GENIUS FORUMS

It is precisely because the Germans went around "doing no harm" which allowed Hitler to take over the place and wreak his havoc. If the good people had taken more responsibility for their actions and practiced "wise harm" they would have locked Hitler away before he got started.

Practising "wise harm" means taking responsibility for the future and actively creating wise outcomes. If we just hide away in a "do nothing" mindset, then we are simply handing the world over to the evil people and allowing them to do what they want with it.

-

.

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

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

You've indicated agreement with my point, but you've then gone on to completely disagree with it.

Conceptualising is not the problem, as i said. One could only cease conceptualising by ceasing consciousness. Delusion is the problem.


.

.

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

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

Most definitely, and that is one of the flaws in your system i was pointing out. You need to harm the addiction and the associated mental weaknesses to promote the liberation of the addict.


.

David wrote:

If the good people had taken more responsibility for their actions and practiced "wise harm" they would have locked Hitler away before he got started.

I don't see any harm in locking Hitler away early in his trek down the wrong path. That would have been "being smart."

.

For many, 'do no harm' means to stop showing hate for people. So if they're willing to give it a go, they will then try to suppress and deny and avoid feelings of hatred towards others. Giving this a go, they start boiling away, and may find their problems with the person worsening due to communication being stifled. So they have another look at the propaganda to see if there is a cure for this new problem . . . but none is given, is it? So there is probably not a net lessening of harm or suffering. Perhaps the concept is then junked, and with it some of their precious higher aspirations.


.

Elizabeth,

DQ: If the good people had taken more responsibility for their actions and practiced "wise harm" they would have locked Hitler away before he got started.

EI: I don't see any harm in locking Hitler away early in his trek down the wrong path. That would have been "being smart."

I'm sure Hitler would have seen it as harmful.

-

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

That’s precisely what is desirable, is it not?

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

No, because your message -- unlike where you state otherwise -- is actually for the ignorant. Enlightened (or not-ignorant) individuals already have the capacity to discern harmful actions from non-harmful ones. Yet, in the same breath as promoting your “do no harm” message, you advocate dispensing with the distinction between enlightened and unenlightened people. How do you logically justify abandoning one’s conceptualisations/distinctions on the subject of enlightenment whilst promoting your “do no harm” message as for both the ignorant and the enlightened. I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense. Conceptualising this message as being for the enlightened immediately reduces both the ideas of enlightenment and harm to nothing. That is, they become useless. Conceptualising this message as being for the ignorant is no more useful than giving the masses yet another biblical commandment.

I get visions of barefoot Hare Krishnas prancing around the CBD in their orange robes singing and tapping on their tambourines.

Our society is plagued with crimes of omission. People turn the other cheek (do no harm) out of fear rather than for the sake of truth. The only time your “do no harm” message would be of any worth is when it is delivered as the living truth itself, which is so far beyond the utterance of these three words it's just not funny.

That takes the sheer agility of wisdom.

That takes philosophy.

Not just a few words on the top of an email or web page.

That really is just wishful thinking.

.

Leyla;

As I wrote to you earlier,

“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!

Those statements can be generalized to address your well-taken point:

“Do no harm” works where there is suffering; i.e., where one can distinguish things (e.g. – harm, no harm, enlightenment, ignorance, etc.).

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


I agree with you in part. As enlightened geniuses I expect that you naturally exercise wisdom and compassion, that you realize our inter-relatedness and impermanence, and act accordingly without concern for self, fame or fortune. You do not need to practice “do no harm”, you already embody it. Don’t you?

As you see yourselves as enlightened geniuses, you see others as not enlightened and not geniuses. Certainly we, the less fortunate, could benefit from a guide; a guide, right here, right now, to our actions. “Do no harm” is a simple message that promotes a more hospitable world. The people I meet and speak with, ordinary people, understand that the message is intended to communicate and promote the minimization of suffering which creates the conditions for a kinder, gentler world. They do not understand the message as one of inaction or pacifism. They are not confused by the message.

Finally, no, we don’t believe that “just a few words on top of an email or web page” or on a free bumper sticker are going to magically change the world. We do believe that reading those words, thinking about those words, and talking about those words will be a condition that will contribute to someone, perhaps many, practicing “thoughtful consideration” and minimizing the suffering in the world. Not such a bad thing in my opinion.

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

OK, clyde, I need to clarify something. Was this part of your post meant to mean something/facilitate a point or can I ignore it and just address the remainder because I can't make any sense out of it:

As I wrote to you earlier,
Quote:
“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!

Those statements can be generalized to address your well-taken point:

“Do no harm” works where there is suffering; i.e., where one can distinguish things (e.g. – harm, no harm, enlightenment, ignorance, etc.).

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

You mention my "well-taken point" in relation to "those statements" by opening with a quote of yours and closing by again quoting that same quote.

Which point and which statements?

We are confused.

What is the meaning of this?

.

Further, you might be meaning that “do no harm,” being a message for the enlightened, actually means “do only wise harm.” In which case, when you said “when one ceases conceptualising between ‘enlightened people’ and ‘unenlightened people’, then one may see clearly” you meant when one reaches enlightenment, one might read that message the right way; one will understand it. So, what does it achieve if you already have to be enlightened to understand it?

I think that there is a problem with this idea: “do no harm” does not work where there is no suffering (and no distinctions).

In the enlightened, there is no suffering but there are distinctions. In the ignorant, there are -- at best -- false distinctions and therefore suffering. On that basis, your message cannot possibly be for the ignorant since they will necessarily misunderstand it.

So, you see, I’m still trying to figure out who you think your message is for and how you think it will, by that means, bring about mindfulness.

.

PS: I think you should post a link to this forum on your website and on your bumper stickers. That would at least give your idea some chance of not being relegated to the "Jesus Loves You" realm of bumper-sticker thought.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:OK, clyde, I need to clarify something. Was this part of your post meant to mean something/facilitate a point or can I ignore it and just address the remainder because I can't make any sense out of it:

As I wrote to you earlier,
Quote:
“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!

Those statements can be generalized to address your well-taken point:

“Do no harm” works where there is suffering; i.e., where one can distinguish things (e.g. – harm, no harm, enlightenment, ignorance, etc.).

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

You mention my "well-taken point" in relation to "those statements" by opening with a quote of yours and closing by again quoting that same quote.

Which point and which statements?

We are confused.

What is the meaning of this?

.

Leyla;

I apologize for not pointing to the “well-taken point”. I was referring to this:

How do you logically justify abandoning one’s conceptualisations/distinctions on the subject of enlightenment whilst promoting your “do no harm” message as for both the ignorant and the enlightened.

I hope this now clarifies my response; i.e., “do no harm” is meaningful only where suffering and distinctions exist.

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

Leyla;

The message is everyone. This is from the web-site (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.

Yes, different people in different circumstances will understand the message differently, but I believe the message will have a beneficial effect regardless of the depth and breadth of understanding.

You wrote,

I think that there is a problem with this idea: “do no harm" does not work where there is no suffering (and no distinctions).

If there is no suffering, what is the problem?

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

clyde:

L: I think that there is a problem with this idea: “do no harm" does not work where there is no suffering (and no distinctions).

c: If there is no suffering, what is the problem?

In relation to the exact quote above, there isn’t one because such a thing would be dead, or a lump of solid matter. However, in relation to your question -- where you have left out the question of distinctions -- I wrote:

In the enlightened, there is no suffering but there are distinctions. In the ignorant, there are -- at best -- false distinctions and therefore suffering. On that basis, your message cannot possibly be for the ignorant since they will necessarily misunderstand it.

If an ignorant person suffers because of false distinctions, how do you think they are likely to apply mindfulness through your “do no harm” message that causes you to conclude that message will be beneficial. For instance, how does a woman who is suffering domestic violence embrace the necessary mindfulness in your message to overcome that suffering. Are you saying that you would be satisfied if the only potential benefactor of this message is one wife-beating husband not shot dead or with his penis in tact by a wife pushed too far? What do you think such a husband might think of your message, and would he be one who is not suffering or making distinctions?

.

David wrote:

Practising "wise harm" means taking responsibility for the future and actively creating wise outcomes. If we just hide away in a "do nothing" mindset, then we are simply handing the world over to the evil people and allowing them to do what they want with it.

Yeah, passive good is useless and not really good at all. It's like having an awesome car and never taking it out because you're afraid it might not be as good as you're hoping it will be.

Maybe people don't really believe that their own goodness is good, that's why they don't do anything?

Or maybe they don't want to be good, but only want to feel good. I think that's more like it. What kind of person would do good if they were only rewarded with suffering and punishment? You would think good people would do good no matter what.

I think "take responsibility" would be a better bumper sticker.

David Quinn wrote:Elizabeth,

DQ: If the good people had taken more responsibility for their actions and practiced "wise harm" they would have locked Hitler away before he got started.

EI: I don't see any harm in locking Hitler away early in his trek down the wrong path. That would have been "being smart."

I'm sure Hitler would have seen it as harmful.

-

I'll agree with that viewpoint.

Matt Gregory wrote: I think "take responsibility" would be a better bumper sticker.

Al-Queda thinks it follows that credo.

Re: ignorant harm & wise harm

These terms lead to nowhere. To me it's the same as talking about ignorant trees and wise trees. Harm like suffering is life, an intimate part of it. Doing no harm, or stopping suffering equals the statement: don't live. Basically a form of nihilism - the will to an end of life itself.

Nietzsche was right calling Buddhism a late, decadent religion for the oversensitive and hyper-inward; a more subtle negation for the ones not being able to bare anymore the brutalities of the life force itself.

The only wisdom here and only true annihilation of the existential experience of suffer and harm is the affirmation of life and existence, in its totality.

This means in the case of WWII that one has to accept, deeply understand that what happened; the systematic destruction of human life, civilians and military alike, on a scale never seen before that has nothing to do with 'evil', but cannot help arising out of the age we live in. War is the health of the states involved. And this specific war bore the fruits of our massive industrialization, making systematic killing possible, just as it made progress, science and art possible on a scale never seen before. The mindless destruction during a world-war is like a monster rising out of the seas of civilization. It is ourselves. We are it. The shadow we deny and poisons our best ideas of how things should be.

Any statement starting with "do no" or "do not" isn't suitable for this; it already leads to a wrong path before a third word is even uttered.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

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

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

You've indicated agreement with my point, but you've then gone on to completely disagree with it.

Conceptualising is not the problem, as i said. One could only cease conceptualising by ceasing consciousness. Delusion is the problem.


.

Rhett;

In a previous post you wrote,

Attachments arise from mistaking the infinite for finitude.

I assume that is the delusion you are referring to as “the problem”. Isn’t “enlightenment” a finite concept or state? Aren’t you attached to “enlightenment”?

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

.

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

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

Rhett: You've indicated agreement with my point, but you've then gone on to completely disagree with it. Conceptualising is not the problem, as i said. One could only cease conceptualising by ceasing consciousness. Delusion is the problem.

Clyde: In a previous post you wrote, "Attachments arise from mistaking the infinite for finitude". I assume that is the delusion you are referring to as “the problem”. Isn’t “enlightenment” a finite concept or state? Aren’t you attached to “enlightenment”?

Yes, as i said, mistaking the infinite for finitude is a core problem. This is something a wise person does not do. A wise person can use concepts all day and all night without mistaking the infinite for finitude, and thus, of course, no attachments will form.


.

clyde wrote:Certainly we, the less fortunate, could benefit from a guide; a guide, right here, right now, to our actions. “Do no harm” is a simple message that promotes a more hospitable world. The people I meet and speak with, ordinary people, understand that the message is intended to communicate and promote the minimization of suffering which creates the conditions for a kinder, gentler world. They do not understand the message as one of inaction or pacifism. They are not confused by the message.

Finally, no, we don’t believe that “just a few words on top of an email or web page” or on a free bumper sticker are going to magically change the world. We do believe that reading those words, thinking about those words, and talking about those words will be a condition that will contribute to someone, perhaps many, practicing “thoughtful consideration” and minimizing the suffering in the world. Not such a bad thing in my opinion.

I've already said a lot about this, but here's some more.

The kind of people that resonate with the message are typically either (a) those too shallow and duplicitous to integrate it into their lives, that would drop it the moment their attachments come under threat, meaning it will do little or no good, or (b) the kind that could be engaging in wise harm, in which case it is doing their mind harm.

The kind of people that are actually doing the obvious forms of physical harm are typically the kind of people that are dullened to your message, or can see it's inapplicability to their circumstance. Therefore it will, by most reasonable accounts, do no good. It would just waste valuable mental energy.

The key problem is that any attachment gives the ego a sense of security, from which it then goes and causes harm, in ignorance. The only attachment from which good extends is the attachment to wisdom, which is available in the here and now, and which resolves ignorance over time.


.

Ok, you guys all have some excellent advice for saving humanity from itself, so why are you all just sitting around here jerking off?

Do any of you read a newspaper, or watch/listen to the news? The Hate in this world looks as if it will soon reach critical mass. We have Fundamentalists going to war with other Fundamentalists. We have demigod dictators decapitating dissidents for departing from dogma. We have unethical capitalism running amuck with no sense of social conscience. We are under constant attack by adolescent hackers just for the "fun of it"!
What are you doing to help?

Don't just sit here masturbating among yourselves, put your collective egg-heads together and do something. Go help save the world!

"World peace- it begins with you and me!"
Elizabeth Isabelle

If you all feel so strongly you have a better idea...Do It!
Start your own movement with your ideas.
The more people involved the better our chances will be.

Do No Harm

Chuck

Leyla Shen wrote:If an ignorant person suffers because of false distinctions, how do you think they are likely to apply mindfulness through your “do no harm” message that causes you to conclude that message will be beneficial. For instance, how does a woman who is suffering domestic violence embrace the necessary mindfulness in your message to overcome that suffering. Are you saying that you would be satisfied if the only potential benefactor of this message is one wife-beating husband not shot dead or with his penis in tact by a wife pushed too far? What do you think such a husband might think of your message, and would he be one who is not suffering or making distinctions?

Leyla;

Thank you for your questions.

First, “do no harm” is not a message of inaction or pacifism or even non-violence. From the web-site (reflections: http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ):

“Do no harm” is not, as some have suggested, a call “for good men to do nothing,” certainly not for inaction in the presence of a great harm, nor an expectation to forgo self-defense and the defense of innocents. Its meaning is “thoughtful consideration”, so that each of us must bear the burden of determining the proper response to a given situation.

For clarity, “do no harm” is not a message to accept suffering or be a victim.

Here is “how” I think the message “do no harm” works: Our effort is to promote the message “do no harm” so that people will see it, read it, and think about it. Meanwhile, we continue to act as we do in the world, mostly without a thought of “do no harm.” But situations will occur when the thought “do no harm” will arise and because of exposure to the message that thought will arise more often and people will take a moment of “thoughtful consideration” before acting and that “thoughtful consideration” will influence their action. That is the benefit.

Others, like you, may examine “do no harm” and contemplate suffering and harm, the inter-relatedness of things, the impermanence of things, causation and conditions. I believe such contemplation leads to insights into the nature of reality.

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

Diebert;

David introduced the term “wise harm”, so I’ll leave that for him to reply.

There is no debate (with me) that suffering is part of life. I have explained that “do no harm” is not about perfection, but about minimizing suffering as not all suffering is necessary nor does all suffering lead to liberation.

If you prefer: Be considerate.

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

Rhett Hamilton wrote:The kind of people that resonate with the message are typically either (a) those too shallow and duplicitous to integrate it into their lives, that would drop it the moment their attachments come under threat, meaning it will do little or no good, or (b) the kind that could be engaging in wise harm, in which case it is doing their mind harm.

Rhett;

If for those whom you deem “too shallow and duplicitous to integrate it into their lives” the effort does even a little good, that is good enough and worth the effort. And for those enlightened geniuses, I do not believe that promoting “do no harm” causes “their mind harm”. Are you suggesting that the minds of enlightened geniuses are so fragile that hearing or thinking “do no harm” causes them to suffer?

You wrote,

The kind of people that are actually doing the obvious forms of physical harm are typically the kind of people that are dullened to your message, or can see it's inapplicability to their circumstance. Therefore it will, by most reasonable accounts, do no good. It would just waste valuable mental energy.

You raise a valid point regarding those who are actually and habitually doing physical harm to others. Our efforts may not change their behavior, but can you say with certainty that it may not? So you may not want to waste your “valuable mental energy” (What are you saving it for?), but perhaps others are willing to expend some energy, physical and mental, in the hope, vain though it may be, that the effort will be beneficial.

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