FORUMS > All Things Gay Forum Rules

After reading forum after forum on here the last month I have begun to ask myself the same question.
Why do so many people take responsibility for everything good that happens to them, but claim zero culpability for the bad?

Life is little more than cause and effect.
If you are responsible for the great things that happen, you must also claim ownership of the “chaos” or darkness that you have created in your own life and in the lives others.

For example.
“I am a great guy with my sh*t together but why can’t I meet anyone.”
“his loss”
"why does he take it so personally"
“why are the good ones always taken?”
“why do I attract assholes?”
“why am I always betrayed by the ones I love?”
“Austin is conceited and horrible and the people are awful”
“should I tell the truth about this , that or the other?”
Why is the wrong question, replace it with the word how and then you may actually figure it out.

You are responsible for your life as it is now. It really isn’t an abstract idea. If you are wallowing in the mud, only you should get yourself out otherwise you will be surrounded by other people stuck in the mud. For example, fruitless relationships, a job you dislike, a city you dislike, friends you are tired of, etc. If you aren’t willing to work your ass of to make your life better, why have any expectations that it will happen by accident?
If you are obsessed with your body, expect to attract people that will either love it or make you feel less for it. Chucky was a perfect exampls of this.
Everything is this way... money, religion, monogamy, education, job, age etc. etc.

It frustrates the hell out of me because physically, emotionaly and intellectually lazy people really do whine A LOT when they are the only ones who can actually fix it.

True happiness is all about work. You have to put something equally good into motion for it to reverberate into the universe and manifest itself back as a positive feeling or action.
You can’t create a perfect body, live in the perfect city and have a dream job with lots of money and honestly expect those things will make you happy.

I think it is naive to approach life with simply a “go get em” attitude and expect great things to happen just because you have a good attitude or tell people that you are great.

It would be like playing a baseball game without knowing the rules... a total mess would ensue.

whew, I needed to get that off my chest.

bravo!

(you should now expect a wide variety of criticism for saying exactly what you think, some of which will be insightful, but most of which will be inciteful)

go get 'em, tiger!





alright...

ready...

set...

go!

This reminds of something I read about 20 years ago in the book "The Psychology of Everyday Things."

The author, Donald A. Norman, made the observations that:

If something bad happens to someone else, people tend to think that the person had it coming because he wasn't clever enough to see it coming and avoid it. Unlike one's self, who would have foreseen it and take appropriate action.

If something bad happens to oneself, we can rattle off in an instance all the factors in the environment that made it unavoidable.

If something good happens to someone else, it's just dumb luck and the person didn't deserve it.

If something good happens to oneself, again we can rattle off all the actions that we took to position ourselves so we were in the right place for this fortunate occurrence. It wasn't luck really; we were on top of it all the time.

wow, that's a very telling observation about human nature... what was the overarching point the book was making as a whole?

dancerjack saidwow, that's a very telling observation about human nature... what was the overarching point the book was making as a whole?

No, the book is about how to design things so that slip ups and mistakes in using them aren't likely to happen. It applies the principles of cognitive psychology to product design.

I think the title of the book was changed somewhere along the way to "The Design of Everyday Things." I dont know if it is still in print or not.

I just pulled my copy off of the shelf and it is still bristling with yellow post-its where I have marked things. That made me laugh. Yet for all the post-its, I couldn't find the passage I noted above. But it made such an impression on me, that I still remember it. ...

Pierrecadot,I like your choice of screen name, Gift Peter. So with that said, life is a gift. It's amazing that any of us are here as a conscious entity in the universe.
I suggest you start appreciating your gift of life. It isn't exactly what any of us want but it is what it is, so enjoy it.

John43620 said
I suggest you start appreciating your gift of life. It isn't exactly what any of us want but it is what it is, so enjoy it.

Am I missing something?

I hope not.

Does glitter still sparkle without light?

Hmmmm, so, lately, I've had lots of kids bitch to me about their life. Usually it is "I'm pretty why am I single.

My response is always "You must love yourself alone before you can love yourself with someone else. "

That response basically answers the list of questions you have. As they are related to love.

As for glitter. My answer is this.

Glitter is glitter, sparkle or no. Sparkle just makes me look.

I am!m not one of those so many people so do not include me as i take every day as it comes good and bad that is the wheel of life!

It's called optimism... and then again there's whining.

Matterych saidHmmmm, so, lately, I've had lots of kids bitch to me about their life. Usually it is "I'm pretty why am I single.

My response is always "You must love yourself alone before you can love yourself with someone else. "

That response basically answers the list of questions you have. As they are related to love.

.

THis is sort of my point. Loving yourself is a self help sort of slogan popularized in the 70's and 80's to sell books and get people to pay for workshops.
Has society made any great strides because of this relatively recent realization?
Love can actually make you do bad things to innocent people.

Jesus wasn't a prophet because he loved himself. He was a prophet because he was active in showing people the importance of taking care of people who had nothing or were outcasts.
Same with the intense discipline of Buddha and the Dalai lama.
They aren't renowned for their "self love".

I was referencing cause and effect. You can love yourself and cause chaos in the life of someone else and even your own. Everything you do has an effect. A lot of people seem unable to take responsibility for what they put out. Bad luck, good luck , karma, etc... All ways we describe it, but it is a lot simpler than that.
Living your life requires a skill set beyond just the ability to love yourself.
I think that is why people are so f*cking selfish. Causing a ripple and doing good things is an activity , not just a feeling of self worth. Being the man you want to date isn't going to land you a man or create a fulfilling relationship. Being in a relationship shows you who you really are. You can blame someone else for all of your bullshit or you can be conscious of what you are putting out there.

If you don't have self love, do you find it in a book? On Oprah? of course not. All you have to do is go out and do something good for someone who needs you. That will show you what you are worth. This idea that we are born as unique as a snowflake has created a lot of selfish , lost people who will invest little more than 19.95 at Barnes and Noble to find out how they can find love.
It is such a joke.

Pc, I swear I'm not stalking you(I just emailed him), but I gotta say I wish more people thought like you.

i agree with that completely- self love never accomplished anything meaningful in and of itself- but one has to remember that the heart chakra is set ABOVE manipura- one simply can't love others in the deep and unconditional and selfless way that is needed in the world without FIRST having a firm foundation of self confidence, acceptance, and love. so may people today are plagued with insecurities and self-doubts, even self-loathing that is in large part a product of our society/culture, and in equally large part, a piece of the human experience/condition. don't you think that the time spent by any of the spiritual masters you list on the development of the understanding and deep acceptance of the divinity within themselves BEFORE they returned to the world of men isn't as much a part of their model for success as what they pursued AFTER finding balance in themselves? Jesus in the wilderness, Buddha in the forest, Muhammad in the cave, Moses in the desert- they all needed time to find themselves, rise above their demons, and build that foundation before they could begin to externalize that love and project it outwards. i don't mean the self love of the therapy books in barns and noble here, i mean a deeper, metaphysical and mystical understanding of what and who you are is needed before you can abandon that addiction to 'self' and live for others. THAT's when the goodness comes full circle back to your self; that is, only after you relinquish your need for it.

Of course. If you can't empathize with the object of your goodwill and know what it feels like or the salvation found within it, you would never understand it's importance.

Too many people believe that loving yourself is the goal. It really is just the starting point .

I think loving yourself is something that falls into trusting yourself and being yourself. (those words are a series of a tattoo I want to get).

There is a victim mentality a lot of people have. this is usually followed by a sense of entitlement. This evolves into a pass the buck mentality and then spirals downward. There are many things that you can not change or have no control of in life. They can be the cause of initial problems. But like a fire, this out side source is only the spark that causes a flame, which can be fueled or extinguished. That is where our own power comes.

I agree with Pierre, but also have to be a voice of dissent; as there are forces that prevent us from seeing the positive and acting on our own behalf. Depression, addiction, low self esteem, denial, emotional stress, illness.... these are all strong forces that can interfere with loving yourself. Often you know something is not right in the universe and you seek an understanding to learn why this is. I think that the point of being able to share your fears, concerns and complaints are part of the growing process. I think its a little hard-edged to take a stop whining approach.

Often people need an impetus to seek a journey that will get them closer to loving, trusting and being oneself. I recently ended a 9 year relationship to do just that. Up til recently I sought out millions of ways to feel better, find answers and love myself. I gave up sharing my life with the the love of my life in order to take one step towards finding myself. A self that had been damaged from alcoholic family situation, years of sexual abuse, warped self image, etc. I am only at the beginning of this journey, never realizing all of the obstacles that were facing me. Here I thought I was in control and the universe was against me.

My point is this...

You do need to take responsibility for your life. HOWEVER, you must accept and work through the things that you can't control; be willing to take the risks that it takes to get you to a place you can start to embark on a journey to love yourself; and take the time to fail, seek help and hurt. Being selfish is a good thing. Being selfish at the cost of others is not. Life is about cause and effect. You just need to figure out where you can be the cause and map to the effect.

I agree as adults we do need to take responsibility for our lives. Unfortnately some people's life experiences when they are younger do not prepare them for the role of adult. Furthermore, terrible things do happen to some people that they have no control over. Each of us has to be honest about who we are and have been, and make changes to improve our lot in life.

What puzzles me though are those people who think that everything good that happens to them is somehow due to their actions, and nothing to do with the good fortune they may have been blessed with.

I personally feel I am luckier than the vast majority of men on this planet. I was born into an upper middle-class family in a well-off society (Canada), and I am white (unfortunately that is still important). I have had some challenges in life but compared to my peers in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Tajikstan or Myanamar I am doing very well thank you.

Our views are completely divergent.
Everything that happens to you is a result of someone's actions.
Your birth in Canada to white parents is a result of two people having sex, not luck or blessings .
Spiritual enlightenment has nothing do with luck or your lot in life. Cause and effect has nothing to do with being blessed. Your chances of finding happiness(aside from education and exposure) are just as likely if you are rich as if you are poor.
There is a reason priests take a vow of poverty.
THings are distracting. Look at any prophet and you will realize they had nothing and designed things that way.

I would not look at someone with a pile of belongings and think that they are more blessed or luckier than someone who has nothing. Every life has burden and sadness just as every life has happiness and joy. It is assumptive to believe that just because you are white and middle class, that your understanding of "blessings and happiness" is more keen.

One persons meal is another persons bentley. It is all relative.

Hmmmm, I agree that having possessions or being well-off does not guarantee you happiness. I am puzzled though why you assumed that was the reason why I thought I was lucky. I am lucky because I have a roof over my head, enough food to eat and I have access to drugs that keep my HIV at bay. If I lived in many countries in the world I would be dead by now. I think if you asked the average 47 year old male in Zimbabwe whether they would rather be somewhere else, they would likely say yes.

I agree that many things in life are a direct result of other's actions. However, a good number are a result of my actions or inactions. I chose what courses to take in university, I chose to study at 5 in the morning in order to get a higher mark, etc..

As for spiritual enlightenment, well let us say I will leave that to others with different personalities and interests.

Wysiwyg60 saidHmmmm, I agree that having possessions or being well-off does not guarantee you happiness. I am puzzled though why you assumed that was the reason why I thought I was lucky. I am lucky because I have a roof over my head, enough food to eat and I have access to drugs that keep my HIV at bay.

You have just said you are puzzled why I assumed you considered yourself lucky because of possessions and things... then proceeded to make a list of Things that make you lucky...

A roof, food, drugs... are all things. True happiness does not come from things. Otherwise most people in the third world would be unable to find joy and love and most Americans and Canadians would be euphoric.

I think the whole "at least I am better off than this person" is a game we have all played. I am not sure what good comes from that. Should it takes someone else's suffering or lack of material things to make us realize you are blessed and happy or even worse, Lucky?

Pierrecardot. I think I can sum up everything you said in one word:

Empathy

The world needs more!

Because that's usually how I separate the good people from the bad people. Heh. Almost all the folks I don't like are those who are oblivious to the emotions of other people around them.

The stuck up snobs, the bullies, the manipulative calculating liars, the traitorous cowards, the rude people, etc.

I don't know if it's even a kind of sixth sense or something and I hope other people are like this too, but for me it comes naturally. It's so bad that I can't stand the sight of open wounds on other people because I can feel it myself. LOL. Or other people sad or angry because it makes me sad or angry too. I think first of how it would be like to be in the other person's shoes before I begin to judge, for example.

e.g. I do not see a whore, I see a woman pushed to those circumstances. I do not see a thief, I see a young man driven to steal by hunger. Etc.

And I can tell very easily the mood another person is in. I just wish other people did the same for me.

I'm certainly not a saint, but I try to make other people happy the best way I can. Even if that means I get to be treated like a doormat sometimes. Heh. Or a clown. I don't mind.

Love isn't the best emotion there is, since Love is basically just the counterbalance to Hatred, and more often than not they come hand in hand. Whenever you love, hate is not far behind. Not saying that Love isn't a good thing, but it's an emotion of passion and yearning, not contentment.

It makes more sense to just care for everybody else around you, that's the road to happiness. And it would make a far better world certainly.

If those Nazi sadists for example could actually feel what they are inflicting on their victims, I doubt the holocaust would have happened.

P.S. I didn't sound like I was pimping myself, was I? LOL Coz I wasn't.

Woot for Pierre.

(Can you "woot" a philosopher? Discuss.)


And Sed, for the first time, I'm going to disagree with you slightly (don't hit me!). While I agree with everything you say on the importance of empathy, I think the one word summary of Mr. Cadot's posts is more "Responsibility" than "Empathy." But I like empathy, and I think you do too. So please empathize with my need to deemphasize your empathy.

Empathetically,

K

iguanaSF saidWoot for Pierre.

(Can you "woot" a philosopher? Discuss.)


And Sed, for the first time, I'm going to disagree with you slightly (don't hit me!). While I agree with everything you say on the importance of empathy, I think the one word summary of Mr. Cadot's posts is more "Responsibility" than "Empathy." But I like empathy, and I think you do to. So please empathize with my need to deemphasize your empathy.

Empathetically,

K

*hits IguanaSF hard and drags the body behind the bushes*

I focused on the self-love argument. Hehe My bad

I think that this is a complex issue. My response may work for me or not. It also may not be appropriate for someone else.
Everything that's happened to me is a result of 3 things,
1. The actions I took whether conscious or unconscious.
2. The actions of others.
3. Environmental events.

While I agree with Pierrecadot's statement, it is one aspect of the whole. People have a tendency to attribute things in their lives to one overriding 'thing.' What that 'thing' is varies depending on the individual. People rarely see the complexity of interactions that bring about any event. They choose to simplify it in order to make it more palatable or comprehendible.

My approach is to determine the 'how.' as Pierrecadot has pointed out. I never assume that I am without responsibility. However, I've found it's really important to have a good solid set of reliable friends who can read me the riot act when appropriate. When 10 of my diverse group of friend's think one thing and I think something else, there's a real good chance I'm wrong and that's more often than not, the best course of action. Since I'm intensely involved in my own life, the decisions I make during difficult times may not be the best. Being emotionally heated will often instigate a primal response when a cool headed response is needed. Therefor, I use my friends as a sounding board. Simply blaming someone else for my bad situation is a good way to guarantee that I'll repeat the actions on my part that got me there to begin with. I used to blame myself for certain things in my life and blame others for other things in my life. Getting an outside perspective has started to steer me in the right direction. It's a learning process and not a 'one issue' problem.
So far, so good.

I'm a whore.

Matter of fact, i flickered though -
Pierre, very good start, my congrats!
but then - slow stretch..(

Frankly, I thought these 80-90s ideas are nearly obsolete and gone nowadays, I'd call them pr_ideas - world without shadows/chaos blahblah, but that's just impossible.

Btw, it's from Eternal values - you might say - but no,
face it, Eternity doesn't include in itself any of human emotions. (One Steinbeck's novel put it very good).

Why do so many people take responsibility for everything good that happens to them, but claim zero culpability for the bad?

Could it be that not everyone has come to accept the idea that we create our reality?

It certainly isn't the prevailing mindset in society, nor among the unspoken messages coming over the airwaves.

I think you may be expecting a bit too much from people.

CarlosGringo saidWhy do so many people take responsibility for everything good that happens to them, but claim zero culpability for the bad?

Could it be that not everyone has come to accept the idea that we create our reality?

It certainly isn't the prevailing mindset in society, nor among the unspoken messages coming over the airwaves.

I think you may be expecting a bit too much from people.

Yeah, you're right - this point's all about Mindset level

Causality, the principles of high dependence on initial state, and unpredictability in complex systems favor your statement that we all sit in a big river of events.

That does not mean that you get to pick the cause(s) that you like and the effect(s) that suits your argument(s).

"Everything that happens to you is a result of someone's actions". - Sorry but that is neither true nor empirically provable. If the statement is modified to say that every effect has a cause (however hidden and indiscernible it may be) then the argument is valid.

"There is a reason priests take a vow of poverty." - Doubtless there is a reason that priests take a vow of poverty (though few live in conditions of actual poverty), but I fail to see what that has to do with anything?

If you are railing against the kind of magical thinking that ascribes rather precise causes to seemingly random effects then, within that argument, concepts like rich or poor, happy or sad, victim or persecutor are entirely neutral morally. There is no moral architecture to causality.

Likewise whatever cause has the effect of inducing magical thinking - i.e. the belief that doing good things has a certain "karmic" return on investment, is merely another feature in a long chain of causality that is equally neutral and equally harmless. Furthermore, those conclusions, however illogical you may deem them to be, might just be inevitable effects of an unseen cause.

There are no definitions for many of the concepts you describe "spiritual enlightenment", "luck", "lot in life", "happiness (aside from education and exposure)", etc. are all strung together without any kind of clear intent, definition, or scheme.

For example, do you subscribe to a moral system that somehow accepts causality and chaos, but as a corollary ascribes a higher value to education and exposure than to luck and wealth?

If that is the case then I would say that causality probably doesn't really care about your system of moral values.

While complex systems are both unpredictable and highly dependent on initial states they are, none-the-less, systems. As such it is no more or less plausible to argue that a specific cause will provoke a specific effect than it is plausible to argue that the same specific cause will not provoke the specific consequence expected.

This notwithstanding, under ordinary circumstances most machines (including human machines) tend to respond in fairly predictable ways to fairly predictable causes.

It is in the spiral of precision (example the Lorenz Attractor) that things become very complicated and unpredictable.

It is possible that a person can be entirely responsible for the good things that happen to them and have zero culpability for the bad. While I would agree with you that this particular eddy in the river of causality is unlikely, it is hardly impossible.

Responsible people (whatever that means by your definition) are just as likely to cause Mr.-McGoo-like unintended consequences as irresponsible people when the systems to which you refer extend to broad social systems (losing their relative predictability as they scale up in complexity).

This is a long way to say that your argument, seemingly in favor of responsible behavior and against irrational magical thinking, sounds good on paper but is just as untenable as the one that says that Louise Hay has all of the answers. Both ideas are factually and morally neutral (and totally unprovable).

Just one last thing. When speaking about discipline I don't put the Dalai Lama (at least not this one) in the same league as Lord Buddha or Jesus Christ. Frankly, I don't see Mary Magdalene and Richard Gere on the same plane of seriousness either.

My feeling (coming from my own moral system which I am guessing is rather different than yours) is that this incarnation of the Dalai Lama is a narcissistic celebrity who in one way or another will bear a large responsibility for the absolute destruction of the people he is meant to spiritually lead.

While it is impossible to predict causality in large and complex systems, it is quite possible to predict what will happen when you poke a stick in the eye of Communist China. That is a cause-and-effect equation that sits within a limited range of outcomes, and with a rather more precise moral weight.

Peace or Not (what's the difference)
Terry

Pierrecadot saidOur views are completely divergent.
Everything that happens to you is a result of someone's actions.
Your birth in Canada to white parents is a result of two people having sex, not luck or blessings .
Spiritual enlightenment has nothing do with luck or your lot in life. Cause and effect has nothing to do with being blessed. Your chances of finding happiness(aside from education and exposure) are just as likely if you are rich as if you are poor.
There is a reason priests take a vow of poverty.
THings are distracting. Look at any prophet and you will realize they had nothing and designed things that way.

I would not look at someone with a pile of belongings and think that they are more blessed or luckier than someone who has nothing. Every life has burden and sadness just as every life has happiness and joy. It is assumptive to believe that just because you are white and middle class, that your understanding of "blessings and happiness" is more keen.

One persons meal is another persons bentley. It is all relative.

Very interesting points Terry. Always amazes me to see this kind of discussion on a site called realjock.com.

I'll quibble with one thing tho -- it sounds pretty clear that you're implying that the Dalai Lama is "poking a stick" in the eye of China. I'm wondering if you can give some references or backup to that claim? I don't think I'd take issue with your predictions of China's response to said stick poking, but I'm leery on your implication that the Dalai Lama is doing it.

From what I can tell, that man has been trying for a decade or two just to talk with China -- which, by the way, he recently succeeded at. As for stick-poking, there are LOTs of other people, governments, and organizations within and outside China that are much more explicit about their Chinese stick poking, including many Tibetans who are against the Dalai Lama for the very reason that he has NOT ascribed to enough stick poking, in their view.

Oops -- I think this is way off topic We should probably start another thread to discussion to any China-specific issues.

K

Not wanting to totally derail the topic, I will admit that I brought a situation into the discussion which I find disturbing - if only in reply to the original poster of the thread.

I don't believe that Tibetan monks are a spontaneous lot. I have been to Lhasa (and I have the impression you have too from previous discussions??). Anyway, I don't think that much can be done to "incite" monks to do whatever it is that the Chinese claim they are doing.

My thought is that the belief system is sufficiently strong that death is not any question of fear and the only axis on the spiritual compass that bears points to the living incarnation of Lord Buddha.

How could it be that this "uprising" (if that is indeed what it is - because I surely don't believe the Chinese) is anything other than directed to some purpose from Dharmsala?

Delhi are apparently so worried that they are seriously toying with the idea of asking His Holiness to leave the country.

If indeed His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama is the living incarnation of Lord Buddha then who am I to question his wisdom? Perhaps His Holiness sees a bigger picture. I have no doubt that he does.

The only picture that I see frightens me (because surely I am not so enlightened as to live without fear).

What I expect to happen is that Beijing will do whatever is necessary to save face until the Olympics are over. When the games conclude and the protests die down then they will go into Tibet in massive force and obliterate what they might have characterized as their signs of "tolerance" that have stood since 1959.

My fear is that what remains of the world's most splendid, beautiful, and subtle culture will be scattered to the winds like a Mandala of sand.

My prediction is Spring of 2009.

That may be divinely perfect, inevitable, in synchrony, and whatever else. However, it still makes me sad to imagine.

Geopolitically it is more frightening as no one will lift a finger to stop it from happening.

To your specific question, I think the inspiration comes from Dharmsala and His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. His motives are his, and I do not understand them. From there I am only left with conspiracy theory that say that the Chinese are flat making this up (and staging it all for Western media as an excuse for what they intend to do anyway). However, this doesn't seem to fit Chinese character. So, yeah, I think His Holiness is responsible.

Terry

iguanaSF saidVery interesting points Terry. Always amazes me to see this kind of discussion on a site called realjock.com.

I'll quibble with one thing tho -- it sounds pretty clear that you're implying that the Dalai Lama is "poking a stick" in the eye of China. I'm wondering if you can give some references or backup to that claim? I don't think I'd take issue with your predictions of China's response to said stick poking, but I'm leery on your implication that the Dalai Lama is doing it.

From what I can tell, that man has been trying for a decade or two just to talk with China -- which, by the way, he recently succeeded at. As for stick-poking, there are LOTs of other people, governments, and organizations within and outside China that are much more explicit about their Chinese stick poking, including many Tibetans who are against the Dalai Lama for the very reason that he has NOT ascribed to enough stick poking, in their view.

Oops -- I think this is way off topic We should probably start another thread to discussion to any China-specific issues.

K

OK, Terry it's good that you're being honest in admitting you have no basis for your claim of the Dalai Lama orchestrating Tibetan uprisings other than a conspiracy theory (and what seems like some sort of large chip-like object on your shoulder). I think that sort of argument is actually quite comfortable on the Internet.

I'm guessing I can also attribute your theory that the Chinese Communist Party (i.e. Government), which controls the press, TV, the Internet, elections, the legal system, the economy, all large companies, and most everything else, could never "flat make something up" because it "doesn't fit the Chinese character" to conspiracy theories as well?

Love ya

Pierrecadot, your judging people..

You've obviously spent a great deal of time thinking about this.. you've obviously seen some things you don't like in society.. you've obviously seen the way through.. so why are you here bitching about it and not living in this perfection you have found?

We are as a civilisation very young, we are still very selfish, we are still very self consuming, we are still very blind to our own world, we still hurt each other, we still kill each other, we still don't care for each other, we make mistakes, we fuck up, we aren't perfect.

Let people live, this generation may not be perfect and the next one wont be either, nor the next or many after that, but as a whole, we are slowly but surely moving on and growing up and one day, we may reach it.

Speaking of Chaos, they're remaking "Get Smart" in a movie.

Wall of Text critically hits Buckwheet for 10,000!
Buckwheet needs food badly!
Buckwheet has died!

Okies.. yarr. Well, I know for a fact that all whining, while technically whining, isn't just whining.

If someone says 'why are all the good ones taken', it's easy to reach for our shelf of catagorized assumptions and judgements(everyone judges, and it isn't necessarily bad) and pick an item. 'He's whining', 'He justs wants a little moral support', 'He's jealous'.

My take on it is that people are wholly more complicated then anyone will give them credit for. We all know that 'Me' is a bottomless pit of contraditing motives, values, beliefs, attitudes, desires, needs and most deeply guarded wishes and secrets. People are too damn complicated.

I don't think we can ever 100%, completely and utterly Know someone. And we know that too, but we don't admit it; we don't want to, because we fear what we can't understand. So, we don't admit we can't fully know them, so we just grab an item off our shelf and slap it on their forehead. And it's always something Less.

When 'I' do it I need to do it. When I do it there are a thousand moral, political, physical and spiritual motives that lend themselves to this moment of my action. He's doing it because he is lazy/whiny/needy/jealous/blahblah.

Do I think the world is critically lacking in personal responsibilty? Yes. Do I think we need less bitching and more 'go get 'em'? Absofuckinglutely. I also beleive that grabbing a few lines off of relatively anonymous website and slapping a diagnosis on humanity is completely foolish! It's foolish because it assumes you can condense all the motives of a person into a one liner. It just doesn't work that way.

I understand you needed to vent(by your last sentence); everyone needs to vent, and that is their right and your's, but some people vent by saying 'why are all the good ones taken'. Some say that to whine; some for support, some to make a statement, some to ask, some to... Well, you get the idea.


Now, does the neat little ribbon that says 'Some dude venting' encompass the totality of motives and reasons for Pierre posting this? Fat chance.

Oh yeah, love thyself bit:

I figure it means you can't look for self-worth in someone else's eyes. If you do, you won't find it, and you'll place a burden on the person you are searching through.
And when you don't find it, the shit hits the fan.

I ponder on this a lot. Especially applied to how our country is being run, and who has the balls to take responsibility for thier own actions no matter what. A lot of people think it's a matter of 'playing it smart' and feel that if someone else would do it, like say jump off a cliff, they should. But in my opinion I think that people are full of sh** when it comes to owning up to their mistakes and for that they never learn, and it makes me pity them.

I've got a lot more on this issue, but I don't want to bore anyone or post something that will just get scrolled by and ignored when people look for thier friends posts on the board.

But your all welcome to mount my high horse and see terrain from up here when you feel up to it...

Interesting thread. A few randomn comments:

The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is an incarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion, not a direct reincarnation of Gautama Buddha.

Your argument is interesting, Terry, although it's certainly not in accord with my understanding of the Dalai Lama's teaching. I've heard him speak numerous times here in Atlanta, in SF and, more intimately, at Tibet House in New York. As the Iguana said, he's made many Tibetans angry that he is not more aggressive or supportive of complete separation from China.

PierreCadotTHis is sort of my point. Loving yourself is a self help sort of slogan popularized in the 70's and 80's to sell books and get people to pay for workshops. Has society made any great strides because of this relatively recent realization?
Love can actually make you do bad things to innocent people.

Amen. In my work with clients, I find myself constantly confronting the pop-psychology bromide that you have to love yourself before you can love others. I always ask my clients how one goes about doing that. They always tell me, that's why they've come to see me. And I always tell them I have no idea how one would manufacture "self-love" without the engagement of another person. The therapeutic relationship itself is about that.

That is in fact one of the lessons of the bodhisattva of compassion -- we liberate ourselves by doing good for others, not by merely expressing empathy, but by acting to relieve the suffering of others. You can't do that without entering into relationship with others.

Isn't the hell of existence that, even though we are not to blame for everything that happens to us, we must take responsibility for it, anyway? Much of life is beyond our control. A cyclone kills 22,000 people; cancer turns up in our body; love shows up and demands that we throw our brains out the window. We don't cause these things, but we must behave as though we did.

Gee, that is an extravagantly bitchy set of comments in risposte to what seemed to me to a civilized reply.

I didn't "admit" anything beyond that I had said something I thought might be slightly off topic.

I think you are putting words in my mouth.

If I have a chip on my shoulders (in this case it is maybe a bit of 100% dark chocalate (sugar free) that I bought at a monastery last weekend) it just boils down to a suspicion about motives.

If not accepting everything the Chinese say or that the Dalai says makes me a conspiracy theorist then that is something I am happy to be.

What I suggested did not seem to fit the Chinese character was to provoke an international incident during what is meant to be a celebration of national pride (the Olympics). I don't think the Chinese government did that. I don't think it is in character.

At the same time I repeatedly said that I don't believe the Chinese version of events, at least what I have read.

Love you too.
Terry

iguanaSF saidOK, Terry it's good that you're being honest in admitting you have no basis for your claim of the Dalai Lama orchestrating Tibetan uprisings other than a conspiracy theory (and what seems like some sort of large chip-like object on your shoulder). I think that sort of argument is actually quite comfortable on the Internet.

I'm guessing I can also attribute your theory that the Chinese Communist Party (i.e. Government), which controls the press, TV, the Internet, elections, the legal system, the economy, all large companies, and most everything else, could never "flat make something up" because it "doesn't fit the Chinese character" to conspiracy theories as well?

Love ya

Well, actually, the nature of the Bodhisattva is a subject of debate within all sects of Buddhism, including Tibetan. Lord Bhudda did refer to himself as a Bodhisattva (or rather having been a Bodhisattva) in the Sutta Pitaka.

While I am certainly not ignorant of Tibetan Buddhism, or the Dalai Lama, I am neither a religious scholar nor an expert of Tibetan Buddhism.

I too have seen the Dalai Lama speak many times, have visited Tibet, have visited Dharmsala, and have read His Holiness's teachings.

Personally, I cannot squelch a doubt that what has happened in the Dalai Lama's spiritual journey and advocacy of his people has not been entirely positive. However, I did try (in as respectful a way as I know how) to say that it is clear to me that the Dalai Lama is an enlightened being, and I am not. Therefore, his motives surely must be beyond my simple understanding.

In any case, I credit it to be more than abundantly clear that my intention in referring to His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of Lord Buddha was not intended as a slice and dice of orders of enlightenment (Lord Buddha - before or after his enlightenment) but rather as a written form of respect for an important spiritual leader and world figure.

It personally upsets me when, for example, President Bush is referred to as Mr. Bush - I don't agree with how President Bush takes a piss in the morning, but he is still the President of the United States.

You all may well be right that the Dalai Lama is not the instigator of this current crisis. Someone is. I don't think it is China.

I do believe this is all going to have terrible consequences, and it is my remorse at those consequences and anger at whomever is responsible that I wished to express.

Again, that has nothing to do with Chaos (or maybe it does).

Neither does it have to do with my being called a looney conspiracy theorist (not by you), but then again maybe it does.

I never spoke to the "first, love yourself" argument that Pierre Cadot posted (speaking against) because I suppose I got caught up in the inconsistencies of his semiotic argument.

To the extent that self love may be an expression of love for the infinite and an expression of oneness with divinity, then I suppose it might be possible to carry forward the argument that no specific action is required to obtain it. Actually, physically, atomically, mechanically, it is very likely impossible to be anything other than, at one with the mechanics of the infinite. It probably doesn't matter what anyone believes or doesn't believe.

However, even if that is true it only says that self love can come before engagement but not that it must (either should be equally consistent with the infinite).

On a practical level, I totally agree that engagement and action are the precursors to all good. I said that before, in a different way: that a Chaotic system, is still a system, and its parts (causes and effects), however resistant to observation they may be, still exist in relation to each other.

The active pursuit of compassion (something at which I have consistently failed, but have never stopped trying) started for me with working with food kitchens for AIDS patients in the 80's and has never stopped.

I realized that motion and interaction were the only balms that would salve my wounds and depression, and that all of the pop psychology and self-love (self indulgence) in the world wouldn't put food on the table of someone who had no health insurance, no money, and no energy to get out the front door.

My reasons for doing that work were ultimately selfish. I was looking to help myself by helping others, to lift myself up by hauling food around in my Ford Ranger pickup truck.

I love that I did that, that I was able to do that, and that it worked to help someone, and that it helped me. To be certain, I benefitted more than anyone else (literally all of my clients were near death and ultimately died).

These days I try very hard to spend half of my time on charitable work and the other have attempting to support my family. This is selfish too.

My only path to enlightenment is through engagement, my only path to salvation is through work, and my only way to buy chocolat made by Cistercian Monks, is by selling consulting services.

Leaving Eastern philosophy and coming to Christian, I always remember what my mother told me (in her own peculiar Texan way). She said that "Saint Paul had his vision on the road to Damascus, he wasn't sitting on his butt in Jerusalem watching TV". I do believe that.

Wanna love yourself, then find someone to love and someone to help; do something, engage somehow, move, and keep moving.

Few of us will ever be so compassionate that we choose not to go on to the final enlightenment but, rather, to stay behind and help others (and there is the entire metaphor of the Christ - by the way).

Energy is kinetic or potential. I am happiest when kinetic. I don't love my potential.

Terry

obscenewish saidInteresting thread. A few randomn comments:

The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is an incarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion, not a direct reincarnation of Gautama Buddha.

Your argument is interesting, Terry, although it's certainly not in accord with my understanding of the Dalai Lama's teaching. I've heard him speak numerous times here in Atlanta, in SF and, more intimately, at Tibet House in New York. As the Iguana said, he's made many Tibetans angry that he is not more aggressive or supportive of complete separation from China.

PierreCadot, THis is sort of my point. Loving yourself is a self help sort of slogan popularized in the 70's and 80's to sell books and get people to pay for workshops. Has society made any great strides because of this relatively recent realization?
Love can actually make you do bad things to innocent people.

Amen. In my work with clients, I find myself constantly confronting the pop-psychology bromide that you have to love yourself before you can love others. I always ask my clients how one goes about doing that. They always tell me, that's why they've come to see me. And I always tell them I have no idea how one would manufacture "self-love" without the engagement of another person. The therapeutic relationship itself is about that.

That is in fact one of the lessons of the bodhisattva of compassion -- we liberate ourselves by doing good for others, not by merely expressing empathy, but by acting to relieve the suffering of others. You can't do that without entering into relationship with others.

Isn't the hell of existence that, even though we are not to blame for everything that happens to us, we must take responsibility for it, anyway? Much of life is beyond our control. A cyclone kills 22,000 people; cancer turns up in our body; love shows up and demands that we throw our brains out the window. We don't cause these things, but we must behave as though we did.

obscenewish saidAmen. In my work with clients, I find myself constantly confronting the pop-psychology bromide that you have to love yourself before you can love others. I always ask my clients how one goes about doing that. They always tell me, that's why they've come to see me. And I always tell them I have no idea how one would manufacture "self-love" without the engagement of another person. The therapeutic relationship itself is about that.

hmm, when I say "you need to love your self first" I mean it to say, that you can look at your self, as a whole, with your good points and bad points and still feel your a good person, that is worthwhile and happy?

Which in its own way, isn't that love? Don't you look at your partner not as many small parts but as a whole with both there good points and there flaws and still find reasons to feel "love" toward them?

I feel that if I can't look at my self and think I'm a good, worthwhile person, how can I possibly look at someone else and think they are? AND if I don't feel that for my self, how could anyone ever look at me like that?
No, I need to find love for my self first before I can find it for anyone else and I could never rely on someone else to make me feel worthwhile and good.

Even tho this thread has gotten over my head, I do love trying to understand it. And boywunder, if your posts are interesting, we'll read em, no matter the height of your horse, so don't be shy.

Terry, we're cut from very different cloths, but I always enjoy your deeply thought out posts, and I do really love ya. Honestly I thought I was only being fabulously bitchy, not extravagantly bitchy. But now that you mention it, I kinda look good in extravagantly bitchy, ya think?

*admires self in mirror, one hand on severely slanted hip, the other holding head tilted just so*

Actually I think we both agree the violence in Tibet isn't the making of the Chinese government; Occam's razor suggests to me that the Tibetans themselves, actually experiencing the active and relentless suppression and meticulously planned destruction of their culture under Chinese rule might have just a wee bit of motivation to rise up themselves, His Holiness and the Chinese Communist Party notwithstanding.

But that's still off topic. My problem is the OP's topic has gotten too deep for me to engage in anymore, so I've become that annoying guy who seems to participate, but actually isn't.

*steps quietly backwards*

I think you look best in a D&G bikini, or nothing at all, and in the end you look good in anything.

T

iguanaSF saidEven tho this thread has gotten over my head, I do love trying to understand it. And boywunder, if your posts are interesting, we'll read em, no matter the height of your horse, so don't be shy.

Terry, we're cut from very different cloths, but I always enjoy your deeply thought out posts, and I do really love ya. Honestly I thought I was only being fabulously bitchy, not extravagantly bitchy. But now that you mention it, I kinda look good in extravagantly bitchy, ya think?

*admires self in mirror, one hand on severely slanted hip, the other holding head tilted just so*

Actually I think we both agree the violence in Tibet isn't the making of the Chinese government; Occam's razor suggests to me that the Tibetans themselves, actually experiencing the active and relentless suppression and meticulously planned destruction of their culture under Chinese rule might have just a wee bit of motivation to rise up themselves, His Holiness and the Chinese Communist Party notwithstanding.

But that's still off topic. My problem is the OP's topic has gotten too deep for me to engage in anymore, so I've become that annoying guy who seems to participate, but actually isn't.

*steps quietly backwards*

Tankerhmm, when I say "you need to love your self first" I mean it to say, that you can look at your self, as a whole, with your good points and bad points and still feel your a good person, that is worthwhile and happy?

Which in its own way, isn't that love? Don't you look at your partner not as many small parts but as a whole with both there good points and there flaws and still find reasons to feel "love" toward them?

I feel that if I can't look at my self and think I'm a good, worthwhile person, how can I possibly look at someone else and think they are? AND if I don't feel that for my self, how could anyone ever look at me like that?
No, I need to find love for my self first before I can find it for anyone else and I could never rely on someone else to make me feel worthwhile and good.

If this approach works for you, of course, have at it.

In my own experience, we learn to love by engaging with others. I don't know anyone who loves perfectly, so I tend to stress the process, not a state of being.

It is certainly possible to be loved by someone even though you may not "love yourself." Theoretically, we develop positive self-regard by introjecting the love of the parent -- long before we are able to think about the nature of love. If that process is disrupted in a serious way, we have to learn to love elsewhere. I truly do not understand how you would learn to love yourself without engagement with someone else.

This isn't about dependency on another. It's about open-hearted engagement.

Nor do I understand the use of ascribing a selfish motivation to acts of love. This is usually a retrospective interpretation of what was received in loving another. It also seems like another expression of comodification, by which love becomes a measure of productivity in capitalist terms. You don't get love until you work for it; the more you perfect your product (yourself), the more lovable you'll be, etc. It's really important to think about the kind of person you're likely to attract coming at things from that point of view.

Terry: In most of the texts in which Gautama Buddha refers to himself as a bodhisattva, he is not referring to a specific being, but to a prerequisite to enlightenment. We all contain bodhisattva nature; we can all manifest Buddha nature.

However, the Dalai Lama is the specific reincarnation of Avalokitesvara (or Kuan Yin or several other names -- don't recall the specific Vajrayana name).

I have no idea if the Dalai Lama had a hand in the China protests. I'm simply saying that if he did, it's a departure from his political history, ideologically and behaviorally, and one that many Tibetans would approve. Perhaps something has happened that I'm not aware of.

Yada Yada Yada.

That does not change the fact.

I'm a whore.

BEFORE I ATTEMPT THIS, LET ME SAY A COUPLE THINGS. ONE I ONLY USE CAPS DO DENOTE MY RESPONSE AND TWO, THIS IS A CONVERSATIONTO HAVE WITH A BOTTLE OF WINE, NOT ONLINE IN THIS SORT OF FORUM. BUT HERE GOES. [quote][cite]ursamajor said[/cite]

That does not mean that you get to pick the cause(s) that you like and the effect(s) that suits your argument(s).

YOU RIGHT.. HOWEVER, EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO SETS A SERIES OF REACTIONS WITH CONSEQUENCES BOTH GOOD AND BAD. YOUR LIFE IS A REACTION. HOW YOU EXPERIENCE IT IS ONLY THROUGH PERCEPTION. YOU CHOOSE YOUR REALITY, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

"Everything that happens to you is a result of someone's actions". - Sorry but that is neither true nor empirically provable. If the statement is modified to say that every effect has a cause (however hidden and indiscernible it may be) then the argument is valid.

I MISPOKE, I DIDN'T MEAN TO SAY A RESULT OF SOMEONE ELSE. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE ACTIONS CREATED BEYOND WHAT PEOPLE DO. I WAS TYPING FAST AND GOT CAUGHT UP IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT BELONGINGS AND WYSIWYG'S COMMENTS ABOUT BLESSINGS.

"There is a reason priests take a vow of poverty." - Doubtless there is a reason that priests take a vow of poverty (though few live in conditions of actual poverty), but I fail to see what that has to do with anything?

I SAY THIS BECAUSE THINGS ARE DISTRACTING. I GREW UP AROUND PRIESTS AND NUNS WHO HAVE EXPLAINED THIS TO ME COUNTLESS TIMES. TO THEM, SERVICE IS SALVATION, NOT A NEW CAR OR BIG HOUSE. MOTHER THERESA EXEMPLIFIED THIS PERFECTLY. IF YOU DON'T HAVE 'THINGS' TO LOOK AFTER, IT IS EASIER TO FOCUS ON YOUR LIFE'S MEANING.
I WAS RESPONDING TO WYSIWYG'S ASSERTION THAT BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN CANADA TO UPPER MIDDLE CLASS WHITE PARENTS, THAT SOMEHOW HE WAS MORE BLESSED THAN SOMEONE WHO OWNED NOTHING. I DON'T BELIEVE THINGS MAKE YOU MORE OR LESS BLESSED.

If you are railing against the kind of magical thinking that ascribes rather precise causes to seemingly random effects then, within that argument, concepts like rich or poor, happy or sad, victim or persecutor are entirely neutral morally. There is no moral architecture to causality.

I DON'T THINK I SAID OTHERWISE, AS I AGREE.

Likewise whatever cause has the effect of inducing magical thinking - i.e. the belief that doing good things has a certain "karmic" return on investment, is merely another feature in a long chain of causality that is equally neutral and equally harmless.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN KARMA.

There are no definitions for many of the concepts you describe "spiritual enlightenment", "luck", "lot in life", "happiness (aside from education and exposure)", etc. are all strung together without any kind of clear intent, definition, or scheme.
AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE IN THESE THINGS. I WAS WRAPPED UP IN A RESPONSE THAT WAS CONTRARY TO MY OWN BELIEFS.


If that is the case then I would say that causality probably doesn't really care about your system of moral values.
OF COURSE IT DOESN'T. I AGREE.



It is possible that a person can be entirely responsible for the good things that happen to them and have zero culpability for the bad. While I would agree with you that this particular eddy in the river of causality is unlikely, it is hardly impossible.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOOD AND BAD PER SE, I JUST USED THOSE TERMS TO MAKE CLEAR MY POV. IT IS ALL A MATTER OF PERCEPTION WHAT A SITUATION IS. IT IS DIFFERENT FOR EVERYONE.
YOUR EGO WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE, WANT AND DO. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UNIVERSE AND IT'S WORKINGS. THIS IS MY CONTENTION IN THE FIRST POST. ASKING THE WRONG QUESTIONS JUST SERVES YOUR OWN CONFUSION AND FURTHERS YOUR ALIENATION FROM UNIVERSAL LAWS.
I AGREE, THE ENERGY OF THE UNIVERSE LACKS 'HUMAN" EMOTION AND INTENTION. LOVING YOURSELF HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CAUSE AND EFFECT OR THE MANIFESTATION OF "POSITIVE" ENERGY IN YOUR LIFE. SELF LOVE ONLY GIVES YOU A DIFFERENT LENSE TO LOOK THROUGH. THERE ARE MANY LENSES THAT ARE JUST AS USEFUL. YOU ARE JUST A TOOL IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FLOWER OR OTHER FORCE OF NATURE AND BE JUST A MOVED AS YOU MIGHT BE BY SOMEONE WHO "LOVES" THEMSELVES. ON THE OTHER HAND, SEEING SOMEONE WITH NO REGARD FOR THEIR LIFE CAN ALSO CAUSE YOU TO BETTER YOUR LIFE AND THE WORLD. (CAUSE AND EFFECT HAS ZERO SELF HELP BAGGAGE) HUMANITY IS JUST ENERGY, JUST AS THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE IS. REALIZING THE POSSIBILITIES OF YOUR ENERGY IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE PEACE WITH YOUR EXISTENCE. IT ISN'T THE BEGINNING OR ENDING TO ANYTHING. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOVE YOURSELF TO REALIZE POSSIBILITY. AWARENESS IS JUST AS PURPOSEFUL.

Pierrecadot said[quote][cite]Wysiwyg60 said[/cite]Hmmmm, I agree that having possessions or being well-off does not guarantee you happiness. I am puzzled though why you assumed that was the reason why I thought I was lucky. I am lucky because I have a roof over my head, enough food to eat and I have access to drugs that keep my HIV at bay.

You have just said you are puzzled why I assumed you considered yourself lucky because of possessions and things... then proceeded to make a list of Things that make you lucky...

A roof, food, drugs... are all things. True happiness does not come from things. Otherwise most people in the third world would be unable to find joy and love and most Americans and Canadians would be euphoric.

I think the whole "at least I am better off than this person" is a game we have all played. I am not sure what good comes from that. Should it takes someone else's suffering or lack of material things to make us realize you are blessed and happy or even worse, Lucky?

[/quote]

True happiness cannot happen if you are dead, that was the point I was trying to make and that is why I am lucky. People in Western cultures don't realize how difficult it is for people in the so-called developing world to survive.

When I talk about possessions and things I am referring to an expensive car, a large wardrobe, the latest technical gadgets, not the necessities of life like food, shelter, clean water.

Besides I don't think happiness is very important, living is. Happiness is only one of many emotions that we feel over a lifetime. Our culture's self-absorption with "happiness" can get very tiresome after awhile.

Buckwheet saidOh yeah, love thyself bit:

I figure it means you can't look for self-worth in someone else's eyes. If you do, you won't find it, and you'll place a burden on the person you are searching through.
And when you don't find it, the shit hits the fan.

I couldn't disagree more. This is situational, not universal. Insecurity has nothing to do with self love. People who love themselves can still be needy, emotional wrecks.
Just because I love myself, does not mean that i will always be the life of the party or a "catch" or a hero to someone in need. Self love is not a cure or a guarantee that you will find happiness or unlock your life's meaning. That is a lie told to you by your "ego" or a Marriane Williamson book.
In fact, I think being confronted by things that make you uncomfortable or that challenge your beliefs are just as likely to make you more compassionate as they are to make you more skeptical of human goodness. It all depends on your outlook.

Wysiwyg60 said[quote][

True happiness cannot happen if you are dead, that was the point I was trying to make and that is why I am lucky. People in Western cultures don't realize how difficult it is for people in the so-called developing world to survive.

When I talk about possessions and things I am referring to an expensive car, a large wardrobe, the latest technical gadgets, not the necessities of life like food, shelter, clean water.

Besides I don't think happiness is very important, living is. Happiness is only one of many emotions that we feel over a lifetime. Our culture's self-absorption with "happiness" can get very tiresome after awhile.

But you can inspire happiness and goodness by dying so I would contend it absolutely can and does exist without you. A lot of peoples lives change meaning after they are gone. Dying is often a favor to the living.
Survival is instinct and action. There is nothing lucky about it.

Why is living important to you if it is simply a matter of surviving?

Well I think would prefer inspiring happiness when I am alive, thanks anyways!

I am taking a very scientific and medical approach to life:

Step 1

Birth

Step 2

Live through childhood and develop skills to cope in society.

Step 3

Live life as an adult to the best of your abilities and hopefully be a contributing member to society.

I consider myself lucky that I can get to Step 3. Perhaps you should go to Africa and interview people dying of AIDS, including children and ask them how happy they are, and how much happiness their death will bring others.

I never said living is important to me simply as a matter of survival. But you first have to survive in order to thrive in life and experience what it has to offer.

One of the reasons so many psychiatrists and psychologists are kept busy (and wealthy) in this society is because people have this belief they must be "happy" all the time. Obviously being miserable all the time is not good, but it is silly to think we should be happy all the time as well.

zimatar saidI'm a whore.

NICE!!!

Wysiwyg60 saidWell I think would prefer inspiring happiness when I am alive, thanks anyways!

I am taking a very scientific and medical approach to life:

Step 1

Birth

Step 2

Live through childhood and develop skills to cope in society.

Step 3

Live life as an adult to the best of your abilities and hopefully be a contributing member to society.

I consider myself lucky that I can get to Step 3. Perhaps you should go to Africa and interview people dying of AIDS, including children and ask them how happy they are, and how much happiness their death will bring others.

I never said living is important to me simply as a matter of survival. But you first have to survive in order to thrive in life and experience what it has to offer.

One of the reasons so many psychiatrists and psychologists are kept busy (and wealthy) in this society is because people have this belief they must be "happy" all the time. Obviously being miserable all the time is not good, but it is silly to think we should be happy all the time as well.

Wow, we are different. You don't need to explain a commonly held view of life to me... I get it, I just don't subscribe to it. When people say that kids and adults with AIDs are the end all be all of misery, I sort of shut down. Have you seen one of those kids with a school book? or a uniform? or singing?
I actually find it extremely insulting that you bring Africans with AIDS up without having the slightest clue how I feel or where my life has taken me in regards to kids with HIV. Some experiences are my own and I don't owe you an explanation beyond the fact that I am baffled you would suggest such a thing to a stranger.
I know it has become the trump card in the whole "At least I have it better game" but it is cliche nonsense.
People are working their ass off everyday in Africa to cultivate and nourish the joy that is there.

sometimes I want to be a whore... I'm so jealous of you ZIm!!!!!

Pierrecadot said
I DON'T BELIEVE IN KARMA.

While you have come up with some interesting concepts and perceptions, this statement caught my eye in reference to the statement and overall.

Whether you believe in something, or you don't believe in something, it doesn't change the facts. I'm not saying Karma does or doesn't exist, but rather to state that you do or don't believe in an unproven theory makes you biased on everything you say following that statement. Fact plus theory never equals fact. It only does so when the theory is proven. It doesn't matter how many facts are used in the 'equation'. As long as there is one theory, then the result is a theory. (e.g. "Chariots of the Gods") Strength of belief in a theory doesn't make it fact. I won't even get into the issue of incomplete selection of facts.

As to the comments by Ursamajor, OW, iguanaSF, et al.: very thoughtful points and interesting reading.

Some very interesting reading.

And yet, clearly, some things are quite easily over-analyzed.

Go live, be a whore (as zimitar attests,) fall in and out of love, hurt and be hurt, cheeks and all.

(Sorry, I'm in one of my 'must go run and become energy elemental' moods.)

bgcat57 said[quote][cite]Pierrecadot said[/cite]
I DON'T BELIEVE IN KARMA.

While you have come up with some interesting concepts and perceptions, this statement caught my eye in reference to the statement and overall.

Whether you believe in something, or you don't believe in something, it doesn't change the facts. I'm not saying Karma does or doesn't exist, but rather to state that you do or don't believe in an unproven theory makes you biased on everything you say following that statement. Fact plus theory never equals fact. It only does so when the theory is proven. It doesn't matter how many facts are used in the 'equation'. As long as there is one theory, then the result is a theory. (e.g. "Chariots of the Gods") Strength of belief in a theory doesn't make it fact. I won't even get into the issue of incomplete selection of facts.

As to the comments by Ursamajor, OW, iguanaSF, et al.: very thoughtful points and interesting reading.
[/quote]

You are right.

Wow, we are different. You don't need to explain a commonly held view of life to me... I get it, I just don't subscribe to it. When people say that kids and adults with AIDs are the end all be all of misery, I sort of shut down. Have you seen one of those kids with a school book? or a uniform? or singing?
I actually find it extremely insulting that you bring Africans with AIDS up without having the slightest clue how I feel or where my life has taken me in regards to kids with HIV. Some experiences are my own and I don't owe you an explanation beyond the fact that I am baffled you would suggest such a thing to a stranger.
I know it has become the trump card in the whole "At least I have it better game" but it is cliche nonsense.
People are working their ass off everyday in Africa to cultivate and nourish the joy that is there.

Well first of all PierreCardot I certainly did not mean to insult you, but you must understand for someone who is HIV+ I do consider myself lucky that I live in a society that could provide me with drugs when I was sick and have kept alive and healthy for th e last 13 years. I am not going to pretend otherwise. Is that a cliche? Perhaps, but cliches exist for a reason, they are often truths that have been repeated once too often.

Have I seen African children who are HIV+ singing and enjoying life? Yes, afer they received anti-retroviral medication (partially thanks to your president).

Are we very different? Probably but then again I am quite different then most people on this website.

I honestly don't think the views I expound are very common unfortunately. I find people overly simplify life and its' complexities. If I may you started going down this road when you said "Life is little more than cause and effect." Well I wish things were that black and white in life, we would probably be able to solve a lot more problems.

Interesting topic regarding human behaviour and personal responsibility, albeit from a point of view that reflects American values (more emphasis on individual than community).

kinetic saidsometimes I want to be a whore... I'm so jealous of you ZIm!!!!!

You left your shirt at my house last night, Kinetic. I put it in the mailbox, so you can pick it up anytime.

If this approach works for you, of course, have at it.

In my own experience, we learn to love by engaging with others. I don't know anyone who loves perfectly, so I tend to stress the process, not a state of being.

It is certainly possible to be loved by someone even though you may not "love yourself." Theoretically, we develop positive self-regard by introjecting the love of the parent -- long before we are able to think about the nature of love. If that process is disrupted in a serious way, we have to learn to love elsewhere. I truly do not understand how you would learn to love yourself without engagement with someone else.

I agree, you can certainly be loved by someone when you don’t feel any for your self and perhaps I should have said more there, my intention was not that you “can not be loved at all” more that you “can not feel loved” when you do not feel anything for your self, so yes, someone can love you, but, before you can feel loved you have to have something for your self.

I also agree that we develop a “positive self-regard” from the parents love towards us as children, however as children we are unburdened with feelings of doubt, self worth and society has yet to get its claws into you and instilled fear. As children we just accept that our parents love us, we never question it and most of us never actually do question it, to do so would be useless, we know its true and it is wonderful.

This isn't about dependency on another. It's about open-hearted engagement.

Open hearted I would agree again, but, if you need another person’s love to feel that sense of self worth then to me, that is dependency.

Nor do I understand the use of ascribing a selfish motivation to acts of love. This is usually a retrospective interpretation of what was received in loving another. It also seems like another expression of comodification, by which love becomes a measure of productivity in capitalist terms. You don't get love until you work for it; the more you perfect your product (yourself), the more lovable you'll be, etc. It's really important to think about the kind of person you're likely to attract coming at things from that point of view.

I would never in a million years use love as a way to do anything selfish, how could I? love is something that is so powerful, so awesome and so great that when I feel it, I’d do anything for that person, to see them smile, for them to be happy, I’d give anything and I would and have sacrificed my own desires for someone else who I love.

Never would I claim that anything I have done that has hurt another that I have done for love, when I have hurt someone (ie, become jealous, spiteful and so on) is has because of my own fears, it has been because I have let my own insecurities come into play, I have let myself be taken in by them and I have been weak. I would never claim, that love has made me say or do something nasty towards another person.

To your other point about the people I’m likely to attract, well, the people I’ve attracted into my life are some of the most astounding, good heart, loving people I’ve ever met, I count myself as more then just lucky to have them in my life, I could easily spend my life with any of them and I know, that they will be there for me whenever I would ever need them.
So, unfortunately I fail to see the point you where trying to make there.

In some ways, I fail to be able to articulate what I’m trying to say, I’m neither as educated nor well read as you are, so I struggle sometimes to be clear in what I mean.

However, I’ve tried my best

I suppose I’m getting hung up on the word love, to me, love is as broad as anything I’ve ever felt, to me, anything that feels good emotionally I’ve haphazardly plonked into the love basket, from the adoration I feel for my friends and family, to the joy of pulling out a perfectly baked cookie or the adulation I feel from my nephew giving me a hug, to me, that is all love, it all feels awesome to me and anything that good I’ve always thought was love.

This is usually a retrospective interpretation of what was received in loving another. It also seems like another expression of comodification, by which love becomes a measure of productivity in capitalist terms

Oh hunny, even for me, that’s a mouth full!

;) Ok to redeem myself from the murder of IguanaSF:

bgcat says it nicely.

People can't see the forest for the trees, y'know. Sometimes it really does help to ask the opinion of those around you rather than bottle it up inside or blame it on someone else. The act of whining only becomes whining when the whiner doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes.

And I disagree with the implication of the ages old assertion that material possessions is the root of all evil in the 'vow of poverty' thing. Poverty doesn't induce happiness, it does force you into two extremes: total blindness or purest clarity. Depends on the person. Material possessions (and this does not only mean 'possessions' in the capitalistic sense, but anything you can readily partake of) DO promote happiness.

I find it really insulting how relatively wealthy foreigners would give up all their material possessions and go to live in some obscure nation like ours and practice ascetism and supposedly become 'wiser' and 'happier'. Because it IS insulting and somehow pretentious.

I AM poor, poorer than you'd believe, don't let my apparent level of education mislead you. And if you only knew how much the rest of the nonwestern world is breaking their backs to work towards a better life (and YES that includes material posessions). And it's just so they can see rich white guys throw it all away on a whim to become a lama?! It grates on my nerves.

And yes most of us are happy. Happy does not necessarily mean absence of desires, ambitions, or 'greed'. Happiness in poverty is a myth created by rich men grown tired of their excesses, just as the 'noble savage' myth was always nothing more than a myth. There is nothing wise about a poor fisherman with nothing on his name but a hut and a boat being radiantly happy. He is happy because he has found his contentment, but who can say if he'll not be happier with a limousine?

Why do you constantly seek the extremes? Christians jumping headlong into eastern esoteric disciplines, extremely wealthy folks becoming impoverished hermits. You are only deluding yourself, because everyone else has roughly the same desires as you.

It bullcrap, that's what. Just go find what makes you happy and do it. You can find happiness just the same right in your own backyard as you would if you jumped on a plane and enrolled in a buddhist monastery.

Honestly, I think the 'money is the root of all evil' mindset is a 180 degree reaction of the way western cultures place undue importance on wealth as the only thing that's good and should ideally be striven for. In contrast to the eastern focus on other things as well - family, love, nature, wisdom, balance, etc. and yes, wealth is included of course. But that is, they are of equal importance, a filthy rich zaibatsu is as respected as a dirt-poor ainu wiseman.

And OW is right as usual. Not EVERY bad thing that's happened to us is our own fault. Owning up to everything is only getting you bogged down with guilt that can then only be alleviated by some sort of religion or false 'guilt' piety and goodness. Learning to pinpoint which is your own fault and which isn't is a healthier way to deal with problems. At least you'll know which can be dealt with, and that's when RESPONSIBILITY comes along.

However, I do agree that things like "Why doesn't he want to marry me?" etc. problems are USUALLY problems that they can deal with themselves. But in this case, the 'Can't see the forest for the trees' argument comes into focus. There really are circumstances which we can't clearly see ourselves because we are too close to it. So I say, be lenient on us poor mortals. LOL. We are imperfect. ;)

I admire the Dalai Lama though.

Somebody feed Buckwheet! His brains, his poor brains! And zimmy is a whore as always.