Socrates practiced QiGong!

[Syn7]

Oh ok. I don't mean a complete lack of consideration for others. I just mean it as in rooted in self interest. I would put dying for a child in that category. You want your child to live.

But no, I dot think all acts are purely motivated by self interest w/o regard for others. That would suck.


Still, I can think of acts that are purely rooted in self interest w/o any consideration for any other, but I can't think of any examples on the opposite side of that spectrum. People do crazy unreasonable shit with ZERO regard for any other, but nobody ever acts of pure selflessness. And I'm talking about single isolated acts, not the totality of one persons acts. I would be inclined to believe that everyone has at least once done a nice thing for another person. Unless you are completely alone, I guess.

[Faux Newbie]

Oh ok. I don't mean a complete lack of consideration for others. I just mean it as in rooted in self interest. I would put dying for a child in that category. You want your child to live.

But no, I dot think all acts are purely motivated by self interest w/o regard for others. That would suck.


Still, I can think of acts that are purely rooted in self interest w/o any consideration for any other, but I can't think of any examples on the opposite side of that spectrum. People do crazy unreasonable shit with ZERO regard for any other, but nobody ever acts of pure selflessness. And I'm talking about single isolated acts, not the totality of one persons acts. I would be inclined to believe that everyone has at least once done a nice thing for another person. Unless you are completely alone, I guess.

The problem is, doing good things does make people feel good. I'm not sure that's why people do it, though. I think that is the least reliable motivation for doing it. But I think it is hard to argue, because we are working with different definitions of selfish and selfless, so it's difficult to come to common ground, but that's okay, it's interesting to discuss.

I can also think of one personal example of a person doing, for years, something very good for others, that was always a bittersweet thing for the person doing it. I know it had more to do with feeling it should be done than benefit for him.

The case of giving your life for your, or a child, is one example where it gets really hard to count on the assertion that it is out of self interest. You are literally choosing to die. Your are extinguishing your self. This seems to me to be stretching any definition of self interest.

[Syn7]

The problem is, doing good things does make people feel good. I'm not sure that's why people do it, though. I think that is the least reliable motivation for doing it. But I think it is hard to argue, because we are working with different definitions of selfish and selfless, so it's difficult to come to common ground, but that's okay, it's interesting to discuss.

I can also think of one personal example of a person doing, for years, something very good for others, that was always a bittersweet thing for the person doing it. I know it had more to do with feeling it should be done than benefit for him.

The case of giving your life for your, or a child, is one example where it gets really hard to count on the assertion that it is out of self interest. You are literally choosing to die. Your are extinguishing your self. This seems to me to be stretching any definition of self interest.

But that's assuming that dying can never be of self interest. To some people, family is more important than themselves. Still self interest, no? It's what they want. Yeah, maybe there is part of them that doesn't want to die, of course, but there is also a part of them that does want to die if it saves whoever it is that they care so much for.

There can be motivations outside of feeling good about it.

Bittersweet implies there was some sweet, no?

Lol, I'm not trying to be difficult, I also find it to be an interesting topic for discussion.

If you take all definitions of selfish into account, I'm inclined to think you're right. At least in that not all acts are selfish in nature. I'm still having trouble with thinking of anything purely selfless though. But I'm sure we can all rattle off some things that are completely selfish. Certain horrific crimes, some suicides, right down to just being a douchebag and not sharing you candy with your brother or whatever.

[Faux Newbie]

But that's assuming that dying can never be of self interest. To some people, family is more important than themselves. Still self interest, no? It's what they want. Yeah, maybe there is part of them that doesn't want to die, of course, but there is also a part of them that does want to die if it saves whoever it is that they care so much for.

I'm thinking they more likely choose to die than want to in most cases. It's one that could be interpreted different ways, I suppose.

There can be motivations outside of feeling good about it.

Bittersweet implies there was some sweet, no?

True, but I don't think that was the reason he took part in that activity, it was merely a side bonus, not the motivation.

Lol, I'm not trying to be difficult, I also find it to be an interesting topic for discussion.

You aren't being difficult at all, no problems.

If you take all definitions of selfish into account, I'm inclined to think you're right. At least in that not all acts are selfish in nature. I'm still having trouble with thinking of anything purely selfless though. But I'm sure we can all rattle off some things that are completely selfish. Certain horrific crimes, some suicides, right down to just being a douchebag and not sharing you candy with your brother or whatever.

I think where I make a distinction is the presence of a positive experience in the action does not necessarily make the motivation to receive that experience. So for those doing such things for the benefits, yes, some self interest is at play, for those who are not, then no, even though they experience that, since it is not their motivation, merely experiencing that is not part of they why they did it.

[Syn7]

I'm thinking they more likely choose to die than want to in most cases. It's one that could be interpreted different ways, I suppose.


I think where I make a distinction is the presence of a positive experience in the action does not necessarily make the motivation to receive that experience. So for those doing such things for the benefits, yes, some self interest is at play, for those who are not, then no, even though they experience that, since it is not their motivation, merely experiencing that is not part of they why they did it.

Wanting to save the child, I meant.

A positive outcome or some gratifying knowledge that you have done good has to play into the motivation don't you think? Even if it isn't the prime motivation.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And to make clear, I am not in disagreement on what constitutes a genuine acceptance of God, I merely do not find the "Self/other" distinction to be true, and I do find that, without some ways for those pursuing a path to distinguish ego from non-ego, ego is a real problem, as much for Christianity as anyone else.

EGO is THE problem in Christianity - Pride goeth before the fall.
The story of Adam and Eve is one of pride, of trying to be God, of being selfish and ego driven and the contrast ( that at times is lost on people, especially Christians) is that Christ that was God, that was all the Adam and Eve wanted to be, gave it all up to be human !
The example we have in Christianity is of a person that was God and gave it up to be human so that humans could have the chance to return to a relationship that would make them "like God".
In terms of self/selflessness/selfishness the way Christianity sees it is that our true natural state is one of other-centred love and there is no place for ego or self in it since we are relational beings.

[SoCo KungFu]

@SoCo,

Ahahaha, so much frustration you have!

Incorrect. Boredom. The word you are looking for, is boredom.

Please go ahead and tackle my description of inertia in the way I described above. The idea of inertia as resistance to change I also described and was essential to my point. Matter can't choose to move, it must be acted on by an external force. Because an object has inertia it is resistant to change, so when we measure its momentum we know it has not chosen that momentum but rather that momentum can tell us information about where it has come from and what happened to it.

Just because you can use a dictionary, doesn't mean you know what these words mean. You don't understand the underlying concepts you are attempting to invoke, its fairly obvious.

All matter is ordered. How could it be otherwise?

Exactly, and in 2 sentences you have contradicted everything you have previously said in this thread. So can we close this idiotic discussion now? Mods?

Ahaha, so the hood of a car STORES energy does it?

Yes, it does numbnuts. Heat (thermal energy), you may have heard of it. Seriously, you are like talking to a 5 year old. Just stop. So since you don't understand energy, its conservation, or the various forms it may be found in, I see no reason for this thread to continue. Its quite obvious you were either drunk, or you just simply have no idea what you are talking about.

Think about it. Does it then keep that energy for the next day in some way?

Depends how cold it is outside. Did you not go to school as a child?

Can it release it in a months time?

See above, but not likely. If you knew what the hell you are saying, you'd answer this yourself. Do you even know what cold actually is?

Like the chemical energy stored in life forms?

Yes, energy release in our chemical processes is ultimately, the same as in non-organic reactions. Its all about breaking bonds. You know, its those pesky physical laws of nature. There don't discriminate between non/organic chemistry.

A nervous system is no different from any other what? From a rock?

In the context of this discussion, yes. Matter is matter. Its just atoms. Nice try at either forgetting your own point, or way to fail at building a strawman.

When I say a man swatting a fly is not the same as a billiard ball collision, i'm not talking about the impact of the swat on the fly, I'm talking about the perception of the fly that evokes a response to swat it. For example you could make a choice NOT to swat the fly. A billiard ball being struck has no option but to react in a predetermined way. This type of choice and perception does not occur in inert matter but does in life forms. It is pertinent to the question of free will.

You're not even keeping your own point of references straight in your own response here. I know what you are trying to say, but I don't think you do. I'll let you figure it out, not worth my time. I'm not getting paid to lecture you.

Instead of picking everything out of context why not read the point as a whole and respond to it? This is a kung fu forum, not a science one. The ideas I have raised are not foolish, they have been raised by many before me.

When you have a context from which to frame, we can return to this discussion. As yet, you have not established any. The only thing you have done is shown that you should probably steer clear from topics you aren't well versed in.

Lets talk in a casual way, don't try to tie me up with unnecessary pedantry, try instead to understand the underlying notion. There is really no need to resort to insults, it does not strengthen your position.

Oh I am keeping it casual. I don't think you'd follow if I went technical. But casual doesn't mean you can butcher the concept. There's a difference between lay understanding, and bat shit stupid. You've gone guano.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Watch the tone guys, keep it civil and no insults, got it?

[Faux Newbie]

EGO is THE problem in Christianity - Pride goeth before the fall.
The story of Adam and Eve is one of pride, of trying to be God, of being selfish and ego driven and the contrast ( that at times is lost on people, especially Christians) is that Christ that was God, that was all the Adam and Eve wanted to be, gave it all up to be human !
The example we have in Christianity is of a person that was God and gave it up to be human so that humans could have the chance to return to a relationship that would make them "like God".
In terms of self/selflessness/selfishness the way Christianity sees it is that our true natural state is one of other-centred love and there is no place for ego or self in it since we are relational beings.

And see, this and the people who work hard to live that way (like yourself) are the ONLY reason I am not just rabidly anti-Christian.

The person I spoke of vaguely with Syn above was my father, a Catholic. At four years old, he, his parents, and a family friend, were in a car accident. His father and the family friend were killed right then and there. On a stretcher in the hospital, he remembered his mother being declared dead numerous times. She ended up living. (She was badass in a way most martial artists will never be, and scary as hell!)

When he retired, he spent volunteer time with dying kids at the local hospital, watching movies with them, doing fun stuff with them. A kid would die, he would do the same with the next one. He NEVER talked about it, people didn't realize how much he did, but he was around dying kids for a decade, who knows how many. Part of why was because he knew how hard times sometimes make it hard to have a childhood, people make you into a survivor but forget to make you a kid.

Conversely, in Catholic school, my best friend's parents divorced(GASP!), and the priest and the nuns basically made an environment where he and I were targeted (me for being friends with him), I would not call it bullied because we fought harder and better than the kids who were emboldened by this, until all they had was words, but they all believed (and many still believe) that they were on God's side. Hell, I had one guy tell me in adulthood that that behavior was important to make us good people! (At the time, his only job was as a calender model, lol). My friend later became a fullback in college ball.

Likewise, when my best friend died some years back, whose parents were Christian, but not their children or their children's friends, there were two services, one in one state, one back in our home town. The first one, the minister was fine, thoughtful to some extent, but still reinterpreting a man's life who they didn't know in terms of the minister's own belief system and approach to it. Slightly tacky, but not worse than that. The second one reinterpreted his life in terms of needing forgiveness how that guy saw it, for things that don't even need forgiveness. For my friends parents alone, I kept my silence, as did others. There was no shortage of people ready to beat the tar out of that guy. I know full well when I go, despite neither I nor my wife being religious, she will be approached with the same crap, because that's how it always is, which ****es me off to no end.

I have known far more bad Christians than good, and I think I've known more good Christians than most Christians. I've also dealt with a good number of Buddhists, but far less really bad ones (though two come to mind). I really think there is a more developed mechanism in Buddhism for preventing ego from restricting morality, I think the development of it is historically demonstrable, and I think that, as someone who has to deal with a majority of Christians, I would be a fool to ignore it.

That said, this in no way has a bearing on your personal faith, but in regards to a vast majority of Christians, I would be naive to believe that it is not ego based.

My view is not that the idea of Christianity is wrongheaded, but that established checks to make sure that ego doesn't creep into one's relationship with God are lacking, imo. Being a Buddhist master entails a certain risk of ego, but the attraction for those with ego is way higher to be on a contact basis and on the side of an omnipotent being than of being the most egoless being. It's game theory, one can excuse way more behaviors than the other and entails way more power, and Buddhism just has more practical exercises to try to minimize it and way more agency to call someone on being a bad Buddhist.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Do any of you really believe that selflessness exists? Aren't all acts selfish in nature?

.

True selflesness can exist to a degree BUT I don't think that there can be absolute selflessness in our current human state. I goal to strive for, yes but one that can be accomplished without help? no.
Why?
Because if you try to be selfless, you must ask yourself WHY?
Why are you trying to be selfless?
There are many answers of course BUT most of them, if you look deep enough, are selfish.
As a parent I have an unconditional love of my two girls. I love them no matter what they do or say.
That love is selfless because while I want and need them to love me back, MY love is not based on IF they love me back or anything else other than the fact that they are my girls.
But note the "MY girls".
There is an element of selfish there, of ego and that is that I love them because they are MINE.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And see, this and the people who work hard to live that way (like yourself) are the ONLY reason I am not just rabidly anti-Christian.

The person I spoke of vaguely with Syn above was my father, a Catholic. At four years old, he, his parents, and a family friend, were in a car accident. His father and the family friend were killed right then and there. On a stretcher in the hospital, he remembered his mother being declared dead numerous times. She ended up living. (She was badass in a way most martial artists will never be, and scary as hell!)

When he retired, he spent volunteer time with dying kids at the local hospital, watching movies with them, doing fun stuff with them. A kid would die, he would do the same with the next one. He NEVER talked about it, people didn't realize how much he did, but he was around dying kids for a decade, who knows how many. Part of why was because he knew how hard times sometimes make it hard to have a childhood, people make you into a survivor but forget to make you a kid.

Conversely, in Catholic school, my best friend's parents divorced(GASP!), and the priest and the nuns basically made an environment where he and I were targeted (me for being friends with him), I would not call it bullied because we fought harder and better than the kids who were emboldened by this, until all they had was words, but they all believed (and many still believe) that they were on God's side. Hell, I had one guy tell me in adulthood that that behavior was important to make us good people! (At the time, his only job was as a calender model, lol). My friend later became a fullback in college ball.

Likewise, when my best friend died some years back, whose parents were Christian, but not their children or their children's friends, there were two services, one in one state, one back in our home town. The first one, the minister was fine, thoughtful to some extent, but still reinterpreting a man's life who they didn't know in terms of the minister's own belief system and approach to it. Slightly tacky, but not worse than that. The second one reinterpreted his life in terms of needing forgiveness how that guy saw it, for things that don't even need forgiveness. For my friends parents alone, I kept my silence, as did others. There was no shortage of people ready to beat the tar out of that guy. I know full well when I go, despite neither I nor my wife being religious, she will be approached with the same crap, because that's how it always is, which ****es me off to no end.

I have known far more bad Christians than good, and I think I've known more good Christians than most Christians. I've also dealt with a good number of Buddhists, but far less really bad ones (though two come to mind). I really think there is a more developed mechanism in Buddhism for preventing ego from restricting morality, I think the development of it is historically demonstrable, and I think that, as someone who has to deal with a majority of Christians, I would be a fool to ignore it.

That said, this in no way has a bearing on your personal faith, but in regards to a vast majority of Christians, I would be naive to believe that it is not ego based.

My view is not that the idea of Christianity is wrongheaded, but that established checks to make sure that ego doesn't creep into one's relationship with God are lacking, imo. Being a Buddhist master entails a certain risk of ego, but the attraction for those with ego is way higher to be on a contact basis and on the side of an omnipotent being than of being the most egoless being. It's game theory, one can excuse way more behaviors than the other and entails way more power, and Buddhism just has more practical exercises to try to minimize it and way more agency to call someone on being a bad Buddhist.

Here is the thing my friend,
You will find more bad people in Christianity than perhaps any other religion and many of them won't even hide it.
Why?
Two reasons:
One- Christianity states that we all need redeeming, none of us are good and that there is a cure for that and that cure is Christ IF you allow Him to change you, because of that you find lots of people that know they need help in Christianity.
Two- You will also find lots of aholes that believe that acting like an sanctimonious ass is OK because they are "saved" and in the "One True Faith" and that somehow make sit ok to be an ass.
Those people are evidence of NOT TOO much Christ BUT NOT ENOUGH Christ, those people that THINK they are "there" are the ones furthest from Him.
There are NO checks "established" for the Ego in Christianity because it is ALL about Choice:
Judaims says Obey the Law
Islam says Submit to Allah
Christianity says Choose.
If you choose Christ AND allow Him to "work" in you then HE will fix you and He will be the "checks" on your Ego BUT to do that you must give yourself to Him 100% and very few can do that all the time and that is why it is and always will be a work in progress with Christians and those that think they are the closest to the end are the one that are the ****hest.

[Faux Newbie]

Here is the thing my friend,
You will find more bad people in Christianity than perhaps any other religion and many of them won't even hide it.
Why?
Two reasons:
One- Christianity states that we all need redeeming, none of us are good and that there is a cure for that and that cure is Christ IF you allow Him to change you, because of that you find lots of people that know they need help in Christianity.
Two- You will also find lots of aholes that believe that acting like an sanctimonious ass is OK because they are "saved" and in the "One True Faith" and that somehow make sit ok to be an ass.
Those people are evidence of NOT TOO much Christ BUT NOT ENOUGH Christ, those people that THINK they are "there" are the ones furthest from Him.
There are NO checks "established" for the Ego in Christianity because it is ALL about Choice:
Judaims says Obey the Law
Islam says Submit to Allah
Christianity says Choose.
If you choose Christ AND allow Him to "work" in you then HE will fix you and He will be the "checks" on your Ego BUT to do that you must give yourself to Him 100% and very few can do that all the time and that is why it is and always will be a work in progress with Christians and those that think they are the closest to the end are the one that are the ****hest.

Buddhism is in the middle on that. It says don't do evil, do good.

Still, I think Christianity could at least use a certification course for non-arsehood or something.

[SoCo KungFu]

Do any of you really believe that selflessness exists? Aren't all acts selfish in nature?

Cool to see you weigh in SR.

Group selection. This entire thread can be distilled down to evolutionary game theory and neurobiology, even RenDaHai's incoherent fits of verbal vomit.

[Faux Newbie]

Group selection. This entire thread can be distilled down to evolutionary game theory and neurobiology.

I can totally agree on this. One important point is that the individual may not have any knowledge of the evolutionary advantage, and often doesn't.

[RenDaHai]

@SoCo,

Ahaha, Clearly I have stepped onto your 'territory', you think you are the only one with 'specialist' knowledge of science and as a result you want to be consulted every-time it is talked about, even so much as you want to deny me and have me stopped for talking about it. A very very bad aspect of behaviour.

Clearly you want to show you are knowledgable about science, yet you can't even see there is a difference to the way energy is stored by a leaf to be used at a later date and energy simply absorbed by a piece of metal. Instead of talking about the difference you have simply insulted me. When I asked a rhetorical question 'Can it release it in a months time?' You actually thought I was asking the question????? I was demonstrating the difference.

If you do indeed possess some qualification (it doesn't matter to me, you have every right to talk about it whether you do or not) I assure you your tutor would be ashamed of you reading your responses to this thread.

I pointed out clearly there is a difference in the type of order between a symmetrical lattice and DNA, instead of talking about it (which a sicentist would have done) you have blanked it and taken my words out of context.

If you know what I am trying to say, then answer that don't just insult.

I don't even know how to correspond with you, you are quite unreasonable.