GENIUS FORUMS

Yeah...I'd hate to see what he'd do to a human baby crying all night....there's a reason for everything....only idiots use inhumane methods to control & manipulate. If he gave the poor puppy some attension he'd figure out why it was barking......there's a good reason for it......but he loves to fuck with others....thinks he's the master....

What is exactly inhumane in providing "pulsing tingling or tickling sensation on the surface of the skin" to dogs to correct their behavior? It's not exactly a "shock" in painful sense. Although I personally wouldn't use such things on animals as a general principle, I can see how it might prevent worse things: shouting at them, locking them up, making them feel they did something wrong, etc. Perhaps next time try to react without some blind rage showing a lot of prejudice and little experience. Perhaps you need a collar to help with the habit? :)

Yes, Kunga. Dennis, you're a real prick to treat an innocent creature in your care like that. Where the hell do you get off? And Diebert, don't try to defend the indefensible, you're just as bad.

guest_of_logic wrote:Yes, Kunga. Dennis, you're a real prick to treat an innocent creature in your care like that. Where the hell do you get off? And Diebert, don't try to defend the indefensible, you're just as bad.

Haha who is defending women and pets as usual? You need a collar as well to shock you mildly every time your jump out like this. You might be against all forms of behavioral correction for pets and that's fine but aren't you blowing this out of proportion? If I shoot some water at my cat because it's crying loud hours before dinner time or in the middle of the night and it's already overweight, is that cruel as well? Not that I do this anymore, I found out putting her in a plastic bag and stash it somewhere was way more effective :)

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: Diebert, I have not imagined a "definite" divine source of the universe because for that to happen I would have to be imagining some idea or concept when I think "divine source", but what is actually happening when I say this in my mind is simply a recognition of what's right in front of me. Also I'm not calling sense experience the source of the universe, I'm saying the word "universe" actually means "sense experience" as "universe" is made up of "sense experience".

You're saying you can say whatever you want without it having to mean anything to others conceptually? One guy says the universe is made from quantum fluctuation, everything is quantum flux. And someone else comes along and says no, it's all made up of "sense experiences". What you don't get is that you both have identified a source, some essence there.

I do care little about definitions because it is much easier to read without those definitions, eg. when I say something as short, general, and vague as "Life is a dream", I'm actually being more clear than if I were to add a definition.

This is because everyone knows what "life" is through direct experience, and what a "dream" is through direct experience, so my vague statement is one portraying a very clear and simple philosophy: Life is a dream.

No, it's purposefully vague and it only works for you because you're conveniently skipping a lot of important stuff. A dream only has meaning compared to a waking state. That's what means to have a dream: that there's stuff in there which looks like the real thing but isn't. Reality lies elsewhere. But when you say "life is but a dream", there's no state of waking up described to go with it. Or if there's a waking up it's to a world nothing in common with the dream. It's a whole different concept altogether. So you have a dream but nothing where the dream relates to. It's like talking about a computer simulation without wanting to talk about what it is simulating in the first place. If there's no original, then there's also no simulation.

"naming sense experience without knowing what it is your naming", what I'm naming is "all my experiences of reality", the feeling of hot, the feeling of cold, thought, sight, sound, those feelings that make up everything you've ever known, every thought and concept, that is "sense experience".

Yeah, to me mentations seemed always a better word or perhaps "conceptual proliferation". It's mixing up things a bit while in Buddhism you then have the five categories or domains: material phenomena, sensation, perception, mentation and consciousness. These are organized as five domains or aspects of the world. For example one cannot really say things are recognized through a "sensation" but because of perception and mentations. This is why in dreams we can recognize something as well when the usual five senses do not provide.

No matter if you want to organize it like that or not, the point is what you shouldn't mix up categories this way. A world where nothing is recognized is not a world, it's not reality. So one can just as well say everything is identity or concept, that there is no reality outside this, not even somewhere in the senses. And I don't think we disagree here but in your choice of words which I find unfortunate. My point is that what we call "reality" is also not somewhere else. If there's only dream then it's not really a dream. The way we see our world is perhaps like a dream in some way but it's still a big difference.

Diebert: What is exactly inhumane in providing "pulsing tingling or tickling sensation on the surface of the skin" to dogs to correct their behavior? It's not exactly a "shock" in painful sense. Although I personally wouldn't use such things on animals as a general principle, I can see how it might prevent worse things: shouting at them, locking them up, making them feel they did something wrong, etc.

Here is what is wrong with it, Diebert, this closure of being on the part of a devotee of its disclosure . . . .

Dennis: It's knocked her about a bit psychologically, she seems to have lost a bit of confidence and verve.

It's thoughtless to co-habitate with an animal if you've no interest in co-responding to its point of view. It barks for reasons, whether you find them reasonable or not. As human chauvinist, you ought to be able to figure those reasons out and address them in some way other than consumer-stupid button pushing . . . . otherwise, seriously why co-habitate with a being you've no interest in merging with, disclosing the being of both of you?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Perhaps next time try to react without some blind rage showing a lot of prejudice and little experience. Perhaps you need a collar to help with the habit? :)

You're right....I have little experience abusing defenseless animals and humans.
The rage is not blind to abuse.
Yes, I am predjudice against injustice.
Should I be muzzled also ?

***
All types of shock collars create serious risks for the dog, both physically and behaviorally. Malfunctioning shock collars can severely burn a dog's neck. They may also start shocking the dog and not stop until they are removed and the batteries are taken out. Some will even start shocking the dog at random intervals.
Behavioral hazards are similar to those created by any type of painful punishment. There are potential behavioral side effects any time a dog is punished with pain. These include fear, aggression, withdrawal, reactivity and more. Some dogs even "shut down" when punished. These dogs will stop responding to any cue or stimulus for a period of time.

Read more: Are Shock Collars Safe for Dogs? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5192214_shock ... z2DAUtSqDw

Pye wrote:Here is what is wrong with it, Diebert, this closure of being on the part of a devotee of its disclosure . . . .

One cannot escape pet peeves?

It barks for reasons, whether you find them reasonable or not.

You mean there are causes but they are not always of the kind you can reason out with the pet or solve. There's something neurotic and debasing about transforming an animal in a domesticated pet, indoors and alone. Once you happen to have one you might have to deal with the quirks as they arise. Now I'm the first one to agree that sometimes there are simple causes, like an average cat needs to put energy in hunting a prey every day otherwise its energies are quickly turning into all kinds of insane behavior. Or a dog needs to have a strong sense of pack and order and generally will not accept isolation or uncertainty.

Kunga wrote:You're right....I have little experience abusing defenseless animals and humans.

As far as corrective measures go the electric collar seems better than most methods I've seen being used. It's unfair to cite instances of broken collars, that's a whole different discussion. We could just as well discuss types and brands of dog food and other health issues. That said, I think most dog owners are wrong having even started with a dog. Our modern lives are increasingly incompatible with even an average domesticated dog.

Now what would Seeker say when he sees that we're fixing up Buddha with pet stories now??

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:As far as corrective measures go the electric collar seems better than most methods I've seen being used

How about just saying "NO" .
How about investigating to see if there's something outside that's making the dog bark ?
How about proper care during the day so the dog has plenty of excersise & play , so they don't have pent up frustrations ? Maybe he keeps the dog in a kennel all day long...and all night long.....

Dogs don't bark for no reason .
It's their nature to bark...that's how they speak !!

As far as the "unfair" remark reguarding broken collars....it is a hazard that occurs, that he should be aware of reguardless.

To defend the defenceless is fixing up (Buddhist) philosophy in action.

There are 2 puppies.
both pulled from a rescue shelter, both were on death row, one day away from a massive barbiturate shot.

in order to appease the neighbours' (on all sides) mounting aggression on the puppies persistent barking between the hours of midnight-6 am.
an electronic collar was installed.

It's not a preference.

like everything else, once an activity is enrolled in a complicated train of events rolls out that involves some pleasure and some pain.

all those who haven't caused a little pain now and then, please assemble over by the wall.
just what I thought,
there's no one by the wall.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Haha who is defending women and pets as usual? You need a collar as well to shock you mildly every time your jump out like this.

The problems are abusiveness and chauvinism, not calling them out.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You might be against all forms of behavioral correction for pets and that's fine but aren't you blowing this out of proportion?

No. The reduction of animals to property to be controlled or "managed" is a perverse and systemic injustice, I would say the greatest injustice in the world today - at least when considering what it leads to. Dennis' choice is a direct manifestation of this attitude. It's the attitude as much as the act it has led to that stinks.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:If I shoot some water at my cat because it's crying loud hours before dinner time or in the middle of the night and it's already overweight, is that cruel as well?

Yes. Did you really have to ask? Depending, you might get away with "unkind" rather than "cruel". Either way, it's not nice.

Dennis Mahar wrote:all those who haven't caused a little pain now and then, please assemble over by the wall.

In other words, "The imperfections of others excuse my cruelty". Pathetic, Dennis.

Kudos on saving dogs from the pound at least, rather than going to a breeder.

guest_of_logic wrote:It's the attitude as much as the act it has led to that stinks.

Don't get me wrong, the act is cruel and offensive on every level. How would you feel if your freedom to express yourself when you desperately needed to was repressed via electric shocks to your neck? We wouldn't even inflict this on locked up criminals, yet you defend it on the innocent!

Oh, and by the way:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Haha who is defending women and pets as usual? You need a collar as well to shock you mildly every time your jump out like this.

Take your condescending attitude for a long walk off a short pier, pal.

Dennis....do you keep them outside ?
Just bring them inside.

My neighbors have dogs, that sometimes bark when outdoors at night....if they just would bring them inside...the problem is solved.....if your windows are open & they still bark...close the windows !

Give them something to chew on !
Peanut butter.....lol

Laird,
it's always circumstances,
never perfect.
in the face of a mounting aggression an act of resolution is called for.

the options were,
a. by some manner quieten the dog.
b. shoot the neighbours.

the aftermath of 'shooting the neighbours' involves too much paperwork.

tell me about a circumstance you faced that involved restricting the activity of a 'loved one' for restoring peace.

Sandy,
they don't want to be inside overnight,
they whimper and paw at the door to get out.
they have a triple A rated, majestic, double deluxe kennel.

Another Reason Why I Don't Keep A Gun In The House
- Billy Collins

The neighbors' dog will not stop barking.
He is barking the same high, rhythmic bark
that he barks every time they leave the house.
They must switch him on on their way out.

The neighbors' dog will not stop barking.
I close all the windows in the house
and put on a Beethoven symphony full blast
but I can still hear him muffled under the music,
barking, barking, barking,

and now I can see him sitting in the orchestra,
his head raised confidently as if Beethoven
had included a part for barking dog.

When the record finally ends he is still barking,
sitting there in the oboe section barking,
his eyes fixed on the conductor who is
entreating him with his baton

while the other musicians listen in respectful
silence to the famous barking dog solo,
that endless coda that first established
Beethoven as an innovative genius.

Dennis Mahar wrote: the options were,
a. by some manner quieten the dog.
b. shoot the neighbours.

c. Take them to a vet and have their vocal cords trimmed. Then they won't bark so loud.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:As far as corrective measures go the electric collar seems better than most methods I've seen being used.

Your premisse is that no non-coercive method is possible.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's unfair to cite instances of broken collars, that's a whole different discussion.

What about unbroken collars?

" Bark collars can be activated by microphone or vibration, and some of the most advanced collars use both sound and vibration to eliminate the possibility of extraneous noises activating a response. Dogs may learn to associate the correction from the collar with barking while wearing it, and will stop barking only when the collar is on. Other dogs fail to make the association (especially when they are in an environment where extraneous noise can trigger the collar even when the dog is not barking), and may develop fear, anxiety or aggression issues."

"In shock mode, the electronic collar will deliver an electric current to the dog through two contact points at the dog’s neck.
This electric shock will cause pain and physical discomfort to the dog, otherwise it would not be effective in conditioning the dog.
The amount of pain delivered to the dog will depend on three key factors -
The power/voltage of the electric current,
The duration of the current, and
The frequency of the current.
The amount of pain that the dog actually feels will also depend on the physical characteristics of the dog, including size, skin and fur, as well as the temperament. Some dogs are more sensitive to pain than others.
Sometimes, words like stimulation are used to describe shock collars. I even saw them described as gentle training collars."

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Now what would Seeker say when he sees that we're fixing up Buddha with pet stories now??

Non-violence et al? Doesn't some of it goes directly to the Buddha?

Tomas wrote: c. Take them to a vet and have their vocal cords trimmed. Then they won't bark so loud.

This may put some dogs into depression.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
You're saying you can say whatever you want without it having to mean anything to others conceptually? One guy says the universe is made from quantum fluctuation, everything is quantum flux. And someone else comes along and says no, it's all made up of "sense experiences". What you don't get is that you both have identified a source, some essence there.

The only difference is, that guy doesn't have a clue what "quantum fluctuation" is, outside of imagining some past "dream" he has associated. In fact, "quantum fluctuation" is just a collection of letters used to refer to a past sense experiences, past associations of sight, sound, or whatever image or conceptualization one has connected with those words.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: No, it's purposefully vague and it only works for you because you're conveniently skipping a lot of important stuff. A dream only has meaning compared to a waking state. That's what means to have a dream: that there's stuff in there which looks like the real thing but isn't. Reality lies elsewhere. But when you say "life is but a dream", there's no state of waking up described to go with it. Or if there's a waking up it's to a world nothing in common with the dream. It's a whole different concept altogether. So you have a dream but nothing where the dream relates to. It's like talking about a computer simulation without wanting to talk about what it is simulating in the first place. If there's no original, then there's also no simulation.

I'm hearing where you are coming from, there is nothing more "real" to compare it to, it's as real as it gets, but it is still a dream, aka "of the mind", it's not like you are asleep somewhere else dreaming this dream like people normally believe when they are dreaming, instead all of experience is of this dream kind, there is no "reality" to wake up too, this distinction is only because of how much people have distinguished between waking life and a dream, if that disconnection hadn't been made, you might not be saying a "dream" only has meaning compared to a waking state, you'd be saying, "being awake is such a different kind of dream than being asleep!". Both dreams, both existing in the mind, as hallucinations rather than physical and permanent things.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Yeah, to me mentations seemed always a better word or perhaps "conceptual proliferation". It's mixing up things a bit while in Buddhism you then have the five categories or domains: material phenomena, sensation, perception, mentation and consciousness. These are organized as five domains or aspects of the world. For example one cannot really say things are recognized through a "sensation" but because of perception and mentations. This is why in dreams we can recognize something as well when the usual five senses do not provide.

Again I feel we are labeling and distinguishing too much, distinguishing something that flows as one, from a common essence. All of sight/sound/hearing are simply different labels for our stream of consciousness, all aspects of which flow in complete unison, including thought.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: If there's only dream then it's not really a dream. The way we see our world is perhaps like a dream in some way but it's still a big difference.

Yes I don't think we are disagreeing at all haha, I get you, there definitely is a difference, but then again, your only saying that as Diebert :b You don't have vivid enough memory of your dream experiences to say that, for all you know its exactly the same kind of existence, we are just distinguishing because at the moment we are in a "waking" state.

Addition to the original thread:

On life, we are "living" beings, experiencing consciousness, whether or not our bodies, forms and thoughts are only projections of the same illusory kind as a tree or wall, we are still experiencing awareness.

Now, it can be assumed that any other living being such as an animal is also experiencing such awareness, that they are feeling suffering or attachment, etc. This can be assumed for the same reason you have assumed that other persons are seeing and feeling.

But other forms are simply unknown to us, for example the tree, still a living organism, it is only a projection, the same as the puppy, yet the puppy still see's and feels, we know because it is more similar to us, it has eyes. So then, does a tree or plant have any kind of sensation or feeling that is simply too different for us to conceptualize? It may be possible.

If this is the case, what about the forms we do not consider "living", such as the star or the rock? Could we not say then that these might also be experiencing some kind of sensation or awareness we are simply ignorant to? It may be possible, and if so, then the possibility that the whole universe is "alive" in this same sense arises, could it be that all projections, of any kind, are experiencing sensation or awareness of some sort?

That all dream-like projections, (which our bodies are one of) have a "soul", or "feel", as Thales thought, "all things are full of gods".

Now since all of our experiences and feelings and completely interconnected, meaning if I experience the illusory feeling of anger, accompanied by the experience of my body hitting another's body, then the other feels the consequence of this. All our experiences are flowing as one shared and connected existence, all emanating from the same source, or at least all "made of" the same essence: dream-stuff, whatever "this" is, I don't presume to know. This seems to imply that the whole universe is not some kind of external projection or manifestation of this essence, "Tao", but that all things are this essence, meaning that our sight is "it's" sight, our thoughts are "it's" thoughts, and our experiences are "it's" experiences, as we are a projection of "it" and are one with "it".

In other words, "It pours itself into its work".

A universal awareness that is "embedded within" all things, the same way our awareness (it's awareness") is "embedded" currently "within" these human vehicles. In other words, does the soul pervade the whole universe? Or is this awareness only existent in that which appears to be a more "complex projection" or a "living organism"?

Also on this puppy thing:

Cows be feeling suffering, if you are eating meat, then stfu about the dogs. Any vegetarian may continue. Anyone?

Dennis, do whatever you need to to keep those puppies alive and with a home, although do check if they are learning ( maybe they will figure out not to bark at night or else they get the collar)

A lot of what the Buddha said has to be taken on trust.

He said, paraphrased,
consciousness has been around a long time,
human consciousness is a relative 'new kid on the block'.

Box 1.
phenomena appears to exist from its own side resulting in attachment where survival is of paramount significance.
In order to survive,
assessments are made revealing a set of options that generates a winning formula.

Box 2.
an investigation of phenomena discloses none of it exists from its own side.
that reveals attachment is suffering and pleasure, of an uneven nature, rough and smooth.

which box to come out of?

what is thinking outside the boxes?