Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Emotion, by any other name (e.g. chi, qi) would work the same. Of course words like prana and qi (chi) have a 'sexy' mysterious color. But, as we see, [chref=12]colors make man's eyes blind[/chref]. Differences deceive. A few thousand years ago 'we' call it qi or prana, now we call it emotion. In short, qi=prana=emotion. Now, if we hanker for something more mysterious, all we need do is sense that [chref=56]mysterious sameness[/chref] that awaits us at every level of perception.
Emotion is the fuel that runs the engine of life. Without emotion we would feel dead, be dead. Of course we wouldn't 'feel' dead, or anything – emotion is synonymous with feeling. Emotion gives life meaning, texture, flavor, color. So, three cheers for emotion, for without emotion we would feel no cheer. We would feel no sorrow or joy, gain or loss, no beauty or ugliness, pain or pleasure.
Emotion is the bed rock of language. For example, in learning Chinese I initially understood a word upon translating it to English. A word only felt meaningful, in its own right, after I could feel it emotionally, in its own right. Language itself relies on emotion to give words meaning. Without emotional context words are just noise.
Emotion drives thought. Angry emotion stirs up angry thoughts and/or angry action. Fear emotion stirs up fearful worries and/or fearful action. On the other hand, empathetic emotion stirs up thoughts of [chref=10]the One[/chref] and all,... and actions that reflect that. Put another way anger and hate divide, empathy and love connect and unite.
Emotion is a team of oxen that pulls the cart of life. Without a driver the oxen easily lose the way, pull the cart off the road and sometimes off a cliff. Driver? Hmm,... are we talking free will here? No, only understanding can guide the cart.[chref=32]Knowing[/chref] is the eye that sees the way; the oxen of emotion follow naturally.
Sounds great, sound [chref=63]easy[/chref]. Just open our eyes, see and [chref=70]understand[/chref], and off we go. Except for one little kink - emotions give meaning to what we see and a context to our [chref=43]understanding[/chref]. Thus, alas, [chref=78]no one can put this knowledge into practice[/chref]. Knowing that helps us become increasingly [chref=15]hesitant and tentative[/chref], and thus, less likely to run off the road and lose our way.
Or course, this Taoist approach is not that popular. We prefer a 'hands on', 'can do', [chref=75]action [/chref] based way to deal with life. We back this with the wishful thinking notion that we can control emotion, and subdue the 'animal' within. Of course, this is just fighting fire with fire and result in ruin.
Speaking of ruin, the idea of controlling emotion reminds me of chapter 64, [chref=64]whoever does anything to it will ruin it; whoever lays hold of it will lose it[/chref]. Emotion drives this 'laying hold of' emotion and creates a neurotic vicious circle.
Emotion is the fuel that runs the engine of life. Without emotion we would feel dead, be dead. Of course we wouldn't 'feel' dead, or anything – emotion is synonymous with feeling. Emotion gives life meaning, texture, flavor, color. So, three cheers for emotion, for without emotion we would feel no cheer. We would feel no sorrow or joy, gain or loss, no beauty or ugliness, pain or pleasure.
Emotion is the bed rock of language. For example, in learning Chinese I initially understood a word upon translating it to English. A word only felt meaningful, in its own right, after I could feel it emotionally, in its own right. Language itself relies on emotion to give words meaning. Without emotional context words are just noise.
Emotion drives thought. Angry emotion stirs up angry thoughts and/or angry action. Fear emotion stirs up fearful worries and/or fearful action. On the other hand, empathetic emotion stirs up thoughts of [chref=10]the One[/chref] and all,... and actions that reflect that. Put another way anger and hate divide, empathy and love connect and unite.
Emotion is a team of oxen that pulls the cart of life. Without a driver the oxen easily lose the way, pull the cart off the road and sometimes off a cliff. Driver? Hmm,... are we talking free will here? No, only understanding can guide the cart.[chref=32]Knowing[/chref] is the eye that sees the way; the oxen of emotion follow naturally.
Sounds great, sound [chref=63]easy[/chref]. Just open our eyes, see and [chref=70]understand[/chref], and off we go. Except for one little kink - emotions give meaning to what we see and a context to our [chref=43]understanding[/chref]. Thus, alas, [chref=78]no one can put this knowledge into practice[/chref]. Knowing that helps us become increasingly [chref=15]hesitant and tentative[/chref], and thus, less likely to run off the road and lose our way.
Or course, this Taoist approach is not that popular. We prefer a 'hands on', 'can do', [chref=75]action [/chref] based way to deal with life. We back this with the wishful thinking notion that we can control emotion, and subdue the 'animal' within. Of course, this is just fighting fire with fire and result in ruin.
Speaking of ruin, the idea of controlling emotion reminds me of chapter 64, [chref=64]whoever does anything to it will ruin it; whoever lays hold of it will lose it[/chref]. Emotion drives this 'laying hold of' emotion and creates a neurotic vicious circle.
Comments
As he was talking, I kept asking myself, "What about the delusion of thinking you actually know there is such a God Delusion." I see no difference between the guy who insists that there is a god and one that insists that there isn't. For all I know Al Qaeda is right; I am an infidel and I deserve to die! But, I make him wrong to justify defending myself or to justify killing him first.
How about, "Well, you might be right but I am still going to try to kill you before you kill me." I have this sick attachment to life even if I do deserve to die.
Belief uses language just as odor uses chemicals to draw tribal distinctions. The inherent biasing action of language, and the [chref=23]words[/chref] and [chref=32]names[/chref] it uses, lies behind the Taoist distrust of them and all [chref=2]teaching[/chref] based upon them. An ultimate Taoist aim is [chref=16]impartiality[/chref], and language impedes that in the final analysis. In other words, you can't get to 'true' [chref=16]impartiality[/chref] via words. They are, in there link to the limbic system (emotion), innately biased.
I'm pretty sure members of Al Qaeda don't question whether you are right, either. To them you are definitely wrong.
It's easy to see that Al Qaeda is "driven by tribal instinct"; harder to see it in ourselves.
I am sorry for what you are facing. I wish that families on both sides didn't have to face this reality.
This was my point aside from the tribal instinct. Those are words that, while I see their intent, carry too much meaning in this forum for me to use.
The reality faced by the world was created by points of view and each side being sure they are right. If Al Qaeda considered for one moment that we might have a point about a thing or two and we did the same, we might be able to work out living together on the same planet. That is what I was talking about.
I also see that, in myself, even though I see that my point of view may not be all there is, I still have a drive to defend myself, my family, and my country. After 9-11 happened, I looked at going into the service but I was too old for all but the army (now too old for even them) and my family depends on me for support. I have three teenagers. I may be raising them just so they can go die in some war over points of view.
I know that totalitarianism and extremism threatens the future of this world. I don't really know how to deal with that but I have a sense that we need to take reasonable steps to defend ourselves. But that is just my point of view.
I am glad that you understood it for what I meant and not that I think it is okay that anyone is dying (or facing harm) in this conflict.
I suspect it is for this reason that we blame the tools (stories, religions, guns, etc.) rather than the person behind the tool; or we blame the person rather than the instincts which drove him. Of course this all come back to free will doesn't it. Wanting to see ourselves in control of life prevents us from seeing biology (instinct) as the source of our 'problem'. We know we can't control that. So we create a story about humans being uniquely different than other animals. They have instinct; we have free will. And what independent agency determined our unique status? Well, [chref=4]God[/chref] of course. And who created [chref=4]God[/chref]? Well,... we did, of course.
Finally, we may ask, why create that kind of story? Personally, I think it is inevitable once a creature possesses an idea (myth, story, illusion) of self. If I think 'I am', then it follows that 'I do', which implies that 'I chose'. Thus we have: 'I am therefore I chose to do what I do'. Free will becomes axiomatic, but being axiomatic doesn't mean it is real, it just means that it feels real, just as Newtonian physics feels real - even though Einstein proved it wasn't.
My view of life is that I am not a victim of such a thing. Is it a factor? Yes, I think it is. Do I chose to be at the cause of it? No.
I have feet, too, but I don't always walk around just because I have them.
If the earth united against the aliens (from outer space), we could be one big tribe and prepare for war against the extra terrestrials. There don't even have to really be any (I am not sure one way or the other) as long as we can get everyone to believe there are.
If suddenly we all had a common interest in the well being of everyone, this "tribal instinct" you talk about would look very different.
I am not denying it is there. What to do with it is another matter. If we must be at the effect of it then let us engineer the effect to our advantage.
But, we can't have more of one without more of the other - they [chref=2]complement each other[/chref]. Naturally, this is not what we want to hear; after all, we instinctively want [chref=39]the superior[/chref] way to win! And, regrettably, [chref=72]when we lack a proper sense of awe of this dynamic, then some awful visitation will descend upon us[/chref]. Nuts!
How can we get out from behind our [chref=65]hoodwinking[/chref] instincts? We can't, but distrusting thought, which instinct drives, helps [chref=56]shut the doors and blunt the sharpness[/chref] a little. This make is much easier [chref=71]to know yet to think that one does not know[/chref].
I agree completely. This one I can feel deep down. When I worked in an office, I saw how I became fond of people just because I saw them everyday and I could also feel the resistance in all of us when a new person came in (especially a leader, a supervisor), which felt like the beating-brains side.
I mentioned the positive tribe attributes because Topher seemed to be resistant to the idea of a tribe, like that was primitive and brutal.
But, you know, I need to hear this stuff over and over -- it slips right out of my head most of the time, I guess because it all goes against my biology.
as you could imagine, this did not set very well. I continued to ask why and to seek my own answers. I started studying science, mainly astronomy paleontology. Even at this young age, I grasped the concepts of vast astronomical distances and times and that the dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions before homo .erectus even came on the scene. the more I learned the more I saw the bible as just a book. I stopped believing in a god by the time I was 16.
For twenty some odd years I drifted along life and found Buddhism. I liked the teachings, I liked the fact it wasn't "hard nosed" like the version of christianity that I belonged to and I liked the fact that Buddhism doesn't say "it's gods way"
on the topic of tribe ......
what is the differenct in tribe and gang, as in "gang mentality" ?
I've tried the same arguement concerning the Isreali/Palestinian problem with my boss. He only sees Palestinians as terrorists, I try to see them as oppressed peoples using the only means they have to fight back. I don't condone violence but I can see both sides of the argument by boss doesn't, he only sees things from his political viewpoint.
Perhaps it is because I've traveled the world when I was in the Air Force and got to know the peoples of the countries I lived in. I see us not as Americans, Brits, Turks, Iraqis, etc. but as one, all humans, living together on this planet.
peace,
bob
(1)
Soon after 9/11 our home school consultant came by for her monthly record keeping visit. She lamented the fact that her father was blaming all Muslims for 9/11. He lumped them all together - "Those #%$@#!". When she fell silent, I pointed out to her how often I'd heard her talk the same way about the Republicans, the Bush crowd - "Those #%$@#!". I asked her if she was not exactly the same as her father, just pointing the finger elsewhere. After a few silent moments she said, "Yes, you're right, but I can't help it and probably can't change. I like bashing the Republicans too much."
I was amazed. I don't think I've ever come across anyone who admitted their inconsistency so forthrightly. Even more fascinating was that she recognized that she was powerless to change. This is made more ironic by the fact that she believed in free will.
(2)
Last week Andy came by for our weekly Margaretta. He began lamenting the 'brain washing' influence religion has on people. He has an enduring 'problem' with religion in general, and fervent religion in particular. He also deeply laments the weakening, if not outright disintegration, of traditional close-knit social bonding. Then I mentioned the obvious, which he immediately acknowledged: Religion is the primary cultural '[chref=65]hoodwink [/chref]' which helps maintain close-knit social bonding! The Amish are a prime example, of course.
Like our home school consultant, he forthrightly recognized the inconsistency, and like her, seem rather unfazed by it. Now, neither Andy or her are intellectual slouches. To the contrary. Yet, both seem content to let the inconsistencies lie. Well, what else could they do?
And so,
I think the moral of these examples is that even if you get someone to realized an inconsistency in their points of view, doesn't mean they can change. It helps to think of each point of view as a symptom of visceral needs and fears. One view reflects some, the other view reflects others. Simply said, visceral emotions (needs and fears) are never inconsistent because they are not logical or rational. Only rationalizations are capable of inconsistency and [chref=78]paradox[/chref].
Thus, we can, and do, change our rationalizations all the time to conform to how we feel. But, this is so only so long as such change doesn't conflict with any deeper visceral need or fear. We have no 'free will' over visceral needs and fears.
Visceral insecurity drives tribal instinct in each of us to 'love some' and 'hate others'. Clearly that is the case in the two examples above. The more 'self insecure' we are, the more intense the 'love' and 'hate' we feel. Conversely, a paucity of 'self insecurity' is what allows both folks above to see their inconsistency. And, with even less 'self insecurity', perhaps they could reconcile the inconsistency. Who knows?
Just today (29 Nov) my boss was saying how the president of Iran said something to the effect to blame Americans. Then he proceded to say how Bush should NUKE Tehran and any other country that harbors, helps or threatens the US.
He asked me what I thought and I told him that there are innocent people in Tehran that don't think the same way as the government and most of the young people want freedom and democracy but at the same time believe in their religon.
He really believes we should use nuclear bombs against Islamic countries that don't condemn extremist, that harbor extremist or dont' stand with us. It wasn't just his words, it was his voice and body language.
I don't agree with it entirely though, many of his ideas and observations are worth considering.
My biggest problem is that he appears to place way too much stock in intelect. I wouldn't suggest that we avoid the intelectual disciplines (science, logic & argument, mathmatics, etc) altogether but I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket; not anymore than I would put all my eggs in the spirituality basket. Either one will only take you so far.
Usually you do fine with either until you draw your conclusion.
I find it funny that the debate by both the "believers" and "non-believers" has come down to arguing about whether or not there is a god; something we could never prove anyway at this point. I don't think it matters. The whole idea is to learn to deal with the spiritual/emotional aspect of being human. This whole Abrahamic God is just a context to explore and explain that. I mean I can't imagine that he, if he is there, even cares whether we believe in him. But even the people that wrote scripture hasve tried to foist that claim on us. I refuse to step into that pile of crap. I refuse to step into the atheist pile of crap, too.
Jesus said, "Love one another".
1) you can go around arguing whether there really was a "Jesus" and whether he really was "God incarnate", or
2) you can love one another.
3) you can love some or none.
Both the believers and non-believers fool themselves into doing #1. Go figure. I guess they like that sort of thing.
I find that when I demonstrate "love", my life is better and it appears that others' lives are better. I am not saying I am right. I just like it better. Anyway, sometimes I can be an a$$ to everyone.
Same goes for any serious debate over the existence of God (or UFO’s, witches, ghosts, spirits, good and ‘evil’, ‘I am’, free will, etc). I see it 'makes sense' for those 'finding themselves', i.e. youth. But, adults? It goes to show you that we need to define adulthood differently - certainly not by age. Well, if I ever become an adult, I’ll know. Hmm, perhaps I'm being too harsh...? nah!
there is no need for argument
there is no reason for worry
I have to isolate the goats from the llamas when I feed them. If I don't, the goats butt the llamas away and the llamas spit at the goats. I wouldn't mind so much, but the goats always win so I end up with fat goats and skinny llamas.
If only the goats realized that there was enough food for everyone and that everyone will get to eat....
If only we could see other sources of energy instead of fighting for and hogging all the oil...
Hmm... I use too many quote marks :roll: .
Reminds me of the story where the man goes to the Buddha and says he has 86 problems and begins to list them, thinking the great man will be able to help. The Buddha told him that he was wrong, he has 87 problems. The additional problem was thinking that he shouldn't have any problems.
I also have a "problem" with quotes; I guess I "should" work on it.
"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it." Interesting the Kingdom is already here and we do not see it! I do not believe in faith, I have experience. Does not our Biology require experience?
... Well, isn't it all Biology? I think people of 'faith' would view that statement as too worldly. I've found this is due to an ignorance of the mystery in biology. This happens when we ascribe absolute meaning to [chref=2]words[/chref]. In other words, the [chref=1]mystery[/chref], just like the "Kingdom" is in eye of the beholder. The reason I use a biological point of view often is that it helps point to [chref=25]that which is naturally so[/chref].