is an option for me, so I imagine this little exploration of mine wont be lasting too much longer.

Well perhaps YOU then are just what Kelly has been looking for all her life. And she, you. Worth considering.

So the Middle Way is about having one foot in heaven and the other in the grave??
A little of truth and a little illusion?
If so then my opinion of Buddhism and the original Buddha is lower than ever.

As to engaging people and fucking them to resolve lonliness id say that the aspirant best keep the contact to an essential minimum, a philosopher is inviting problems to seek out a girlfriend as opposed to just a girl, a relationship instead of just a vagina or other orifice.

And do understand that awakened people would not ordinarily be compelled to resort to either solution, for there would be nothing left to resolve. (In case one has any doubts about their realization, or lack thereof as the case may be)

EGG

p.s. are there any genuinely "enlightened" moderators properly instructing the members here!
Or guiding, if you dont like "instructing."