On the interpretation of events

[Moonbeam]

How you react to news and politics depends on what you believe especially about right and wrong. If you are in favor of something or opposed to it depends on what you feel, have assumed to be, is the right or wrong of the issue. The argument then proceeds as a discussion of the particulars of the issue. It rarely ever proceeds as an analysis of the basic assumptions that one has made because those assumptions create the core beliefs of who we think we are.

The real issue, however, is whether you can judge what is right and what is wrong. But such issues are avoided, because they open the door to uncertainty. What will happen if you find that you are fundamentally wrong in everything you believe. Who is willing to risk such a thing particularly, if one has powerfully been told that he is wrong and needs, therefore, powerfully to defend oneself as right?

What if the truth is not in the issues but in understanding the need to defend. What if all we are defending is the image we have of our self and that image is an illusion. And what if every illusion we have about this is also an illusion.

The morning sun lies green and gold through the window and out on the lawn.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How you react to news and politics depends on what you believe especially about right and wrong. If you are in favor of something or opposed to it depends on what you feel, have assumed to be, is the right or wrong of the issue. The argument then proceeds as a discussion of the particulars of the issue. It rarely ever proceeds as an analysis of the basic assumptions that one has made because those assumptions create the core beliefs of who we think we are.

The real issue, however, is whether you can judge what is right and what is wrong. But such issues are avoided, because they open the door to uncertainty. What will happen if you find that you are fundamentally wrong in everything you believe. Who is willing to risk such a thing particularly, if one has powerfully been told that he is wrong and needs, therefore, powerfully to defend oneself as right?

What if the truth is not in the issues but in understanding the need to defend. What if all we are defending is the image we have of our self and that image is an illusion. And what if every illusion we have about this is also an illusion.

The morning sun lies green and gold through the window and out on the lawn.

Cliff Notes: When you are Bush and part of the Bush faithful you can do no wrong.

If you are against them, you are wrong 110% of the time.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How you react to news and politics depends on what you believe especially about right and wrong. If you are in favor of something or opposed to it depends on what you feel, have assumed to be, is the right or wrong of the issue. The argument then proceeds as a discussion of the particulars of the issue. It rarely ever proceeds as an analysis of the basic assumptions that one has made because those assumptions create the core beliefs of who we think we are.

The real issue, however, is whether you can judge what is right and what is wrong. But such issues are avoided, because they open the door to uncertainty. What will happen if you find that you are fundamentally wrong in everything you believe. Who is willing to risk such a thing particularly, if one has powerfully been told that he is wrong and needs, therefore, powerfully to defend oneself as right?

What if the truth is not in the issues but in understanding the need to defend. What if all we are defending is the image we have of our self and that image is an illusion. And what if every illusion we have about this is also an illusion.

The morning sun lies green and gold through the window and out on the lawn.

What if there is "Right and Wrong"?

CsG

 

[Kibbo]

Nothing in that post attacked the idea of a universal morality. Only the manner by which we discuss them. And the motivations for doing so.

 

[daveshel]

Sure, we must cling to our life-illusion. Unless we blast open the doors of perception from time to time.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Moonbeam, are you a Daoist?:

?????????????

 

[Gen Stonewall]

.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Correction:

?????????????

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
What if there is "Right and Wrong"?

CsG

Then you are wrong.

 

[racebannon]

Weak men need religion. Religion makes men weak.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Moonbeam, are you a Daoist?:

?????????????

I believe that the paradox of good and evil are resolved at a higher level and that this fundamental truth lies at the heart of all religion. For the Christian the illusion of sin can, I think, completely dissolve in the surrender of self that comes with the potential to feel that one is totally forgiven, not theoretically, but all the way to the core. For the Muslim it happens in the understanding and complete surrender to the fact that everything is the Will of God. The martial artist can become the body, the yogi the mind and the saint the heart, all shattering a sense of separation, the illusion we describe as duality. It can happen to the atheist, I think, with the realization that meaninglessness is meaningless and clinging to meaning.

The way does not matter so much as the death of the self, the illusion of duality. This is why for me, the straightest road to this goal may be in psychotherapy or some form of analogue, the recovery of memory associated with the crystallization of the ego as a means of self defense. In reliving ones real past inner pain one can discover ones actual subconscious motives and put them to rest via the relief that comes from real grief. We have all been so deeply hurt and we are all so deeply sad. But we do not remember. And our violence is a defense against that pain.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: racebannon
Weak men need religion. Religion makes men weak.

And the weakest of men is he who flatters his ego with the illusion that a strong ego is strength and not being better at being sick.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Wow. That's deep stuff.

:thumbsup:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: racebannon
Weak men need religion. Religion makes men weak.

It takes a strong man to admit the possibility that he might not be the end-all, be-all; that someone or something might actually be smarter, more powerful than he is. Life without religion (or a governing philosophy) is easy and thoughtless - you can do as you like without worrying about any consequences. Living up to standards requires much more strength than living however you see fit.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: racebannon
Weak men need religion. Religion makes men weak.

And the weakest of men is he who flatters his ego with the illusion that a strong ego is strength and not being better at being sick.

"Reality is the curse of those who lack the strength of character for drugs."

Not really on topic, but I've been saving that one. Too bad I forget the source. Best said while refusing an indulgence of the appropriate type.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

For the Christian the illusion of sin can, I think, completely dissolve in the surrender of self that comes with the potential to feel that one is totally forgiven, not theoretically, but all the way to the core.

And what if sin is a reality? I think you should look at the fulfilled prophecy of the Bible (especially concerning what is ocurring in Israel and concerning the apostasy and signs-and-wonders movement in the church) in order to realize that the Bible should be taken seriously, that sin is very real and also something that most people carry and something that will lead them to eternal torment after their bodies are destroyed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: racebannon
Weak men need religion. Religion makes men weak.

It takes a strong man to admit the possibility that he might not be the end-all, be-all; that someone or something might actually be smarter, more powerful than he is. Life without religion (or a governing philosophy) is easy and thoughtless - you can do as you like without worrying about any consequences. Living up to standards requires much more strength than living however you see fit.

How is your conceit any different than his. Are you not both very proud of your dualistically oppositional strengths? As I said, the ego is strong because inside we feel weak. Reminds me of the contest between two great swords makers, one of who incessantly challenged the other to a test such that finally one had to be arranged. The challenger placed his sword blade facing into the current. A leaf floating downstream striking the edge was severed in two. When the challenged did the same the leaf went around without touching the blade establishing him as the winner.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

For the Christian the illusion of sin can, I think, completely dissolve in the surrender of self that comes with the potential to feel that one is totally forgiven, not theoretically, but all the way to the core.

And what if sin is a reality? I think you should look at the fulfilled prophecy of the Bible (especially concerning what is ocurring in Israel and concerning the apostasy and signs-and-wonders movement in the church) in order to realize that the Bible should be taken seriously, that sin is very real and also something that most people carry and something that will lead them to eternal torment after their bodies are destroyed.

You know things that I find nothing with which to support. I have no idea what comes after life and may only wind up dead. How anybody KNOWS the things you say baffles me. I look at Israel and see nothing of what you describe. What is there is everywhere and of no extra significance at all that I can see. It takes a lot of ego to think as you do, in my opinion. All that sounds like indoctrination.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Moonbeam, are you a Daoist?:

?????????????

I believe that the paradox of good and evil are resolved at a higher level and that this fundamental truth lies at the heart of all religion. For the Christian the illusion of sin can, I think, completely dissolve in the surrender of self that comes with the potential to feel that one is totally forgiven, not theoretically, but all the way to the core. For the Muslim it happens in the understanding and complete surrender to the fact that everything is the Will of God. The martial artist can become the body, the yogi the mind and the saint the heart, all shattering a sense of separation, the illusion we describe as duality. It can happen to the atheist, I think, with the realization that meaninglessness is meaningless and clinging to meaning.

The way does not matter so much as the death of the self, the illusion of duality. This is why for me, the straightest road to this goal may be in psychotherapy or some form of analogue, the recovery of memory associated with the crystallization of the ego as a means of self defense. In reliving ones real past inner pain one can discover ones actual subconscious motives and put them to rest via the relief that comes from real grief. We have all been so deeply hurt and we are all so deeply sad. But we do not remember. And our violence is a defense against that pain.

well said.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: racebannon
Weak men need religion. Religion makes men weak.

It takes a strong man to admit the possibility that he might not be the end-all, be-all; that someone or something might actually be smarter, more powerful than he is. Life without religion (or a governing philosophy) is easy and thoughtless - you can do as you like without worrying about any consequences. Living up to standards requires much more strength than living however you see fit.

How is your conceit any different than his. Are you not both very proud of your dualistically oppositional strengths? As I said, the ego is strong because inside we feel weak. Reminds me of the contest between two great swords makers, one of who incessantly challenged the other to a test such that finally one had to be arranged. The challenger placed his sword blade facing into the current. A leaf floating downstream striking the edge was severed in two. When the challenged did the same the leaf went around without touching the blade establishing him as the winner.

Freud thought in terms of one or a few motivators while Jung considered at least a few more to be that which controls how and what we are (In general terms). Both these guys have currently practicing strong advocates that support each school of thought. Which is right or more correct.? That depends on what we believe to be true, I guess. And that depends on what motivates us to believe this, I guess.
I think.... I think that the 'Ego' is not contained in some jar hanging about the neck of the individual but, rather, it is the conscious and subconscious mind's result of ALL the factors affecting them. The Brain and its chemicals flowing about in varying degrees of appropriateness. The Bi-Polar person in a manic state develops a self esteem condition not consistent with their 'normal' state. This enables them to do some abnormal things (generally speaking). This is caused by lithium levels lower than appropriate and not by a pain unresolved (IMO). I wonder if many of the motivators in our thinking is chemical induced versus that which psychotherapy can resolve. Or maybe psychotherapy can have an influence on chemical production.... I wonder... And I wonder if Freud and Jung considered this.
So... what then makes us think or believe what we do? Which came first... The ego or the pain that the ego obscures? I think the resulting behavior and thinking that an individual exhibits is the result of what ever feels good to think or believe to that individual. And this may or may not be the result of unresolved issues from the past. I cannot accept that all folks are physiologically equal brain function wise and the mind controls the brain's function... I think it may occur that way but not always.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How is your conceit any different than his. Are you not both very proud of your dualistically oppositional strengths? As I said, the ego is strong because inside we feel weak. Reminds me of the contest between two great swords makers, one of who incessantly challenged the other to a test such that finally one had to be arranged. The challenger placed his sword blade facing into the current. A leaf floating downstream striking the edge was severed in two. When the challenged did the same the leaf went around without touching the blade establishing him as the winner.

My conceit is contrived to point out the flaws in his. I don't claim to know all the answers and can respect people whose opinion differs from mine in this regard.

 

[Witling]

An interesting thread with some participants I really respect. I want to lend a little more weight to brain chemistry. It is definitely in there somewhere. It is quite easy to alter brain states chemically. The results in terms of behavior are real. Philosophy and belief may be one way of dealing with brain chemistry. Brain chemistry to me seems to be like moma, as in, "If Moma ain't happy, then no one's happy." We're more than just chemistry, but I'm unsure about just how much more we are.

 

[LunarRay]

To the Phenomenologist studying why folks defend what opinion they hold on a particular issue to the point of utter exhaustion and frustration the answer seems obvious. They have - the opinion holder -, for what ever reason, found that that opinion is something they can support and stand behind against any and all other contrary views. It is 'right' for them. It makes them 'feel' good. But why is that so? Why is there more than one view per issue? How can it be right and wrong at the same time? Assuming it can't, then we are left with the proposition that many folks are wrong or at least don't or can't see the issue from the 'other side'. Which brings me to the point that many folks latch onto something and once latched they are incapable of allowing any reasonable attempt to dissuade to budge them. Once held an opinion becomes the person and at all costs the person must be saved... even by weak or inane defense.

 

[Kerouactivist]

I'm currently read "Notes from the Underground" by Dostoevsky(isn't that enough).....This thread is making my brain hurt further....

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: racebannon
Weak men need religion. Religion makes men weak.

It takes a strong man to admit the possibility that he might not be the end-all, be-all; that someone or something might actually be smarter, more powerful than he is. Life without religion (or a governing philosophy) is easy and thoughtless - you can do as you like without worrying about any consequences. Living up to standards requires much more strength than living however you see fit.

As much as I disagree with racebannon, I also take issue with your insinuation that without religion there are no standards. Which is patently untrue. It's very possible to live by a code and to create standards for oneselves sans any spiritual directive. I don't require a religion to tell me what is right or wrong, in fact I for one believe that understanding is very instinctual. We all know how we need to behave in society and whether one is religious or agnostic has little bearing on whether we choose to purposely ignore that instinct.