Right and Wrong?

[Dennis Mahar]

Morality is a subjective value and evaluation. It is that idea of how a consciousness affects another consciousness. Since all individual consciousnessses (which is the only form there is and probably only can be) is restricted from any absolute truth or single, final truth, all valuation and evaluation depends on the consciousness in question and it's subjective perception and assessment of itself and others (other conscious beings specifically).

I'm not sure if there is any conclusion to it. The ideal morality is fiction of the mind, perhaps possible, at least we try and most people claim we have made progress over the centuries and millennia. Any circumstance is uncertain, but in the face of this we must act and decide on possibilities.

I looked at Quinn's essay on 'Dangers of Compassion'.

What opens up is a possibility for non-referential compassion.
a nondual compassion.

a dual-mind compassion is a compassion with reference to a particular or particular sentient beings because the catch is an 'I' feeling compassion towards other as object of compassion who is perceived to be suffering.
a subject/object framework.
inside that frame untold difficulties are set in train.

a non referential compassion is compassion for all phenomena,
nondiscriminatory, unconditional.

the guy in the 'up' elevator this week is the guy in the 'down' elevator next week.

[Kelly Jones]

Dan Rowden: So, animals that have no ego (only humans and chimps do) never make choices?

Someone else: Both humans and animals have egos. What would make you think that animals wouldn't have egos?

DR: Because they have no sense of self. Even human infants younger than about 6 months lack this. I'm sorry, dogs do not have egos - only humans and chimps demonstrate the ability to recognise themselves as themselves. If you are operating from a perspective that says all animals have egos, we cannot communicate.

I completely disagree, but I think you can follow my reasoning if you choose to, Dan. Having a sense of self is not the same as an ego, and it's bizarre for you to offer equality between the concepts on a philosophical level. An ego is basically a core belief, however blurry, emotion-driven, and instinctive, that a self inherently exists. But the stronger the ego, the greater the level of irrationality needed, so most dire egotists cannot conceive of the compulsive, obsessive concept of self that drives them. It is all they "know". Animals definitely display that high level of instinctive, unconscious self-belief. Their immediacy in the sensory world shows how completely devoid of reflection they are, and how deeply an instinctive, unconscious self-belief (i.e., ego) drives them. A dog sees a puddle of water: it wants to drink and touch it. It sees a wallaby: the organism is totally unified, running madly towards it, driven by sheer emotion. Only if it could reflect about its relationship to the world, i.e. have a distinct notion of self, could its egotism start to be dismantled; so evidently it's the default for an organism before then.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Nietzsche on the dangers of compassion:


If you have a suffering friend, then be a resting-place for his suffering, yet like a hard bed, an outdoors bed: thus would you be most useful to him.

And if a friend deal you ill, say to him: "I forgive you what you did to me; but that you did it to yourself — how could I forgive that!"

Thus speaks all great love: thus it prevails over both forgiveness and compassion.

One should keep one's heart in tight control; for if one lets it go, how quickly the head goes after it!

Alas, where in the world does greater folly arise, than with the compassionate? And what in the world causes more suffering, than the folly of the compassionate?

Woe to all the loving, that have no lofty heights above their compassion!

So be warned against compassion: thereby comes a heavy cloud over man! — Truly, I understand the weather!

But mark also this: All great love is yet its compassion above all: for it wills the beloved — to create!

"I myself do I bring to my love, and my neighbour like myself" — thus goes the words of all creators.

But all creators are hard. —


.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan Rowden: So, animals that have no ego (only humans and chimps do) never make choices?

Someone else: Both humans and animals have egos. What would make you think that animals wouldn't have egos?

DR: Because they have no sense of self. Even human infants younger than about 6 months lack this. I'm sorry, dogs do not have egos - only humans and chimps demonstrate the ability to recognise themselves as themselves. If you are operating from a perspective that says all animals have egos, we cannot communicate.

I completely disagree, but I think you can follow my reasoning if you choose to, Dan. Having a sense of self is not the same as an ego, and it's bizarre for you to offer equality between the concepts on a philosophical level. An ego is basically a core belief, however blurry, emotion-driven, and instinctive, that a self inherently exists. But the stronger the ego, the greater the level of irrationality needed, so most dire egotists cannot conceive of the compulsive, obsessive concept of self that drives them. It is all they "know". Animals definitely display that high level of instinctive, unconscious self-belief. Their immediacy in the sensory world shows how completely devoid of reflection they are, and how deeply an instinctive, unconscious self-belief (i.e., ego) drives them. A dog sees a puddle of water: it wants to drink and touch it. It sees a wallaby: the organism is totally unified, running madly towards it, driven by sheer emotion. Only if it could reflect about its relationship to the world, i.e. have a distinct notion of self, could its egotism start to be dismantled; so evidently it's the default for an organism before then..

I choose not to see your "reasoning", Kelly, because I don't see any at all. Could be me.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

how deeply an instinctive, unconscious self-belief (i.e., ego) drives them [ wild animals et al]

But isn't that just instinct and self-preservation in the context of a loosely tied together organism trying to preserve itself? Then a molecule would have an ego when DNA strings repair and split, a virus when it invades and then a river has an ego when it rushes to the sea. This reasoning does not make enough distinction in my view and runs into various troubles.

The ego appears to manifest not in the drives but more as a belief structure which can divert drives, feelings and thoughts. Compare Nietzsche's ideas on "damaged instinct" in humans or the Christian attempt to cover up with "ego language" the more ugly causes of the behavior central to them. This does not turn "pure" instinct and drive into something necessarily good, or even good for the cause of wisdom. Just as more neutral and amoral: innocent.

There's a case to be made for calling the whole of creation including philosophical errors as "innocent" and "caused" but this doesn't mean there are no errors and ignorance in other contexts, like the ego.

Then again, I do agree somewhat with your point, Kelly. It's just not worked out enough yet perhaps.

I'm sorry, dogs do not have egos - only humans and chimps demonstrate the ability to recognise themselves as themselves.

I think there's some increasing evidence that weak forms of self-recognition do occur with several other species outside primates. But never mind that. A fleeting concept of self is needed to operate a complex mechanism with the requirements for language. But would be a concept of ego which does not tell me much yet about any ignorance which might be in place.

[Dennis Mahar]

Kelly,

Nietzsche on the dangers of compassion:


If you have a suffering friend, then be a resting-place for his suffering, yet like a hard bed, an outdoors bed: thus would you be most useful to him.

And if a friend deal you ill, say to him: "I forgive you what you did to me; but that you did it to yourself — how could I forgive that!"

Thus speaks all great love: thus it prevails over both forgiveness and compassion.

One should keep one's heart in tight control; for if one lets it go, how quickly the head goes after it!

Alas, where in the world does greater folly arise, than with the compassionate? And what in the world causes more suffering, than the folly of the compassionate?

Woe to all the loving, that have no lofty heights above their compassion!

So be warned against compassion: thereby comes a heavy cloud over man! — Truly, I understand the weather!

But mark also this: All great love is yet its compassion above all: for it wills the beloved — to create!

"I myself do I bring to my love, and my neighbour like myself" — thus goes the words of all creators.

But all creators are hard. —

Fred shows up the utter depravity of 'enabling' in that.
A suffering friend on the premises is an idiot and should be put out the door.

It's interesting how the language builders made the word 'premise' and the significances entailed.

a premise as the 'house you live in'
a premise as your understanding from which your life trains out of.

to suffer is to live in an idiotic premise.

[Kelly Jones]

Why do you think one of the realms of desire (realms of ego) is the "animal", Dan?

I know in the past you have stated yourself a consequence of egotism is trying to shore up imaginary boundaries between self and other. So your present disagreement stems from some kind of cognitive dissonance. The example you gave then was an egotist's emotive instinct to disagree with someone else, purely in order to defend that sense of separateness. Conversely, one could see egotism in the person who wants to merge with, possess, and befriend those that strengthen its sense of self.

In other words, there is an emotional, non-rational instinct to defend and protect the self. That is an aspect of the animal realm, where emotions drive the animal to defend itself or others it has merged a sense of self with. There is no difference in principle, emotionally speaking, between a snarling, enraged dog rushing to attack another snarling, enraged dog, and an enraged, snarling human rushing to attack another snarling, enraged human.

I know for a fact that a dog can look into a mirror and understand it as a reflection. That it does not focus on itself seems to me to be more about the dog's slavish psychology, that cannot centralise, but is dependent for its sense of substance on its leader. Just like an autistic person cannot speak directly to another person, but has to use a telephone. It is more about the psychology involved.


.

[Dan Rowden]

Why do you think one of the realms of desire (realms of ego) is the "animal", Dan?

Because it's a very useful metaphor. But it's not a direct analogy. It's simply meant to symbolise the least degree of consciousness humans can express.

I know in the past you have stated yourself a consequence of egotism is trying to shore up imaginary boundaries between self and other.

Well, yes, because that how things are.

So your present disagreement stems from some kind of cognitive dissonance.

No the disagreement stems from me thinking you take the analogy too far. It's certainly useful, but you take it too far in my view.

I know for a fact that a dog can look into a mirror and understand it as a reflection.

Well, you must have conducted a new type of mirror test because dogs have never passed them thus far.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Well, you must have conducted a new type of mirror test because dogs have never passed them thus far.

But, if Wikipedia has it right, some dolphins, orcas, elephants and magpies do pass. I think some corvid research is very telling too. It doesn't seem like a strong point going anywhere. If a magpie might pass, surely a dog would have capacity somewhere. This is assuming the test is not flawed in that it measures a very specific type of reaction which might be self-selecting.

[Leyla Shen]

A distinction can and should be drawn between intelligence and symbolic language.

[Kelly Jones]

Dan, I don't personally see the following anecdote as important to this discussion, because I don't think a mirror test says anything useful about determining the presence of egotism in another creature, but just for your information, I'll tell you my experience. I stood about two metres away directly facing a large mirror, with my back turned to a dog sitting behind me to my right about five metres away. This is to give you an idea of the angles involved. I called the dog's name, and it looked at me. But I was watching its eyes. It didn't look at my back. It didn't at the back or front of my head. It looked at my reflected face in the mirror. It didn't show any hesitation or confusion, but looked immediately at my face. It hadn't been looking at me before I called its name. It behaved as it normally did, when I called its name: looking at my face. Nothing special, but it apparently understood the nature of a mirror. However, I doubt it would look at itself in a mirror, for the reason I've mentioned already.

When it comes down to it, the belief that a creature that looks at itself in a mirror, must have a concept of self, and on that basis, may have the delusion of ego, doesn't really speak to the definition of egotism. Clearly, egotism is founded on the existence of a concept of self, but is not identical with that, because egolessness can experience the existence of a concept of self, any many different such concepts.

To judge egotism in another creature, only the external behaviour can be used for evidence.

• Emotionalism is a far better indicator of egotism, than being able to recognise self in a mirror, and I recall you also mentioned this in the past. Emotions are basically neurological-mental drivers to get an organism to flee predators, capture prey, avoid pain and obtain pleasure (e.g. thermal comfort), and the like. All such behaviour comes from needing to coordinate and move the self to protect its well-being. Animals demonstrate emotions. Plants apparently do not have emotions, because they can't move. As David's mentioned, it would be cruel for plants to have emotions, and not be able to run away from what they fear.
• Another indicator, similar to emotionalism, showing that animals have a very strong egotism is their habitual domination / submission behaviour to other animals or unknown things that appear to be threats. The domination / submission dynamic is a stand-out sign of egotism.
• Sexuality and pair-bonding is another clear sign of egotism, given that the ego evolved to facilitate just that, as well as tribal cohesion. This is something I believe David and Kevin have both mentioned at some point in the past.

This is no big deal, but I'm just surprised you wouldn't be able to recognise the same primitive, animalistic ranges of emotion that are present in humans, in animals. There's hardly a big stretch between them.


.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A distinction can and should be drawn between intelligence and symbolic language.

Oh yeah?

[Leyla Shen]

Hello again, Diebert.

I admit, it is one of the more sophisticated rhetorical devices, which is exactly what makes it so good for stimulating focus and concentration.

[Tenver-]

Morality is a subjective value and evaluation. It is that idea of how a consciousness affects another consciousness. Since all individual consciousnessses (which is the only form there is and probably only can be) is restricted from any absolute truth or single, final truth, all valuation and evaluation depends on the consciousness in question and it's subjective perception and assessment of itself and others (other conscious beings specifically).

I'm not sure if there is any conclusion to it. The ideal morality is fiction of the mind, perhaps possible, at least we try and most people claim we have made progress over the centuries and millennia. Any circumstance is uncertain, but in the face of this we must act and decide on possibilities.

I looked at Quinn's essay on 'Dangers of Compassion'.

What opens up is a possibility for non-referential compassion.
a nondual compassion.

a dual-mind compassion is a compassion with reference to a particular or particular sentient beings because the catch is an 'I' feeling compassion towards other as object of compassion who is perceived to be suffering.
a subject/object framework.
inside that frame untold difficulties are set in train.

a non referential compassion is compassion for all phenomena,
nondiscriminatory, unconditional.

the guy in the 'up' elevator this week is the guy in the 'down' elevator next week.

I'm not sure I can follow your line of reasoning and comment on it as I don't really understand it. Regardless, what I mean is a subjective phenomena between objects which are inherently subjective - a subjective object making subjective perceptions about other subjective objects - I'm not sure anyone is the wiser.

[Pam Seeback]

Morality is a subjective value and evaluation. It is that idea of how a consciousness affects another consciousness. Since all individual consciousnessses (which is the only form there is and probably only can be) is restricted from any absolute truth or single, final truth, all valuation and evaluation depends on the consciousness in question and it's subjective perception and assessment of itself and others (other conscious beings specifically).

I'm not sure if there is any conclusion to it. The ideal morality is fiction of the mind, perhaps possible, at least we try and most people claim we have made progress over the centuries and millennia. Any circumstance is uncertain, but in the face of this we must act and decide on possibilities.

I looked at Quinn's essay on 'Dangers of Compassion'.

What opens up is a possibility for non-referential compassion.
a nondual compassion.

a dual-mind compassion is a compassion with reference to a particular or particular sentient beings because the catch is an 'I' feeling compassion towards other as object of compassion who is perceived to be suffering.
a subject/object framework.
inside that frame untold difficulties are set in train.

a non referential compassion is compassion for all phenomena,
nondiscriminatory, unconditional.

the guy in the 'up' elevator this week is the guy in the 'down' elevator next week.

Dennis, I've struggled with the idea(l) of compassion all of my life and have only recently transcended that struggle, which by default, caused me to transcend compassion.

My reasoning:

Compassion is a feeling, feeling is the arousal of consciousness, arousal of consciousness veils one's wisdom of emptiness.

Wisdom of emptiness is the medicine all suffering beings need. Therefore, compassion is unnecessary.

Having said this, compassion is a necessary step on the road to transcending compassion.

[Cahoot]

Morality is a subjective value and evaluation. It is that idea of how a consciousness affects another consciousness. Since all individual consciousnessses (which is the only form there is and probably only can be) is restricted from any absolute truth or single, final truth, all valuation and evaluation depends on the consciousness in question and it's subjective perception and assessment of itself and others (other conscious beings specifically).

I'm not sure if there is any conclusion to it. The ideal morality is fiction of the mind, perhaps possible, at least we try and most people claim we have made progress over the centuries and millennia. Any circumstance is uncertain, but in the face of this we must act and decide on possibilities.

I looked at Quinn's essay on 'Dangers of Compassion'.

What opens up is a possibility for non-referential compassion.
a nondual compassion.

a dual-mind compassion is a compassion with reference to a particular or particular sentient beings because the catch is an 'I' feeling compassion towards other as object of compassion who is perceived to be suffering.
a subject/object framework.
inside that frame untold difficulties are set in train.

a non referential compassion is compassion for all phenomena,
nondiscriminatory, unconditional.

the guy in the 'up' elevator this week is the guy in the 'down' elevator next week.

Dennis, I've struggled with the idea(l) of compassion all of my life and have only recently transcended that struggle, which by default, caused me to transcend compassion.

My reasoning:

Compassion is a feeling, feeling is the arousal of consciousness, arousal of consciousness veils one's wisdom of emptiness.

Wisdom of emptiness is the medicine all suffering beings need. Therefore, compassion is unnecessary.

Having said this, compassion is a necessary step on the road to transcending compassion.

Haven't yet read Quinn's essay, however the experience of compassion is a choiceless and uncorrupted motivational force independent of morality, but often perceived by a sense of learned morality, which can be altered into feeling by the over-riding interference of delusional, egotistic, self-grasping mind which interprets and relates compassion as a feeling of self-satisfaction of which we are all accustomed; an alteration which is an affirmation of the separate and independent identity's worth. Not to be confused with sentimentality or pity. This appears to agree with the above opinion by Dennis, however compassion as a motivational force is not limited to the suffering, nor is it limited to "state" or "experience," but is rather conjoined, if you will, with turiya, which transcends all states.

[Dennis Mahar]

Compassion is a feeling, feeling is the arousal of consciousness, arousal of consciousness veils one's wisdom of emptiness.

Wisdom of emptiness is the medicine all suffering beings need. Therefore, compassion is unnecessary.

Having said this, compassion is a necessary step on the road to transcending compassion.

Of course, it's a place to stand.
It doesn't come easy refraining from postulating 'subjects' with theoretical 'predicates'.

It's a Supply Issue.
Quantitively it's supplying 'refraining from harming' in situations.
It's not a speech act.
Ineffable Silence.

It's light years ahead of flogging peurile bullshit like 'woman, masculine, absolute truth, logical truth' and such.

Nevertheless it is empty.
It's quality is emptiness.

It's completely and utterly devoid of existing from its own side.
There is only emptiness.
there is no other-nature lurking about for discovery.

[Dennis Mahar]

tenver,

I'm not sure I can follow your line of reasoning and comment on it as I don't really understand it. Regardless, what I mean is a subjective phenomena between objects which are inherently subjective - a subjective object making subjective perceptions about other subjective objects - I'm not sure anyone is the wiser.

At times our thoughts are 'I think this' or 'I believe this'.
We use ideas to construct a picture of the world.
That is subjectivism or philosophy based in subjective thoughts.

At other times we base our thoughts on our sense perceptions. We perceive the material world through
the senses and make sense of what we perceive with our intellect. This is objectivism.

It's impossible to construct a philosophy which is not somehow
based on either sub or ob or a mix of the two; this is the nature of philosophy. Philosophy
is without question restricted to the area of the intellect.

while all that's going on our preferences fall and our aversions prosper.

thinking about eating isn't eating.
we don't eat the menu.
its in action that subject/object make contact.
the intellect ain't king.
nevertheless to avoid suffering requires strategic thinking.

When you say tenver,

but in the face of this we must act and decide on possibilities.

that suggests strategic thinking.

[Pam Seeback]

Compassion is a feeling, feeling is the arousal of consciousness, arousal of consciousness veils one's wisdom of emptiness.

Wisdom of emptiness is the medicine all suffering beings need. Therefore, compassion is unnecessary.

Having said this, compassion is a necessary step on the road to transcending compassion.

Of course, it's a place to stand.
It doesn't come easy refraining from postulating 'subjects' with theoretical 'predicates'.

It's a Supply Issue.
Quantitively it's supplying 'refraining from harming' in situations.
It's not a speech act.
Ineffable Silence.

It's light years ahead of flogging peurile bullshit like 'woman, masculine, absolute truth, logical truth' and such.

Nevertheless it is empty.
It's quality is emptiness.

It's completely and utterly devoid of existing from its own side.
There is only emptiness.
there is no other-nature lurking about for discovery.

My point is that when one stands on wisdom of emptiness of form, they stand on truth itself. What more is needed than wisdom of truth?

For example, the quality you displayed when speaking about 'woman, masculine, absolute truth, logical truth" as "flogging puerile bullshit" was anger. Of what use is this display of anger to anyone, including yourself? True, you could say anger, like compassion is empty, but that is akin to saying I realize I will be burned when I put my hand on the stove but I will go ahead and put my hand on the stove anyway. Can you see the difference between one who has wisdom of emptiness and one who is wisdom of emptiness? The former being yet attached to form even though he knows it is empty (the angry one, the compassionate one) and the latter being unattached to form because he knows it is empty?

The danger of compassion, like all emotions, is that it houses the causal web of circular reasons why it exists, aka the loop of rebirth. It is to the unborn, it is to the end of the circle, that the wisdom seeker of ultimate reality directs his reasoning. "Do not think I have come to bring peace but a sword."

[Dennis Mahar]

It's funny how we take the opportunity to diagnose a condition and the basis for the diagnosis is often a projection.
diagnostic technicians.

a disease and a cure.

a room full of doctors.

[Dennis Mahar]

My point is that when one stands on wisdom of emptiness of form, they stand on truth itself. What more is needed than wisdom of truth?

Most people don't 'get' philosophy.
It's an act of consciousness or a part of consciousness called 'intellect'.

philosophy split into 2 thinking streams as far back as the Greeks, subjective and objective.

Plato represented subjective and Democritus represented objective.
Plato was the world of Ideas, of Ideal forms so the people immersed in that are Idealists
Democritus was 'the world is made of atoms' so the people immersed in that are Materialists.

Mostly a person is a mix of both.

Hegel saw the conflict and tried to resolve it through dialectic,
thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
It didn't work out.

As here on this forum,
Kelly represents Ideal Forms like woman and masculine.
Orenholt represents 'the world is made of atoms' or materialistic.
Do you think synthesis can happen there?
No way. polarised. No listening happening.



Buddha recognised all that stuff was patent rubbish.
He taught 'activity'
existence is 'activity'
consciousness is 'activity'

Buddha is the philosophy of 'activity'
causes/conditions,
this arises/that arises...this ceases/that ceases.
dependent arising.
noble path.
all is empty.

being-in-action.

[Getoriks]

Sorry Dennis, but you'll need to get over your brainwashing if you want to understand the history of philosophy. You can start here:

Distortions of Platonic Dialectic
http://www.hermes-press.com/dialectic_distortions.htm

Philosophy: the Love of Wisdom
http://www.hermes-press.com/Perennial_T ... PTch11.htm

The Postmodern Attack on Plato
http://www2.swgc.mun.ca/animus/Articles ... ckson4.pdf

[Dennis Mahar]

none of that means anything.
do you honestly assign any of that absolute existence?

you go on about this Ideal Form you call Totality.
at least Quinn understands it's of the nature 'conventional designation only'.

try and get a handle on a trick of consciousness.
names and form.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"Que expected response: 'Provisional labeling'"

My mind is an eternal emptiness, people who think too much or bother trying to impress others, thinking themselves intelligent, are aware they are really just kidding themselves.

[Getoriks]

Crow, is that you? Sorry Dennis, I don't go on about some "Ideal Form" called the Totality, because the only thing I call the Totality is not any kind of Form. Nor do I assign any history absolute existence. But here's the thing Dennis: if you can't be honest in mundane matters, like history, then there's no possible way for you to be clear sighted in sacred matters.