|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 14, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Really? What evidence, or concrete proof can you offer that the following statement is accurate?: "They have yet to discover the dimension of their own creatureliness. " Most of them have no skills of symbolic reasoning, they don't write, they can't form thoughts complex enough to have any idea about our problems, much less any wisdom about how to solve them. It's already celebrated like a miracle when they can build some embarrassingly basic tools to save their life. Heck, most of them can't even pass the mirror test. Looking at animals for wisdom is just stupid new age nonsense, same as idealizing children, like Bobby does. They have nothing to teach us, they are idiots. Ah.. you've passed the mirror test.. Animals are animals, different from humans is ways you cannot conceive.. they were here before humans, and will be here after humans move into extinction.. who's the more 'intelligent', they're not squandering Life arguing about it.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 14, 2013 10:11:16 GMT -5
Most of them have no skills of symbolic reasoning, they don't write, they can't form thoughts complex enough to have any idea about our problems, much less any wisdom about how to solve them. It's already celebrated like a miracle when they can build some embarrassingly basic tools to save their life. Heck, most of them can't even pass the mirror test. Looking at animals for wisdom is just stupid new age nonsense, same as idealizing children, like Bobby does. They have nothing to teach us, they are idiots. I can't be sure why it is you have such an extreme and intense opinion - I don't know what purpose it serves to feel that way about animals. Many of them can be incredibly important to us by way of companionship. It's beyond companionship, actually.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 14, 2013 10:11:24 GMT -5
It seems this mutually defining function of dualistic experience has to be seen clearly before the focus can be turned away from improving the experience and toward transcending it. For this reason, understanding clearly how dualistic experience plays out in the mind can be mucho importante. Huh? Understanding anything seems irrelevant to me on this path, in my experience, either you are centered in a you where understanding is relevant, or absorbed in the undifferentiated where understanding is not relevant. I have not seen where "understanding" is anything other than a kind of attachment or hindrance on this path. **facepalms* as Steven is speaking from his current understanding.** Understanding is the result of the mind chewing on and integrating a realization. Yes it's relative, but absolutely essential for navigating while not in Samadhi. Take your focus off Samadhi and embrace your common sense. Seriously, you're sounding more and more like Andrew over a different set of terms.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 14, 2013 10:13:16 GMT -5
Most of them have no skills of symbolic reasoning, they don't write, they can't form thoughts complex enough to have any idea about our problems, much less any wisdom about how to solve them. It's already celebrated like a miracle when they can build some embarrassingly basic tools to save their life. Heck, most of them can't even pass the mirror test. Looking at animals for wisdom is just stupid new age nonsense, same as idealizing children, like Bobby does. They have nothing to teach us, they are idiots. I can't be sure why it is you have such an extreme and intense opinion - I don't know what purpose it serves to feel that way about animals. Many of them can be incredibly important to us by way of companionship. I'm not saying that we should kill them all. I'm a vegetarian ffs. This is a philosophical discussion and I'm arguing against a stupid idea, not against animals.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 14, 2013 10:14:45 GMT -5
I can't be sure why it is you have such an extreme and intense opinion - I don't know what purpose it serves to feel that way about animals. Many of them can be incredibly important to us by way of companionship. I'm not saying that we should kill them all. I'm a vegetarian ffs. This is a philosophical discussion and I'm arguing against a stupid idea, not against animals. Well duh, I knew you weren't saying that (killing them) - where would I pick up an idea like that from what you said?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 14, 2013 10:17:44 GMT -5
I think it's common sense. At least they haven't yet given us reason to believe otherwise. There is clear evidence of some non-human animals having self awareness and reflective thought, let alone higher emotions and morality. Go google it. In particular the "Mirror Test", "Animal Emotions", "Animal Morality", etc.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 14, 2013 10:22:06 GMT -5
Most of them have no skills of symbolic reasoning, they don't write, they can't form thoughts complex enough to have any idea about our problems, much less any wisdom about how to solve them. It's already celebrated like a miracle when they can build some embarrassingly basic tools to save their life. Heck, most of them can't even pass the mirror test. Looking at animals for wisdom is just stupid new age nonsense, same as idealizing children, like Bobby does. They have nothing to teach us, they are idiots. I can't be sure why it is you have such an extreme and intense opinion - I don't know what purpose it serves to feel that way about animals. Many of them can be incredibly important to us by way of companionship. He's trolling for the attention. The shock-value of what he says.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 14, 2013 10:23:42 GMT -5
I can't be sure why it is you have such an extreme and intense opinion - I don't know what purpose it serves to feel that way about animals. Many of them can be incredibly important to us by way of companionship. He's trolling for the attention. The shock-value of what he says. I can buy that.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 14, 2013 10:23:47 GMT -5
Greetings.. Most of them have no skills of symbolic reasoning, they don't write, they can't form thoughts complex enough to have any idea about our problems, much less any wisdom about how to solve them. It's already celebrated like a miracle when they can build some embarrassingly basic tools to save their life. Heck, most of them can't even pass the mirror test. Looking at animals for wisdom is just stupid new age nonsense, same as idealizing children, like Bobby does. They have nothing to teach us, they are idiots. Ah.. you've passed the mirror test.. Animals are animals, different from humans is ways you cannot conceive.. they were here before humans, and will be here after humans move into extinction.. who's the more 'intelligent', they're not squandering Life arguing about it.. Be well.. Most animal species are extinct. It's silly to play out the entirety of non-human animals against the human animal and claim that they are living more harmoniously or whatever because there were non-human animals prior to humans and because there will be some after humans. It's a mistake to think of nature as harmonious. In nature there are always great upheavals and transitions, gigantic catastrophes, diseases that kill entire species, tiny changes completely throw entire ecosystems off balance. Actually nature is very rarely in a state of harmonious equilibrium.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2013 11:03:17 GMT -5
Squirrels don't sit around moaning about the ugliness of life and lamenting the cruelty of it all. If you're wondering how I could possibly know this, they told me all about it in our squirrel satsangs. It's a lack, not a virtue. They have yet to discover the dimension of their own creatureliness. And once they do they have to deal with it same as we have to. Before this their understanding of existence is incomplete and they have not yet fully arrived in life, i.e. they are fully immersed into their natural environment of appearances. They are just stupid animals. We have nothing to learn from them and they have no wisdom to share with us because they have not carried out the reflective process within which we are engaged. I didn't suggest it was a virtue, though lack is in the mind of the lackee. I wouldn't say they have yet to discover their creatureliness. They're much more aligned with their nature than you are. It's just that they don't have the capability for reflective thought, nor do they need it in order to be what they are. Those stupid animals don't suffer as you do, and we have a great deal to learn from them.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 14, 2013 11:13:43 GMT -5
Squirrels don't sit around moaning about the ugliness of life and lamenting the cruelty of it all. If you're wondering how I could possibly know this, they told me all about it in our squirrel satsangs. It's a lack, not a virtue. They have yet to discover the dimension of their own creatureliness. And once they do they have to deal with it same as we have to. Before this their understanding of existence is incomplete and they have not yet fully arrived in life, i.e. they are fully immersed into their natural environment of appearances. They are just stupid animals. We have nothing to learn from them and they have no wisdom to share with us because they have not carried out the reflective process within which we are engaged. In general, distinguishing any object from what that object isn't gives rise to something that we can get a feel for and conceptualize as the nature of that object. Seems to me that the nature of an animal that doesn't have the capacity to abstract to any significant degree is fundamentally different from one that does. Similarly, the experience, on one hand, of a child that hasn't built up a set of patterns of conceptual structure and mental/physical reactivity and, on the other, an adult that has dropped or significantly eroded theirs, are fundamentally different. That Bobby and Phil will use metaphor to compare these natures is just a way of pointing toward something that's worth pointing toward and that you identify the metaphors for what they are is also something worth pointing toward.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 14, 2013 11:14:39 GMT -5
It's a lack, not a virtue. They have yet to discover the dimension of their own creatureliness. And once they do they have to deal with it same as we have to. Before this their understanding of existence is incomplete and they have not yet fully arrived in life, i.e. they are fully immersed into their natural environment of appearances. They are just stupid animals. We have nothing to learn from them and they have no wisdom to share with us because they have not carried out the reflective process within which we are engaged. I didn't suggest it was a virtue, though lack is in the mind of the lackee.I wouldn't say they have yet to discover their creatureliness. They're much more aligned with their nature than you are. It's just that they don't have the capability for reflective thought, nor do they need it in order to be what they are. Those stupid animals don't suffer as you do, and we have a great deal to learn from them. Or "lackey"? (** mutley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2013 11:15:26 GMT -5
It seems this mutually defining function of dualistic experience has to be seen clearly before the focus can be turned away from improving the experience and toward transcending it. For this reason, understanding clearly how dualistic experience plays out in the mind can be mucho importante. Huh? Understanding anything seems irrelevant to me on this path, in my experience, either you are centered in a you where understanding is relevant, or absorbed in the undifferentiated where understanding is not relevant. I have not seen where "understanding" is anything other than a kind of attachment or hindrance on this path. In the same way that you must deal with the knowledge you have instead of taking a horse stance of 'not knowing', you also have to deal with your misunderstanding (illusions) through understanding.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 14, 2013 11:22:26 GMT -5
I'm not saying that we should kill them all. I'm a vegetarian ffs. This is a philosophical discussion and I'm arguing against a stupid idea, not against animals. Well duh, I knew you weren't saying that (killing them) - where would I pick up an idea like that from what you said? Did you find MovieQ's: I can't be sure why it is you have such an extreme and intense opinion - to be a negative opinion as well? Also, there's ambiguity -- MovieQ expressed two opinions, one about animals, the other about humans. He said that animals are idiots and that humans that look to them for wisdom are engaging in stupid new-age nonsense. Were you characterizing one of those opinions or both?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 14, 2013 11:28:53 GMT -5
Greetings.. Ah.. you've passed the mirror test.. Animals are animals, different from humans is ways you cannot conceive.. they were here before humans, and will be here after humans move into extinction.. who's the more 'intelligent', they're not squandering Life arguing about it.. Be well.. Most animal species are extinct. It's silly to play out the entirety of non-human animals against the human animal and claim that they are living more harmoniously or whatever because there were non-human animals prior to humans and because there will be some after humans. It's a mistake to think of nature as harmonious. In nature there are always great upheavals and transitions, gigantic catastrophes, diseases that kill entire species, tiny changes completely throw entire ecosystems off balance. Actually nature is very rarely in a state of harmonious equilibrium.It's a fair point. The intense studies of the history of the climate of the planet over the past decade have brought into relief how unusually stable it's been during the course of recorded human history. Seems that the deciding factor as to why the post-agricultural population and technology booms didn't happen tens of thousands of years previously (ruling out of course, the possibility that they did to some extent and left no record that we are currently aware of)had less to do with humanity and more to do with the Earth. Harmony, is, always a relative manifestation that requires a boundary around it.
|
|