Is Humbleness a Product of Suffering or Strength?

[TENYEARS]

jammieg, if colorado springs is in the state of colorado your view is relative to your surroundings. I once took a plane accorss the country, it looked like a checkerboard with everyones little niche hacked out of it. It did not look like the great divide and suddenly the country did not look so big. The world is a small place, it is our home we should treat it as such. Technology is nothing. It cannot compensate for what has been already done and the continued acceleration in that direction. The human race has become one unconscious act upon another.

 

[FZ+]

It cannot compensate for what has been already done and the continued acceleration in that direction.

Maybe. But that isn't really what we should be trying to do. We can't turn back the clock, but we can attempt to steer it. It's better than nothing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
How many beaver ecologists have you been talking to? Methinks you have heard the whoosh of the point go by. The point is the arbitaryness of your tool distinction.

I kind of got lost on what you were trying to discuss here. Nonetheless there's nothing "artificial," at least in the case of a beaver, about developing sharp teeth and a broad tail. And, just because nature has endowed certain creatures with the ability to affect their environments as such -- while here it is a single adaptation by a single creature and only in isolated areas -- by no means implies that it's "natural" for another creature to come along, and apply one adaptation upon another adaptation, upon another adaptation, etc., etc., and use this as a means to circumnavigate the whole system and virtually take over everything in sight -- i.e., "the whole world." Which, is exactly what's happened.

The brain, the human brain is a product of natural selection. By extension everything we do is due to natural selection. The point though is to point out how misleading the ideas of "natural roles" and "niches" really are.

If the brain is a product of natural selection then where is our competition? Why aren't we competing directly with the apes, our "nearest relatives?" If we're so closely related, then why are they still stuck in "the loop," and not competing with us directly, in any way shape or form? Hey, the least we could do is put them to work for us doing menial tasks in our cities. You know, for a decent wage and a decent living? Yeah right!

And humans are adapted to the earth. Or bacteria have adapted to the universe.

Yes, what is the difference? Except perhaps that one knows its place and the other one doesn't.

Uh... no. It seems you have missed the point again. I am saying that looking for specialisation is misleading, because we first define those specialities subjectively. We set the resolution at which we consider everything to be so neatly fitting a role, and then we act surprised when our categories don't match up. The existence of individual specialisation doesn't matter, as I never said specialisation doesn't happen. But it is not the essence of the idea of natural selection.

I'm not the one who's surprised here. While I can assure I don't have a problem with saying that diversity exists as a result of everything having established its own special niche, and thus becoming a part of, as well as maintaining, this whole unique system of life as we know it. And yes, that does imply life is "special."

And when we do so, a new lot of organisms take over, and we end up being very "environmentally friendly" to them.

In that we become their lunch, Right?

And what do you think happens once humans are gone?

The Earth will ultimately recover I suppose? And what of the human race? Hmm ... Maybe we weren't so adaptable afterall then? How ironic! Well at least the bacteria, the lowliest of the low, will still be here!

Who says natural selection gives a damn about best? It doesn't have a destination, or a timetable. It just happens. You are antropomorphising...

Yep, survival of the fittest. And yet, things need "time" in order to "adapt."

Great. Let's all blame God. Sure, that helps.

Actually I wasn't blaming God. Of course this verse does occur before the fall of man in book of Genesis. Exactly what that means I'm not sure? Except that maybe we initially had ascendency over nature, that is until after the fall, where we found ourselves sruggling with it, "at its level," and in direct conflict with it. As evidenced by the following verses ...

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Genesis 3:16-19).

Well at least it alludes to the idea of it anyway.

What I am saying is that it has nothing to do with blame - blame is in the eye of the beholder. It is a matter of whether we are able to do something about it.

Yes, but if we understood it had something to do with what's inherent with our nature, then maybe we would be more inclined to take responsibility for it?

It doesn't. It reflects the modern egoist, who insists that man has a special position all to himself, and is some how divided from nature. Which fits more to spiritualist, and a great number of religions than to materialists. The ideal of materialists is that stuff happens, and we are one of these stuff. In fact, part of the whole philosophy of materialism is to put mankind at a position of not being above, below or side to side of any vacuous concepts.

Sounds like the rhetoric associated with the Communist elite, in their attempts to put down the masses and still maintain their elitist views. So what's the difference between that and your modern scientific materialist elitist point of view?

While I understand that Karl Max, as I'm sure heusdens can attest, had a particular fetish for materialism as well.

Yes. Utterly and completely wrong. (since when is the bible a materialist text?)

Since when does the Bible have to be utterly incorrect?

Yep, that's wrong too. The idea of justification just doesn't exist, as far as materialists are concerned. We do not have dominion over nature, because nature doesn't exist as an individual entity. We should act - because we can act to steer things in the direction we like.

Except that I keep hearing that if we destroy the earth, what's the big loss? Nature will recover, as it always has ...

Notice how crazily hard I have been at opposing:
(a) The specialness of mankind
(b) The control of mankind
(c) The distinction of nature as a separate entity.
(d) The idea of a god-given right or duty.


Whilst agreeing that:
(a) Certain actions will be bad for mankind.
(b) Diversity is a good thing.

Are you against the "prevalent view" here or, are you denying that it exists? Because that can make a big difference in terms of corroborating what it is I'm trying to say.

You appear to be fighting a strawman... or even, yourself.

No, I would appear to be up against the prevalent view.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Maybe. But that isn't really what we should be trying to do. We can't turn back the clock, but we can attempt to steer it. It's better than nothing.

Better than nothing? Is that the best you can do? And yet I think what's required is that we take drastic measures. Which, I don't think can be achieved, unless we understand the true nature of our origin.

Hey, if we understood that our stay here was only temporary, that in fact there was an afterlife, then maybe it wouldn't seem so drastic, and we would be willing to forego a lot of "material things" we would otherwise deem necessary? And we can begin to focus on our spiritual lives instead?

By the way, is there anything in the animal kingdom which closely resembles materialism? It's kind of hard to imagine, since nothing is produced "artificially," and used as a means of exchange for other artificially produced things. Doesn't that sound like a fair enough description of materialism, at least in terms of how most of us apply it? Whereas with animals it's more a matter of subsistent living, and hence a matter of survival -- or, a matter of "eat or be eaten."

 

[FZ+]

And, just because nature has endowed certain creatures with the ability to affect their environments as such -- while here it is a single adaptation by a single creature and only in isolated areas -- by no means implies that it's "natural" for another creature to come along, and apply one adaptation upon another adaptation, upon another adaptation, etc., etc., and use this as a means to circumnavigate the whole system and virtually take over everything in sight -- i.e., "the whole world." Which, is exactly what's happened.

But there is also no reason to think so, no line in the sand. You tried to draw one, and I merely pointed out that it is immensely wrong. Evolution, natural evolution is a continual process of adaptation upon adaptation. It is obvious what happens. What is far from obvious is what you see it as.

If the brain is a product of natural selection then where is our competition?

Ourselves. The environment. Creatures with lesser brains that try to squeeze an advantage from physical strength etc. I think you misunderstand natural selection here - competition is one of a number of "selectional pressures". It is far from the only one.

Why aren't we competing directly with the apes, our "nearest relatives?" If we're so closely related, then why are they still stuck in "the loop," and not competing with us directly, in any way shape or form?

Ok... now you've lost it.
Natural selection can, or cannot encourage specialisation. It sometimes is an advantage, and sometimes it isn't. There is no need to veer from one extreme to another, from total determined niches to an big mess of genes. Both co-exist. Mankind and apes have taken diverging paths, with diverging genes.

Yes, what is the difference? Except perhaps that one knows its place and the other one doesn't.

Let's add that to the list of meaningless statements as well.

While I can assure I don't have a problem with saying that diversity exists as a result of everything having established its own special niche, and thus becoming a part of, as well as maintaining, this whole unique system of life as we know it. And yes, that does imply life is "special."

You still misunderstand how evolution works!

Yep, survival of the fittest. And yet, things need "time" in order to "adapt."

You still completely misunderstand what evolution is about! Survival of the fittest applies to characteristics, that change in portion across a population. The development of processes allow concurrent processes to genetic mutation is not selected against - rather it can present a selective advantage. It is not a matter as to what is needed, but that what helps in survival at the time. The evolutionary process is a statistical observation of mass activity - it is not a human mother.

Evolution = random variation of characteristics + any sort of selection based on these characteristics + method of carrying on these characteristics in the next cycle.

At any time, diverging selectional pressures can create a disadvantage in trying to hold two positions. Then, they get sheared apart as the ones on either side get advantages over the ones trying to stick in the middle. This leads to specialisation, as we get a fork in the road, with a survival advantage chart leading up one road and becoming stuck at a local high in survivability - until some other factor dislodges it, and makes the whole thing take on a new path. Or it dies. This is your "special" niche. At the same time, mutation causes a gradual expansion over the whole landscape of evolution, coming up with adaptations that bridge gaps to create evolutionary convergence. Both work at the same time.

So what's the difference between that and your modern scientific materialist elitist point of view?

What the hell are you talking about? I see you are resorting to irrational slurs.

Except that I keep hearing that if we destroy the earth, what's the big loss? Nature will recover, as it always has ...

Nature doesn't exist.

Are you against the "prevalent view" here or, are you denying that it exists? Because that can make a big difference in terms of corroborating what it is I'm trying to say.

You are talking BS. I am here, disagreeing with everything you say - yet you claim to know more about MY beliefs than I do. What ideas about prevalent views do you have, as you now refuse to comprehend what the other side is saying. How can you make any pronouncements against materialists, when you don't listen when the position is actually said? If you think what you are attacking when you talk about elitism, or irresponsibility are materialists, then you are attacking ghosts - ghosts of your own illogical idea of what materialists believe.

There is then zero point talking any longer.

 

[phoenixthoth]

"Just because something is recognized as logical does not mean it is. Real honest logic can take you to the edge of what you percieve to be your boarders, but then it is up to you in a moment of unknowing to pass through the threshold."

what is beyond the threshold?

phoenix

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
There is then zero point talking any longer.

About all I can say is that we're in complete disagreement here, at least in terms of "man's role" in the evolutionary process. Which, is why I suggest (at the very least), that the distinction -- the one that "you" won't acknowledge and already exists -- should be maintained between man and the natural world.

Hey all I'm doing is pointing out the evidence, which is there ... however, if you don't wish to make the association, then that's entirely up to you.

 

[phoenixthoth]

tenyears,

that is the most satisfying and dissatisfying answer you could have possibly given me. thank you.

let me tell you a parable. i know this is off the main topic, but tenyears and i are having a conversation within the grand conversation. just ignore this if you're not interested. the reason why I'm not just pm'ing this to tenyears is that i bet at least one other person will find interest in my picture.

this is 100% metaphor.

i found myself with eyes tightly shut in a strange place, not where i was only a moment ago. i intuitively felt, like in a dream-knowing sense, that i was in a very dark, if not BLACK, room. i found myself transported there by some mysterious force for no apparent reason. so i find myself here in this "room" and my eyes are shut tight. I'm utterly afraid of the dark. i cannot open my eyes. then, again for no apparent reason, my fear disappears and i let my eyes open to a squint. i find the following: the room is DIM. not black. this was a major epiphany. i decided to open my eyes as wide as they would open and let them ADJUST. and adjust they DID. from my point of view, as the adjustment was occurring, the room was getting brighter. it was "enlightening" or "illuminiating." now, whether it was illuminating or if i was just adjusting i will never know for sure; they are competing theories but it doesn't really matter for the end result was that it was illuminating from *my perspective*.

what does the room look like?

here's the punchline. the room is the multiverse. you might as well just tell me what YOU see for you are in the same room as me, *evidently*. i just woke up IN IT.

(this happened and was first formulated about two months ago)

cheers,
phoenix

 

[FZ+]

What evidence? You have not even shown any slight understanding of my position yet. In fact, you continuously misrepresent my positon as something you think, not what I am actually saying. And you are using the terms of evolution, but you don't grasp their real meaning. You are portraying your opinions as facts with disregard of contrary evidence. (which of course cannot disprove, but suggest clearly the other way) Unless you at least listen properly, what is the point of what you are saying?

 

[phoenixthoth]

the hurbis abounds.

tenyears, how do you define QUALITY?

thanks.

phoenix

 

[TENYEARS]

phoenixthoth, the disappointment only comes because it is a word, one with boundries, when the truth hits you there will nothing to hit.


Quality? Quality is relative to the relativity which experiences the object or experience. One person taste a soup with the rising steam on a cold day looking out a window and suddenly the universe opens. Another is fed the food of kings in the greatest palace and complains of the temperature.

The quality of life rises up to meet the needs of the relativity involved.

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread Why the bias against materialism? ...

Originally posted by sascha
Yes, there is no doubt in the very end result consciousness and choices have physical appearances. But do you know that Chinese story: A traveler comes to a village and meets the village sage and the village fool. He shows them a shining star. The sage sees an element of the universe, while the fool sees only the pointed finger.

Yes, the evidence has always been there, it's just a matter if one has the means to make the association or not.

This is an excellent post by sascha by the way, which clearly illustrates the blind spot that exists with the "scientific approach."

 

[Zantra]

Ten 5 pages later you're still being cryptic. Yes we all know that we are destroying ourselves. I'm more concerned about us nuking ourselves into oblivion than anything else. But we're like a child with a big dangerous toy. And if we don't learn to use that toy safely very quick, we're going to electrocute ourselves.

 

[FZ+]

Noting of course that the sage, in fact the one who can look past the internal of his own finger, is in reality the scientist...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Noting of course that the sage, in fact the one who can look past the internal of his own finger, is in reality the scientist...

Not necessarily. I think it's speaking of human nature in general.

While in fact this is the very same argument that keeps coming up when I try discussing my views with the materialists (more so some than others). That because the whole thing is abstract, and exists only in my mind -- or so they say -- that I'm the fool for having brought it up in the first place, in which case there's no point in my discussing it any further.

And do you know why? Because they can't (or won't) make the association with what I'm pointing my finger at, that is from a strictly materialistic standpoint, this is all they can see, the "physical act" of my pointing a finger at something, not the "metaphysical ideal" which I'm alluding to.

By the way, the notion of a star three or four thousand years ago, was merely a metaphysical notion, because people (for the most part) had no means by which to ascertain what they truly were, other than a speck of light in the night's sky.

 

[FZ+]

Really.

Consider this interpretation. The fool prizes the instrument of pointing - the finger. He thinks that all knowledge is internal, and instead of looking out beyond into the heavens, he looks focused on the finger, ignoring all contrary notions - because he asserts that all truth is that which is acknowledged. The sage meanwhile observes that the star is far from a metaphysical idea, but presents a subject for study beyond the internal. Hence, while the fool looks within, the sage looks without.

Which sounds like the materialist?

 

[TENYEARS]

FZ, the difference between the scientist and the sage is that the scientist looks upon this and that he may look out and wonder. The sage looks up all that he sees until all there is is a seeing and no seer. Upon this act truth is born. It is not owned and it cannot be contained, for all that is is what it is and there is nothing that is not.

 

[Iacchus32]

*delete*

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Really.

Consider this interpretation. The fool prizes the instrument of pointing - the finger. He thinks that all knowledge is internal, and instead of looking out beyond into the heavens, he looks focused on the finger, ignoring all contrary notions - because he asserts that all truth is that which is acknowledged. The sage meanwhile observes that the star is far from a metaphysical idea, but presents a subject for study beyond the internal. Hence, while the fool looks within, the sage looks without.

Which sounds like the materialist?

Once again it seems you missed the point. The sage has the ability to deal with those things which are abstract and inherently known -- and therefore wise -- whereas the fool is caught up with "external appearances," as evidenced by the pursuit of knowledge, which is tantamount to putting labels on things.

Wisdom is not the matter of pursuing knowledge for knowledge's sake, but of "knowing what you know," which is an internal thing.

 

[phoenixthoth]

"FZ, the difference between the scientist and the sage is that the scientist looks upon this and that he may look out and wonder. The sage looks up all that he sees until all there is is a seeing and no seer. Upon this act truth is born. It is not owned and it cannot be contained, for all that is is what it is and there is nothing that is not."

how do you get to the point when there is a seeing and no seer?

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

 

[TENYEARS]

I could tell you a story, I would like to tell a story but what would it be but a story. You must place all that you are on the edge of the abyss and not be afraid. You will look into it with all fear of finding nothing at all. You will let go of all things and hold on to nothing knowing that after letting go of all this you take the chance of finding nothing at all. No god, no after life, no truth, no meaning no nothing. Just dust, but if you go here at least dust would be something. Here you must face the pure empty.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i once thought the universe was zero dimensional, a point, and that all things were united in that way. 3-11 dimensional space was some kind of illusion.

if you consider a point as a vector space, the basis would be the empty set. i considered the possibility that God was the empty set, something that exists (in some sense, perhaps) but doesn't contain anything though is the basis for everything.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[FZ+]

The sage has the ability to deal with those things which are abstract and inherently known

But a star is far from abstract, and far from known. And a finger is far from external. It is clear to me that the sage is wise because he searches out for things that he doesn't know, and looks beyond. The fool is a fool because he looks only within, dealing only with his dreams of himself.

The sage cares not for the finger, because he is looking out there, into the vastness of infinity. Of all that is unknown. That is part of the essence of science.

 

[TENYEARS]

The truth does not defy the universe, it is the universe. What is accepted as possible you will transcend only you are ready. I herd a girl on the radio today, she spoke of just dreams to the two anouncers on a plain rock/easy listening channel. She said something and in an instant I knew she knew. They knew she knew something out of the callers that called in, she unquestionably knew. Even the foolishness of the anouncers was quited and I thought sometimes you just never know. It was awaking.

 

[TENYEARS]

FZ, don't mean to get picky, but the resistance which exists within you is due to the focus on the "things" unknown as relative objects.
The fantasy of dreams within as day dreams or others are far from foolish. It is an expression of ones subconious in a means to self actualize with the universe. To achieve the top of the mos low ladder. Science is concerend many times with this or that. Small this small that, a discection of reality instead of it's total experience. Reality cannot be disected, but there is a time comming where the two will be in acknowlegement of each other. I of course might be full of it, then again maybe not.

There are enought hints in previous posts to have a pile of needles and a few bits of hay.

 

[RoyBlizzard3rd]

fish bowl?

be careful of fish bowl analogies. All the fish bowls I ever watched for very long wound up floating a dead smelly fish who was the ruler of his universe!

 

[FZ+]

Tenyears:
Do not underestimate the glory of hay, and the futility of meaningless needles.

 

[Iacchus32]

But where does the "without" come from if not from "within?" ... And how is it that we can only "reflect" on the without, if not from within? If intelligence were merely outwardly or, "an appearance," then "you" have no business whatsoever for being here. Do you know why? ... because "you" don't exist.

Which brings me to the next question. Why should I waste my time, speaking to that which isn't real and doesn't exist?

 

[RoyBlizzard3rd]

iacchus32 you made good sense of a lot of nonsense!

 

[TENYEARS]

In reality there are no rulers. Rulers are for measuring relative objects or for directing relative objects. In the experience of reality there can be no ruling, because you will understand and in that understanding you will understand the futility and inability to do anything except that which interelates with you which is not only limited, but a function of subtle relationship with the nature of the individual system as a whole. In terms of measuring, how can nonrelative measure anything? That would require a measurer would it not? Was talking about human nature this morning. Peoples innate need to gather when they see one or more going in a direction. Usually has little to do with what is there and is more about something else.

 

[Iacchus32]

And yet ... "He who is least amongst you is the greatest." Hmm ... perhaps "humility" is the standard by which all things are measured?

 

[TENYEARS]

Iacchus32, if humbleness is something I am supposed to do because that is what an enlightentend human being does than is it enlightenment or am I one who looks into a mirror of of myself of myself, ... Is this response one of one who knows this and uses that also? Of course everytime I post this it makes my understanding deeper does it not. Which dog that chases it's tail is the closest?
Is humbleness something to be learned, like a curb to keep you on a path or is it a direct response to the witnessing of the pain of humanity?

 

[phoenixthoth]

that quote sounds like something jesus said. jesus came back to his disciples and asked them what they were talking about. they were discussing which among them was the greatest. then jesus said that to be the greatest means to be the least, the servant of all. or something like that.

even if jesus were not humble (and some people would say he wasn't humble for claiming to be the son of God), that wouldn't change any of his characteristics such as his level of enlightenment and/or divinity. like if i have a phd in math from princeton and i go around telling people "hey i got a phd in math from princeton, in your face!" that doesn't change the fact that i really do have a phd in math from princeton, nor does saying that or not saying that affect how much i know about math.

humility just seems to affect how easy it may be to accept what the person says or how easy it may be to like them.

i don't agree that humility is a necessary characteristic one must have in order to be enlightened and/or divine, though humility is a useful trait to at least pretend to have in order for others to listen to you, if you care.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Agreed. Any proposed characteristic of an exalted state can be simulated, but that doesn't make you exalted. Jesus was very strong on that - I imagine other religious leaders were too, since it's a perennial problem. It was Jesus who introduced the word hypocrite in its present sense (in his day it was the Greek word for an actor on the stage).

However as was said, that doesn't change the fact that the exalted people in history have been "humble". In the sense of intensely, self-effacingly involved with the Other. Jesus and Socrates are my two examples, but I'm sure those from other traditions were also.

 

[TENYEARS]

What is humbleness born out of? Weakness? Strengh? Deviousness? If one can answer this question your feet are already on a bridge without boards. If you realize you are on the bridge will you be brought back to the other side from which you came? Would physics support such an ascertion? Would logic? What is really happening here and what is possible? Just from another fish, today a dog fish.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i may or not be understanding what you mean by this bridge. another author basically says that the bridge connects a dualistic experience with a nondualistic experience. in nonduality, there is only unity. for example, that which is observed, the process of observation, and the observer are all the same. the "logic" of a nondualistic experience doesn't, i don't think, resemble the "logic" of a dualistic experience at all and so the logic of duality will not get you across the bridge.

a quote from that author:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=38;st=2
this quote is from http://www.duerden.com

the whole thread is
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=38

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
What is humbleness born out of? Weakness? Strengh? Deviousness? If one can answer this question your feet are already on a bridge without boards. If you realize you are on the bridge will you be brought back to the other side from which you came? Would physics support such an ascertion? Would logic? What is really happening here and what is possible? Just from another fish, today a dog fish.

Humbleness is none other than the wisdom, which is born of suffering, and questioning the pain of one's existence.