GENIUS FORUMS

Evan Tucker wrote:Altruism is the idea that good can be done and is infact done without sense of duty, without a motive and so forth.

ksolway wrote:But even the sage has a true self whom he works for. Even working for truth and wisdom, wisely, can still be called "seflish" in the sense that it originates from a self. And the purposes of the sage may conflict with the purposes of others.

Evan Tucker wrote:Altruism is the idea that good can be done and is infact done without sense of duty, without a motive and so forth. But then who actully practices altruism.

Nick wrote:I think selfish would be the wrong word used to describe a sage's actions.

Jason wrote:I've heard that humans might be genetically programmed to be altruistic. Would behaviour originating directly from genetics still be considered selfish?

A genetic drive to be altruistic seems like it could be far below the level of self and consciousness, and thus bypass selfishness altogether, being essentially motiveless as far as the conscious self was concerned.

I think selfish would be the wrong word used to describe a sage's actions.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:I suspect you believe that same here Nick, but you are merely in the mood for word squabbling.

"He who fights with word squabbers be careful not to become a word squabbler himself."
Cosmic Prostitute

Steven Coyle wrote:Most aren't yet capable of detachment, because they aren't selfish enough.

Yes, the sage is serving his interests, but technically they can no longer be called his interests. The interests are in serving Truth, not the self. This, by definition, would be selflessness.

Most aren't yet capable of detachment, because they aren't selfish enough.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Can we both agree that the individual serves himself and not some separate “idea” of truth that he believes exists apart from his daily living?

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Isn’t the daily living of the individual also truth? And isn’t the daily living of the individual also incredibly selfish?

It is merely one movement. It is problematic to separate the interests from the truth because his interests are the truth if he is completely wise.

And his interests which are the truth are incredibly selfish, can we agree on this?

I think it is better to send seeds to people in Somalia and Ethiopia, rather than sending milk and flour, but there isn't any way to send them. People in Ethiopia and Somalia can sow seeds, even children can do that. But the African governments, the United States, Italy, France, they don't send seeds, they only send immediate food and clothing. The African government is discouraging home gardens and small farming. During the last 100 years, garden seed has become scarce.

Diane: Why do these governments do this?

Masanobu: The African governments and the United States government want people to grow coffee, tea, cotton, peanuts, sugar - only five or six varieties to export and make money. Vegetables are just food, they don't bring in any money. They say they will provide corn and grain, so people don't have to grow their own vegetables.

Robert: Do we, in the United States, have the type of seeds that would grow well in these parts of Africa?

Masanobu: As a matter of fact, I saw quite a few plants including vegetables, ornamentals, and grains here in this town (Port Townsend) this morning that would grow in the desert. Something like Daikon radish even grows better over there than in my fields, and also things like amaranth and succulents grow very well.

Robert: So if people in the United States and Japan and Europe wanted to help the people in Africa and reduce the desert, would you suggest that they send seeds?

Masanobu: When I was in Somalia, I thought, if there are ten farmers, one truck, and seeds, then it would be so easy to help the people there. They don't have any greens for half of the year, they don't have any vitamins, and so of course they get sick. They have even forgotten how to eat vegetables. They just eat the leaves and not the edible root portion.

I went to the Olympic National Park yesterday. I was very amazed and I almost cried. There, the soil was alive! The mountain looked like the bed of God. The forest seems alive, something you don't find even in Europe. The redwoods in California and the French meadows are beautiful, but this is the best! People who live around here have water and firewood and trees. This is like a garden of Eden. If people are truly happy, this place is a real Utopia.

The people in the deserts have only a cup and a knife and a pot. Some families don't even have a knife, so they have to throw rocks to cut the wood, and they have to carry that for a mile or more. I was very impressed by seeing this beautiful area, but at the same time my heart aches because of thinking about the people in the desert. The difference is like heaven and hell. I think the world is coming to a very dangerous point. The United States has the power to destroy the world but also to help the world. I wonder if people in this country realize that the United States is helping the people in Somalia but also killing them. Making them grow coffee, sugar and giving them food. The Japanese government is the same way. It gives them clothes, and the Italian government gives them macaroni. The United States is trying to make them bread eaters. The people in Ethiopia cook rice, barley and vegetables. They are happy being small farmers. The United States government is telling them to work, work, like slaves on a big farm, growing coffee. The United States is telling them that they can make money and be happy that way.

If one believes Truth is seperate from himself, then yes he would have to be serving himself. That would be the case for anyone who is not enlightened. Although, for the ideal enlightened individual there is no "self" to be served.

Well, like I said, you could call it selfishness if you want. I just think it can be deceptive being that the sage knows there is no "self" which can garner selfishness. He realizes his "self" is the Tao. I also think to reference the Tao as another form of self, a self which has intentions in the human sense, would be incorrect. The Tao simply Is.

Masanobu Fukuoka might compliment this thread well.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Yes, I’m in agreement with what you are saying. However even though there is no “self” to be served, there is a still body that requires the highest most care. The body is a temple and if it is to be a vehicle for rationality it must be treated with the highest respect. This is why one is incredibly “selfish” in how effectively the needs are met.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Here is a definition of selfishness:
devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare.

I would say the word selfishness doesn’t necessarily apply a self, it seems this mindset equally applies to someone living according to the Tao.

The Thinking Man's Dictionary defines altruism as "the art of doing unselfish things for selfish reasons."

If not, then maybe you should do an investigation, seek out the individuals of history who seemed selfless and then determine whether or not they are notable candidates for altruists.

Would behaviour originating directly from genetics still be considered selfish? A genetic drive to be altruistic seems like it could be far below the level of self and consciousness, and thus bypass selfishness altogether, being essentially motiveless as far as the conscious self was concerned.

I would say all action by its very nature is selfish. Whether you are deluded or wise, you are still selfish.

Is it not selfish to refuse to work in a neurotic society?

Is it not selfish to refuse to marry a neurotic woman?

Is it not selfish to point out the contradictions of someone?