Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Thoughts from the Dark Side
My mother saw a PBS show on the 'health' of the planet earth, and how human activity is messing it up. I said that this is just Nature at work. After all, aren't we just animals, no different - truly - from any other on the planet? Monkeys, rabbit, ants... any creature would be doing the same thing giving the capability. All life is driven by self interest (survival) not 'global' interests. Her response was that we humans 'should' know better! Should? :?
Clearly, we believe that our ability to think 'whatever' endows us with the ability to do 'whatever', and thus the word 'should'. Of course, this view lies at the heart of Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology. And, it is at least implied in all the other religions. However, all the evidence points to just the opposite, as far as I can see, e.g., in my own life, in what I see of other people's lives, and historically from the neolithic times up to the present. Thus, I can only conclude that those who see the world through 'should' colored glasses have an emotional need to see life in an idealized way, despite any evidence to the contrary. Example abound; take a moment and ponder some from your experience.
So, emotions drive my mother to believe that if she thinks 'it' is so, 'it' is so! So how about me? Maybe I'm being deceived by my emotions and driven to see 'it' my way. How do I know I'm seeing it as it is, and not as just a reflection of what I want to see? Good question to which I must say, I don't know. But, as least I admit that, which suggests that I don't have as much emotional stake in the issue, one way or the other. However, I do have an emotional stake in honesty. I seriously want to see 'it' as 'it' is. Not only that, I want to [chref=65]conform [/chref] to 'it'. Be [chref=39]One[/chref] with 'it'. To see 'it' as 'it' is, and conform to 'it', I must be awake and honest enough to notice my emotional present - moment to moment. Only when I care enough to not care, am I able to step [chref=40]back[/chref] enough to see 'it'. Ironic.
Not surprisingly, I long saw the world as my mother does. For 40 years I believed we were different from animals. :oops: Then I started looking for some evidence. Sure, I saw plenty of superficial evidence of difference, e.g., we live in houses, worms live in the ground, squirrels live in trees. But, we approach life the same way as animals. As far as I can see, we just think we are different. And indeed, that is the one thing that is unique about humans. We think, and end up believing what we think. That is why we say, [chref=71]to know yet to think that one does not know is best; not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.[/chref]
Clearly, we believe that our ability to think 'whatever' endows us with the ability to do 'whatever', and thus the word 'should'. Of course, this view lies at the heart of Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology. And, it is at least implied in all the other religions. However, all the evidence points to just the opposite, as far as I can see, e.g., in my own life, in what I see of other people's lives, and historically from the neolithic times up to the present. Thus, I can only conclude that those who see the world through 'should' colored glasses have an emotional need to see life in an idealized way, despite any evidence to the contrary. Example abound; take a moment and ponder some from your experience.
So, emotions drive my mother to believe that if she thinks 'it' is so, 'it' is so! So how about me? Maybe I'm being deceived by my emotions and driven to see 'it' my way. How do I know I'm seeing it as it is, and not as just a reflection of what I want to see? Good question to which I must say, I don't know. But, as least I admit that, which suggests that I don't have as much emotional stake in the issue, one way or the other. However, I do have an emotional stake in honesty. I seriously want to see 'it' as 'it' is. Not only that, I want to [chref=65]conform [/chref] to 'it'. Be [chref=39]One[/chref] with 'it'. To see 'it' as 'it' is, and conform to 'it', I must be awake and honest enough to notice my emotional present - moment to moment. Only when I care enough to not care, am I able to step [chref=40]back[/chref] enough to see 'it'. Ironic.
Not surprisingly, I long saw the world as my mother does. For 40 years I believed we were different from animals. :oops: Then I started looking for some evidence. Sure, I saw plenty of superficial evidence of difference, e.g., we live in houses, worms live in the ground, squirrels live in trees. But, we approach life the same way as animals. As far as I can see, we just think we are different. And indeed, that is the one thing that is unique about humans. We think, and end up believing what we think. That is why we say, [chref=71]to know yet to think that one does not know is best; not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.[/chref]
Comments
A friend sent me a 'Taoist' kind of book showing how to develop 'qi' (chi or 'vital' energy). These 'vitality' gimmicks are a bit silly in general, but especially when they slip by under the guise of [chref=18]the great way[/chref]. After all, [chref=55]to try to add to one's vitality is called ill-omened; for the mind to egg on the breath is called violent.[/chref] Or course such inconsistency is not confined to 'Taoist' stuff. Just think of all that is, or was, done in the name of Christianity. It's enough, I expect, to make Christ wish he'd kept his mouth shut... :roll: (Of course, the same applies to all ?[chref=2]good[/chref]? paths.)
We can't resist making mountains out of mole hills. Why? I suspect it is symptomatic of the fact that ?[chref=70]my words are very easy to understand and very easy to put into practice, yet no one in the world can understand them or put them into practice?[/chref]. Because we can't, we [chref=56]speak[/chref] about 'it', and inevitably end up making those mountains higher and higher. We feel that if we 'pile em' high enough they will bridge the chasm in 'understanding' and 'practice' that we feel deep down inside. Ah,..if only! Alas, Symptoms can't 'cure' causes, and so we continue to cherish our illusions and make mountains in the mind... until the day we drop dead.
Oh geez, the 'fun' leaves (like [chref=20]partaking of the 'Tai Lao' offering[/chref]) when [chref=6]the mysterious female[/chref] encroaches upon consciousness. On the other hand, the [chref=1]mystery[/chref] leaves when I pursue 'fun', like [chref=20] going up to a terrace in spring[/chref]. Oh what the heck, I think I'll go have some fun now!
Well, it?s something do.
Speaking of making mountains out of mole hills, I am reminded of an old Chinese fable that dates from the Warring States Period (403-221 BC), about an old man and a mountain (the story mind you, not the old man himself!). It seems that this old guy, who was reported to about 90 years old at the time, got up one morning and decided that he needed to get rid of a couple mountains because they blocked the view from the front of his house. What he thought he?d see beyond the mountains of course is another story altogether, but one would imagine, just like the bear, it would have been the other side of the mountain. Anyhow, rather than scowling indefinitely in their direction and hoping they?d fade away on their own, he took matters into his own hands and hopped to it. He gathered his family, passed out the shovels, and said, ?Follow me.? God bless him, he was going to make mole hills out of mountains. Day in and day out, he and his sons shoveled away. Now, as you might imagine, it was rather a big job, and as the years went by, it seemed that they were hardly making a dent. It was around this time that he earned the nickname, ?the Foolish Old Man.? One day, after this had been going on for some years, a fella known as ?the Wise Old Man? was passing by, and naturally couldn?t resist admonishing the foolish old man with regard to fruitlessness of his enterprise. The Foolish Old Man, leaned on his shovel, and replied, ?Well, lookie here now, even if I died today, at least the mountain will be a little shorter that when I started, and perhaps if my descendents keep at it for another 100 generations or so, who?s to say they won?t succeed in the end? Besides, what have I got to lose? Just, a couple of mountains, by my estimate.?
Now, of course, the moral of the story is that though your tasks are many and your rewards are few, remember the mighty oak was once a nut like you. That?s a joke, son. No, the real moral of the story is that if you need to do something, for whatever reason (even symptomatic ones), no matter how daunting it may seem, if you?re even going to have half a chance, you do have to start somewhere. This is a rather long way of getting around to your original point, and there is a cop out ending to the story, where the heavens were so moved by the foolish old man?s dedication that a couple of angels were sent down to carry the mountains away in blink of eye, but you know how I just like to go on and on. Anyhow, trying to move a mountain is something to do, and I would imagine, not bad exercise.
With regard to the Taoist/Chi book, people do need hobbies and if they happen to latch on to this or that as a way of justifying their hobbies, well, they could be worse off. Now, naturally, not having actually read this book that your friend sent you 8) , I cannot speak to this particular author?s intentions. From your report, I have no doubt that he had propensity for laying on a bit thick. On the other hand, if his hobby is selling books, he perhaps saw the Taoist tie-in as a sure thing. ?Say, I won?t only show you how to exercise and live forever, I?ll tell you the secret of life itself!? Surely he wasn?t serious. It?s just his way of having fun. Some people do have fun hoodwinking others (and thereby selling more books, which is even more fun). As long as we get the joke, all is fine.
If some folks actively seek the way, and are have high old time actively seeking it, are they not having fun? One must have fun where one finds it. I quite agree with you that everyone should have fun or at least give it a try. Even if, or perhaps better, just because the world spins around us wildly out of control. Artur Schnabel considered himself to be ?an active fatalist.? Then of course there was the Mrs. Kissel, whom Jean Shepherd described as ?the type of woman who would have been playing the piano while the Titanic was sinking.?
Oh, and by the way, have fun.
I'm taking my shovel to Fun Mountain. Care to join me?
(2) I said what? Not me... as you see!
Fun?...
Our desire for, and our holding on to, that which is pleasurable (and aversion of what is painful) creates and props up our sense of self (the illusion of 'I', so to speak). Carefully watching the 'flow of the moment' can unwind this much of this illusion, and evoke a sense of [chref=14]the thread running through the way[/chref] instead of 'I am'. Then, we feel more connected (whole, complete, 'right', eternal). So, why can't we just [chref=4]let our wheels move only along [this] old rut[/chref]?
[chref=79]Favoritism[/chref] gets in the way. We prefer 'fun' over 'work' and end up chasing after what we like, and running away from what we dislike. We become trapped by our desires. [chref=64] Therefore the sage desires not to desire, And does not value goods which are hard to come by[/chref]. Personally, I've found only one thing has worked so far: slow down, stop and begin [chref=40]turning back[/chref]. 'Fun' is what took me so long to get this far! :oops:
Do we need hobbies? Well, first we must agree on what a hobby is. What is a hobby? It?s something I do when I?m not eating or sleeping or running when pursued by predators. Do other animals have hobbies or need them? Do they do anything that they don?t need to do? I wonder. Does an otter in the wild need to slide down a molehill of snow on its belly? It has nothing to do with hunting for food or hiding from predators. Of course it may be that he just needs to cool his stomach and as far as he knows, that?s the best way to do it or maybe its just faster than walking. Whatever it is, does he need to do it? Well, maybe it?s good exercise or practice should he need to get away from a predator when a molehill of snow is handy. So, is he then practicing? Perhaps. When lion cubs practice fighting do they need to? Sure, they do. The world is a wild and woolly place. When I practice sliding or fighting do I need to? Sure, I do. The world is wild and woolly place. What?s the difference between what other animals do in their spare time (when they?re not sleeping, hunting or dodging predators) and what I do in mine? When a bird sings (does a bird sing? Or does it just make attractive noises?) it is communicating with other birds. How does he get so good at it? He practices all day long (when he?s not eating or flying to get somewhere else). Does he need to practice? I think so. The louder and clearer he is the better chance he has of communicating effectively with his prospective mates. All animals need to communicate in one way or another (plants and fauna too). Whether it be for mating purposes (come in please?) or staking out territory (go away?) they need to do it. How they communicate is their business. There is "dancing", "singing", violence, howling, growling, croaking, and of course other less glamorous methods. Humans communicate all day long as well, and generally speaking, they hone their skills by practicing various methods of communication (what I call hobbies) when they are not eating, sleeping, or running from predators. Do humans need to communicate? Yes, we are animals too. Do we need hobbies? I would think so. Trees and rocks communicate too, only I would imagine their hobbies tend to be a bit more esoteric than ours.
When puppies (dogs and wolves) or lion cubs romp around with each other (naturally, among their own kind), are they having fun? I don?t know. What do you think? In the case of domesticated dogs who are fed and given shelter, do they have fun playing with toys and balls? They seem to want to mess around with these things a great deal. If they are having fun and constantly pursue other dogs to join them, would they be propping up their sense of selves? Are we different from other animals? If they?re not having fun, are we? Or are we just kidding ourselves?
By the way, while we?re on the subject, I ?m not so sure you didn?t actually advocate having fun in your original post. Perhaps I misunderstood you. You said, "The ?fun ? leaves (like partaking of the ?Tai Lao? offering) when the mysterious female encroaches upon the consciousness. On the other hand, the mystery leaves when I pursue ?fun?, like going up to a terrace in the spring." Now, presumably, the mysterious female encroaching on the consciousness is best avoided, yes? And then, the mystery leaves when you pursue fun, yes? So, are you not saying that the pursuit of fun is preferable to sticking around when that encroaching female is lurking in the background of your consciousness? If I am correct here, I somehow get the impression that you are implying that we should have fun. Also, you must remember that like it or not, you hold great sway here (if this comes off as facetious, it was not my intention, although I'll take if it does
Finally, if a sage desires to have no desires, I?d say he?s still desiring something, and by the same token, he is valuing that which is hard to come by, and that is having no desires. I realize of course that though a sage may be wise, he may not always be successful. Does a sage need to know that he desires having no desires to be a sage? Does a sage need to know anything? Can a sage be a sage without talking to anyone or being identified as such? Does he need to talk at all? Well, he does if he wants to have any fun.
P.S. I can only handle one of these at a time, so I?ve scrupulously avoided reading your post on animals and religion for the time being. Also, I?m not exactly sure what "partaking of the ?Tai Lao? offering" means. Is that good or bad?
First a few thoughts about 'fun' before I get lost. If 'fun' means becoming [chref=39]One[/chref] with my field of awareness, then I want to have as much 'fun' as possibly! This happens when I feel balanced and [chref=65]complete[/chref]. When do I feel balance? When I [chref=19]have little thought of self and as few desires as possible.[/chref]... hallelujah!
One the other hand, the dictionary puts it this way: fun >noun (1) light-hearted pleasure or amusement. (2) a source of this. (3) playfulness or good humor. >adjective informal enjoyable. This 'fun' does not exclude the 'fun' defined above. However, our yearning for this 'pleasure fun' often carries us off on a [chref=53]by-path[/chref] (based in our biology, of course). Animals living under natural condition can't get off such by-paths because Nature keeps their biological [chref=4] wheels moving only along old ruts[/chref]. Human civilization has liberated us from that 'darkness'.
Need is the sensation we feel pushing us to act or not act. It drives us to fill up on 'something' when we feel hollow. The more hollow we feel, the more need we feel to fill 'it' up with "anything" we feel will work. "Anything" can be food, drugs, sex, toys, talking, travel, work, hobbies, writing (like I'm doing now), sleeping. We more hollow we feel, the more we'll do that "anything" that seems to work, often to the point becoming a __(you name it)__holic. Ironically, civilizations frown on some ___holisms while lauding others.
Speech is driven by an instinctive social need. The need to speak (discuss) is the reason we speak. If we were like a dogs with a nose base brain instead of a thought based one, we'd be sniffing each other instead. Count your blessing!
Satiating need may be what 'fun' actually is, as a practical matter anyway. The more need we feel, the more 'fun' we need to have. More is not better, and in fact it is simply inefficient. The less you need in order to have 'fun', the easier it is to [chref=65]realize complete conformity[/chref]. Of course, in a culture that worships 'fun', complete conformity is a dirty word.
Hobbies are what we do for pleasure in our spare time. Personally, I suppose my hobby is life - seeing as how I have no spare time. Alas, as Buddha put so succinctly, pleasures are the bait and the result is pain. We incur the opposite of what we seek, as we saw in this weeks chapter 34: [chref=34]It is because it never attempts itself to be great that it succeeds in becoming great.[/chref] Christ's "Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it" is pointing in the same direction.
No, and neither do we, nor even a bacteria, or a virus, I dare say. I won't get into the need photons feel to run along at exactly 186,000 miles per second in space. Let me just say, this view 'conforms' to what [chref=14]is called the thread running through the way[/chref].
This is like asking whether a fish has spare water. Animals don't have spare time. They are swimming within time. We, on the other hand, are haunted by our minds illusions of past and future, and thus feel discontinuous in time. Time, spare or otherwise, is an object for us - much to our grief. Our yearning to have 'fun' is a palliative based in an illusion. Animals don't yearn to have 'fun'.
All creation communicates, from photons on up (and down). We don't realize just how much we are animals - and photons. We are children who can't hear [chref=20]mother[/chref], and so feel alone. Yet, [chref=25]mother[/chref] is right here - we're just not listening. Why? We can't listen when we're always [chref=48]meddling[/chref] and 'speaking' (thinking, worrying, judging, etc.).
We need what we need. Yes, and a photon's hobby is running (and 'meditating') at 186,000 miles per hour. As long as we include [chref=16]all the myriad creatures[/chref], the whole everything, you'll hear no argument from me. (Well,... maybe
They are doing what they need to do, and so by my definition they are having 'fun'. When they tire out and go to sleep they are also having 'fun'. The difference between animals and us is they are always having 'fun' because they are always 'present'. We are easily distracted from our 'present', lose balance and leap around yearning for 'fun' (especially the dictionary definition). The other aspect of 'fun' does not come through yearning, but rather through [chref=16]returning[/chref].
It depends how we define different. Do we feel different? Absolutely! We go to great lengths to draw the distinctions between human life and, say, an ants life. Is their any? Difference lies in the mind of the observer. The more the observer 'needs' to see a difference, the more difference he will see. Obviously our species 'needs' to see differences, e.g., 'God created man in his image'. We have the greatest difficulty feeling that [chref=56]mysterious sameness[/chref]. Maybe that is why using [chref=78]words[/chref] to discuss this subject is so much 'fun'.
Avoided? Preferable? These notions arise from our illusion of 'choice'. Our disconnected state of consciousness perceives a separate 'self' - "I" - which we then endow with this power, this will to choose. Speaking of avoid, this illusion helps us avoid the [chref=21]shadowy, indistinct, indistinct and shadowy,[/chref] which keeps us bogged down in our [chref=70]ignorance[/chref]. So, is it not preferable to avoid this illusion? As seen from a symptomatic point of view, such a question is nonsensical, i.e., avoiding symptoms will not cure our dis-eases.
Should? Argh#$%@& there is that nasty little word again. Should being a cohort of the "I am" illusion. Although the emotions which embody 'should' do aid our tribal infighting (thus serving a social purpose). As to want vs. need: need is want to is desire is an itch. And 'fun' is just scratching that itch. However, if you've ever had poison oak, you'll appreciate that it doesn't take much itching and scratching to become too much of a [chref=2]good[/chref] thing.
First what's a [chref=5]sage[/chref]? I've heard that if we [chref=19]exterminate the sage, and discard the wise, the people will benefit a hundredfold[/chref], and I concur.
Next, desiring not to desire is not the [chref=78]paradox it seems[/chref]; rather it is simply a step on life's [chref=1]way[/chref]. It is like walking along a road. You put one foot in front of the other. As long as you don't dwell in the future (e.g., when am I going to get there?) or dwell in the past (e.g., I've made so little headway so far!), you are just on a [chref=64]journey[/chref], step by step, moment by moment. After all, [chref=64]it is easy to dissolve a thing while it is yet minute[/chref].
Our troubles don't stem so much from 'what', as from 'how much', i.e., [chref=22]a little then benefitted; A lot then perplexed.[/chref] The higher we throw it, the further it falls.
More than anything, a sage needs [chref=71]to know, yet to think that he does not know[/chref]. That places a whole new meaning to the word know, no?
Well, need and fun are all wrapped up together, as I said. So if the need is there, the fun will follow. In the need lies the fun along with an equal measure of pain. It's a package deal with a round trip ticket.
Those who partake feel it is 'good' thing. Some who don't, do so because they feel it is a 'bad' thing; this is symptomatic of other needs driving them. Some don't need to partake, nor need to feel it is a 'bad' thing, much like the ant who cleans up after the celebration.
I too can only handle one of these replies at a time! Whew! This was 'fun', though I may be starting to sound like a broken record. Of course, I could have interpreted all your comments at the agreement level of [chref=56]mysterious sameness[/chref], but where'd be the fun in that? ...