GENIUS FORUMS

.

clyde wrote:And after you realized “there aren't really any things,” then what do you do?

Challenge those that are diverting themselves from deepening their understanding.

And do you still see “others weaker than oneself”?

Yes, plenty.

.

David;

Huh? Why are you inserting Jesus into our dialogue?

I don’t know what Jesus said though I can read what he is reported to have said, and I do not know what Jesus meant. Do you?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:cckeiser wrote:

Here's a puzzle for you all. Let's see if you can figure out the puzzle.
I'm assuming most of you have taken a few IQ tests, so you should all be somewhat familiar with this one.

Which does not belong?

boat
airplane
bus
train

I was just going to ignore that, but the thought that someone might fall for this brought me back.

Yes, we know the answer - that is actually one of the easier ones. Are you trying to fake a higher IQ score by getting someone to tell you the answers?

Yeah, sorry that last part was a bit much even for me. But thank you for playing along anyway.

The point I was trying to make is when we try too hard to be smart we over analyze and miss the simple truths.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

If we over analyze we miss its simple elegance.

"We are not rational creature, we are rationalizing creatures."


We can take anything and rationalize it to suit our own ends. We can take a simple and benign cause like Do No Harm and turn it into a cause for suicide. Now that is really twisting beyond what I would have thought possible.
But there really is no way to prevent anyone from rationalizing and twisting anything to suit their own purpose no matter how many details we provide. I believe this thread is proof enough.

Someone once asked about the "infinite details". We cannot provide them because do no harm means something different to everyone.
The meaning of do no harm is simply: do no harm. We leave the infinite details up to you to decide and we trust you are smart enough to know when do no harm applies to you personally.

Do No Harm

Chuck

Rhett;

You write that you realize “there aren’t really any things,” but you continue to see others. Aren’t others ‘things’? Aren’t you a ‘thing’?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

cckeiser wrote:

The point I was trying to make is when we try too hard to be smart we over analyze and miss the simple truths.

The gift is in seeing the simple truth and also seeing the hidden truths by "over-analyzing." For example, most people thought that Fight Club was a good but strange movie. Only by "overanalyzing" it can one see the truly profound concepts in it. Just to name a few: the nature of ego, the different kinds of death of the ego, the meaning and lack of meaning of society, the truth in falseness versus the falseness in truth, the nature of reality, the nature of relationships including that with one's self, and perception. I don't know if the writer meant for it to be profound and made it palatable for the public (leaving the truth in the movie for those few of us who could see it), or if that was supposed to be "just a movie" - but I think it was one of the most profound presentations of all time.

Chuck wrote:

We can take anything and rationalize it to suit our own ends. We can take a simple and benign cause like Do No Harm and turn it into a cause for suicide. Now that is really twisting beyond what I would have thought possible.

It is the logical implication of your message.

"Do not harm" essentially means, "Do not live".

I'm sorry that you don't like it. but if you are honest with yourself, you will see that it is the truth.

If your message had been, "Choose wise harm", then that would be diffferent. You would have a potent message on your hands.

But then again, "potent" essentially means "harm", so I suppose that it makes it a no-no.

The point I was trying to make is when we try too hard to be smart we over analyze and miss the simple truths.

If a person is analyzing and missing simple truths, then it simply means that he is analyzing poorly. Nothing more than that.

A lot of things seem simple and true on the surface, but they fall apart under proper analysis. Is this a case of "over-analyzing and missing simple truths"? Or a case of rationally pulling part a delusion?

You're unhappy because this particular forum of analyzers isn't readily accepting your slogan, "Do not harm". But this is primarily because the message is so bland and meaningless that it doesn't stand up to proper analysis. The only meaning that can be extracted from it is, "Do not live".

-

Clyde wrote:

Huh? Why are you inserting Jesus into our dialogue?

I don’t know what Jesus said though I can read what he is reported to have said, and I do not know what Jesus meant. Do you?

I consider Jesus to be a spiritual man who knew the value of wise harm. The comments above refer to his desire to shake people out of their complacent, attachment-filled mindsets. It is only when our egos suffer that we start to become open to the possibilities of truth.

-

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:cckeiser wrote:

The point I was trying to make is when we try too hard to be smart we over analyze and miss the simple truths.

The gift is in seeing the simple truth and also seeing the hidden truths by "over-analyzing." For example, most people thought that Fight Club was a good but strange movie. Only by "overanalyzing" it can one see the truly profound concepts in it. Just to name a few: the nature of ego, the different kinds of death of the ego, the meaning and lack of meaning of society, the truth in falseness versus the falseness in truth, the nature of reality, the nature of relationships including that with one's self, and perception. I don't know if the writer meant for it to be profound and made it palatable for the public (leaving the truth in the movie for those few of us who could see it), or if that was supposed to be "just a movie" - but I think it was one of the most profound presentations of all time.

Sorry, but I have not seen Fight Club. I have seen Solaris though. But given my own philosophy I believe I saw a different movie than everyone else.

The gift is in seeing the simple truth and also seeing the hidden truths by "over-analyzing."

Are you sure you really mean "over-analyzing"? There's a difference between analyzing and over-analyzing. Which is why I mentioned Solaris.
The movie didn't do very well here in the states, I think mostly because they went expecting another cowboy western in spacesuits, or another Sci-Fantasy, but got a psychological and philosophical work of art by Stanislaw Lem instead. They went to be entertained, not to Think. To be truthful though, the advertisements for it were far from honest.
Those who went just to see George Clooney ass enjoyed the simple pleasures. But if you paid attention and gave some thought to what you were seeing and hearing you saw a different movie altogether. If you over-analyzed it you contributed meaning where there really was none.
Over-analyzing usually leads to false assumptions, you add the profound where the writer only meant to be poignant.
I felt much the same about Solaris as you did about Fight Club, but then I do believe I was over-analyzing and not only did I see a different movie than everyone else, but a different movie than the one Professor Lem wrote! ;o)

The same can be said of the Do No Harm movement. The only purpose for the movement is to help create a kinder and more caring world. We believe if you can't do good for what ever reason, the least you can do is try to do no harm. We are all entangled in this reality and whatever we do; whether great or small, affects us all.
We seem to be living in a world where our culture keeps getting nastier every day. Everyone is only out for themselves, and we are either ignorant, our we ignore the harm we cause. Could it be simply because no one ever asked us to Do No Harm?

Several years ago I read an essay that was written about a poem by Linda Ellis titled "The Dash". You can find her poem on her web site at: http://www.lindaslyrics.com/
The essay expressed the meaning of Linda's verse in very moving prose explaining that from the day of our birth to the day we pass on our day to day lives are not momentary periods in time that are forgotten; every moment of our lives accumulates to form the measure of our "Dash." What we do with our moments becomes in the end a measure of who we were.
Few of us ever consider the consequences of what we do with our moments, and how they may effect, not only our own Dash, but the world we are all an inherent part of. We are all entangled and imbedded in the very fabric of our Universe, and everything we do, or do not do, has a ripple effect on everything else.
When we are young it is hard to see our connection and the implications our actions have on the World we live in. Even to many who have reached a golden age it is not often apparent, and many live out their lives never realizing their connections, or the impact their lives have; whether for good or for not.
In the end, as we measure our own Dash, it will not be our momentary victories or our fleeting triumphs that comfort us; it will be our failures and the harm we did to others we will take to our graves.
It really does not matter how others will measure our Dash once we are done, but how we ourselves will measure it. It is how much harm we did to others that will haunt us in our final slumber. Will we rest well content in the measure of our Dash, or will we be tormented by our failures?

If we are to become a more evolved species we must begin to make better choices, and we simply must begin to treat each other, and all the other creatures who share this planet, with more respect.
If we cannot do good and leave this a better place for being here, the very least we can do is to attempt to Do No Harm, and leave it as good as we found it.
I know it sounds like a simple idea, but it just may be effective over the long run. At least it is a place to start attempting to change the increasing nastiness in the world.

Please, Do No Harm

Chuck

David;

You may well be correct, but Jesus is not here to tell us what he said, what he meant, or what his desires were.

You wrote:

It is only when our egos suffer that we start to become open to the possibilities of truth.

Yes, but my experience and understanding is that others do not need my assistance encountering suffering and that we do well enough on our own. That said, just as a doctor may cause ‘harm’ (e.g. – amputate a gangrenous limb) to avoid a greater harm (death), teachers use various means, including what you have termed “wise harm”. But that is not inconsistent with my understanding of “do no harm”.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

David;

I am pleased (again, I am easily pleased) that you practice ‘choose wise harm’ though I am sad that you will not promote “do no harm”. I understand your objections which seem to be that the slogan does not convey the message accurately enough to satisfy your analysis and understanding. I respect that though I think you could find a way to support the effort.

The message is intended for all, not only the awakened. As I wrote on the web-page ‘reflections’ ( http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ):

I am attracted to “do no harm” because it may be understood by children as well as adults, by the simple-minded as well as the intelligent, by non-believers as well as believers, and by the ignorant as well as the enlightened.

For me, the truth of harm is the suffering one causes and the practice of contemplating “do no harm” begins with understanding harm and suffering, causation and conditions, and self and others. Those are the six key terms.

And again, I do not see our efforts as being in conflict.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

A person is connected to his house his house his community his community his city or town. City to county, county to region Region to State, State To Country, County to hemisphere, Hemisphere to world, World to solar system, solar system to galaxy, galaxy to galaxy neighborhood to city so on and so on.

Every thing connects. Argue to Fight, Fight to battle, battle to war, War to death

.

Clyde,

Every message has a context, and the current broader context is saturated with egotistical delusion. This means that every time the term "Do No Harm" is used, people will abstract an ego being caused to suffer, and will, of course, think the message is good. All you are thus doing is reinforcing and further fortifying egotism.


- - -


Its important to see the difference between two different forms of suffering. One form happens regardless of the mental makeup involved, such as the sensation of a needle prick. The other form happens as a result of ignorance, such as the notion of two things coming together in love, then being separated by circumstance. The latter is egotistical.


- - -

clyde wrote:You write that you realize “there aren’t really any things,” but you continue to see others. Aren’t others ‘things’? Aren’t you a ‘thing’?

Others and the self are indeed things, but they are not things in the manner conceived of by the unenlightened.


.

.

cckeiser wrote:The same can be said of the Do No Harm movement. The only purpose for the movement is to help create a kinder and more caring world. We believe if you can't do good for what ever reason, the least you can do is try to do no harm. We are all entangled in this reality and whatever we do; whether great or small, affects us all.
We seem to be living in a world where our culture keeps getting nastier every day. Everyone is only out for themselves, and we are either ignorant, our we ignore the harm we cause. Could it be simply because no one ever asked us to Do No Harm?

As soon as a child is harmed by another, or itself harms another, the idea of doing no harm is surely posed. People simply move on from it seeing how flawed the idea is.


Unfortunately, they likely move onto another flawed idea. For example, i see many that trade suffering. If they are harmed by another, they harm them back. They think this is the best way to even the score and help the other see that doing certain things has consequences. There is some worth in this idea at a basic level, some people are so mixed up a sharp dose of pain can waken them to what they are causing.


.

David Quinn wrote:

You're unhappy because this particular forum of analyzers isn't readily accepting your slogan, "Do not harm". -

I believe you are "over-analyzing" again! ;o)

I am not "unhappy" here!
Quite the contrary, you guys are a hoot and I'm having a great time. I just wish I had more free time to spend jerking off with you guys, but I still need to work for a living and I do have other demons that require feeding.

Do No Harm

Chuck

Rhett;

Well which is it: there “are indeed things” or “there aren’t really any things”?

And if there are things “but they are not things in the manner conceived of by the unenlightened” in what manner are they things?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde


p.s: I understand your concern regarding ego. I have two points: 1) all messages and acts of teaching imply self and other, and with these concepts as a basis the ego may arise; and 2) as I’ve noted before, the message is for the ignorant and the enlightened.

.

clyde wrote:Well which is it: there “are indeed things” or “there aren’t really any things”?

And if there are things “but they are not things in the manner conceived of by the unenlightened” in what manner are they things?

A thing is that which is conceptually separated from that which it is not. A laptop for example, can only be designated via conceptually separating it from the desk, wall, notepad, pens, window, etc.

Unenlightend people don't see things this way.

Clyde: p.s: I understand your concern regarding ego. I have two points: 1) all messages and acts of teaching imply self and other, and with these concepts as a basis the ego may arise; and 2) as I’ve noted before, the message is for the ignorant and the enlightened.

The way i see it the message is by the ignorant, for the ignorant, and will do neither much good.


.

.

Some people are harmed by the truth, others are harmed by lies. Most are a mixture. Also, one can never predict the future with certainty. Therefore one cannot reliably 'do no harm'. At best one could endeavour to learn what each individual wants, and give it to them, with fingers crossed, and ethics and consistency out the window.


.

David,

Sorry, I missed this one earlier that you wrote:

If your message had been, "Choose wise harm", then that would be diffferent. You would have a potent message on your hands.

Hitler sure thought so, and would have agreed with you whole-heartedly.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:A thing is that which is conceptually separated from that which it is not.

Rhett;

Yes. So when one ceases conceptualizing ‘enlightened people’ and ‘unenlightened people’, then one may see clearly.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

DQ: If your message had been, "Choose wise harm", then that would be diffferent. You would have a potent message on your hands.

EI: Hitler sure thought so, and would have agreed with you whole-heartedly.

Reductio ad Hitlerum.

There was nothing wise about Hitler. At best, he has been credited with military genius. However, the ramifications of his actions still reverberate resoundingly along the causal chain of reality. He might’ve saved Germany from the poverty consuming it post WW1, but he contributed to fucking up life in the Middle East today. Or, do you limit your notion and conception of harm to things such as the number of Jews killed under his command?

.

RH: A thing is that which is conceptually separated from that which it is not.

c: Yes. So when one ceases conceptualizing ‘enlightened people’ and ‘unenlightened people’, then one may see clearly.

See what clearly? All those things that cause you to distinguish between harm and no harm?

.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:At best one could endeavour to learn what each individual wants, and give it to them, with fingers crossed.

Rhett;

To give an addict what they crave seems like unwise advice and not promoting liberation.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Leyla Shen wrote:

RH: A thing is that which is conceptually separated from that which it is not.

c: Yes. So when one ceases conceptualizing ‘enlightened people’ and ‘unenlightened people’, then one may see clearly.

See what clearly? All those things that cause you to distinguish between harm and no harm?

.

Leyla;

“Do no harm” works where there is suffering; i.e., where one can distinguish between harm and no harm.

“Do no harm” does not work where there is no suffering, but no thing works there!

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Leyla wrote:
There was nothing wise about Hitler.

True, hence the sarcasm. Part of the point was that Hitler thought he was very wise, which leads to the main point, being that "Choose wise harm" leaves people who are likely to be without much wisdom to figure out which harm is wise.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: . . . "Choose wise harm" leaves people who are likely to be without much wisdom to figure out which harm is wise.

Perhaps that is reason enough for the message “do no harm.”

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde