Minivanyana

[Tiassa]

Minvanyana (KtB)

Essentially, "Buddhism for Americans"; a seemingly random reflection of life in a comparative context.

That's how it feels, anyway, as I maneuver through traffic with a toddler, a baby, a small business, a book contract, eight bags of groceries, two dirty diapers, and a migraine. Theravada teaches us to withdraw into ourselves and to be our own light; Mahayana teaches us to give selflessly to others. In my own life, the two poles of individual growth and my commitments to those around me tug and whip at one another, and in a small way I join the greater community of "engaged" Buddhists, American Buddhists, struggling to balance these opposing needs, to create equilibrium out of paradox.

Funny thing is that I've never thought of Dr. Trout as a Buddhist. Of course, she doesn't own a minivan, either.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by tiassa
Essentially, "Buddhism for Americans"; a seemingly random reflection of life in a comparative context.Funny thing is that I've never thought of Dr. Trout as a Buddhist. Of course, she doesn't own a minivan, either.

Yes, the masters often wrote that the shortest path to Satori was to make sure as many people as possible know how cool, self-sacrificing, and individualistic you are.
I can almost see the divine radiance from here...

Oh, wait. No, that's just the glitter-gel in her hair. My bad.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Raithere

Your sarcasm is almost, but not quite funny. Yes, yes, we know. People who share their ideas are ... yeah, whatever it is you said. That makes them kind of like you and me, you know.

And you wonder why I look at all you anti-religion religious folk and say that you're missing the point ...? I hope not. That was so low and outside that not even a Hirschbeck or Rich Garcia could have blown the call.

Having known Dr. Trout for ... 12 years now ... maybe 13 ... I can sincerely say that you're missing a vital point that frequently occurs among religious people. Did you happen to read the whole article?

Then again, I think you were the person who told me I was arrogant or self-centered for making humanity more important than myself during a debate about the purpose of life. Am I mistaken in that? Seriously, I don't feel like digging up the post at this time.

One thing you share with Christians, though, Raithere, is the presumption of the worst in people, as evidenced by your reaction to the topic and Dr. Trout's writing.

Glitter-gel? I'm going to attribute that to sarcasm ....

,
Tiassa

 

[spookz]

a recent encounter in this forum was quite an eye opener. i suspect pathology

 

[Raithere]

Re: Raithere

Originally posted by tiassa
Your sarcasm is almost, but not quite funny. Yes, yes, we know. People who share their ideas are ...

No, no, no... that's not what I meant at all. It was just that the entire article (not to mention the photo of her car) just seemed to me to scream of egocentrism which is the opposite of what a Buddhist seeks.

And you wonder why I look at all you anti-religion religious folk and say that you're missing the point ...?

Having known Dr. Trout for ... 12 years now ... maybe 13 ... I can sincerely say that you're missing a vital point that frequently occurs among religious people. Did you happen to read the whole article?

Well then, do tell, what is the point? For instance, perhaps you can tell me what I am missing in this statement; "One person hauling a herd of whining incompetents across the river of life."

Then again, I think you were the person who told me I was arrogant or self-centered for making humanity more important than myself during a debate about the purpose of life.

Arrogant is not the same as egocentric and, if I recall correctly, I was not saying that you were egocentric for making humanity more important than yourself but that humanity as the focus of an ethical position is an inherently egocentric position.

One thing you share with Christians, though, Raithere, is the presumption of the worst in people, as evidenced by your reaction to the topic and Dr. Trout's writing.

I didn't presume anything, I took the article at face value... sorry I offended you, but she came across as rather haughty to me in that article. Now perhaps, being more familiar with her writing, her tone comes across differently to you but to me she sounds like anything but a Buddhist; thus my sarcasm.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Ummm ... okay. There. So ... YOU make sense of it ... er ...

In some random order that seemed significant at the time:

but that humanity as the focus of an ethical position is an inherently egocentric position.

And to this day I don't think you've ever adequately explained what the hell that means. While I can follow the point to a certain degree, I'm just not willing to haul out a dictionary right now to show you the point. The use of the word "egocentric" is inaccurate. Entirely, wholly, and purely inaccurate. If not, make it clear to me someday. I'd love to understand what you think you meant, because it's one of the points upon which I choose to keep a certain distance from you. It's not the basis of any of my sharper tantrums, but your position has seemed fundamentally dishonest to me in a very "human" way in some part because of that point. You seem a well-intentioned individual, but something seriously bugs me about that Purpose of Life debate; perhaps it was dealing with the combination of two points: that the purpose of life is apparently (according to some) individual combined with the assertion that collectivism is egocentric. But seriously, for all the words we share, I wouldn't be surprised if all you could tell for sure was that I'm in a bad mood most of the time. (Note: As I prepare to actually click "Submit", the actual marijuana intake today has been 1.2 grams; seriously, yes, I would actually know that today, for whatever bizarre reason that takes too many words to explain why today, of all days, I would know how much I smoked. At the moment, as you can see, and as the end of the post hopefully demonstrates, I'm in a rather fine mood this ... evening? Seriously? Jesus. Where the f... oh, never mind. It was afternoon when I started this post ....)

I didn't presume anything, I took the article at face value... sorry I offended you, but she came across as rather haughty to me in that article.

It is a presumption of the worst. Consider the flip-side: When I read an article like this, regardless of the author, I look first at what the author is offering is intended as a gift---that's not the best word for it, but it is an offering intended for my benefit; whether that benefit is spiritual, superficial, or sublime is entirely up to me and my prejudices. At Sciforums, for instance, I developed a habit of referring to abstractions. "One might", or, "If one were to ...." I was specifically avoiding the kind of egocentrism you apparently perceive in Polly's article. Seriously--all we have on one hand is our experience; the empirical, while never reliable and not necessarily valid, is really the only definitive perspective a human being can accomplish; all else is imagined.° Strangely, as I began to speak more and more of myself, referring to family politics and my strange association with the mother of my child, people began to respond more honestly to the issues involved.

With "Minivanyana", it's hard for me to shake a direct prejudice, I admit; I can hear that any day of the week over a glass of wine if I want.

But in this case, it is almost essentially what she does, anyway: she's a theologian, a comparative theologian at that. And outside of her academic context (even her students didn't get the missionary joke because they didn't expect it ...), I can imagine (we have never discussed) that she's like anyone else and prefers a more personal tone.

One of my friends once expressed distaste for Tanita Tikaram on the grounds that she invokes the first person too much in lyrics and song titles. On the one hand, what does "Swear by Me" or "I Owe it All to You" mean? (To name a couple.) To the other, there's nothing that Polly is doing that Tanita isn't, or that, say, J.D. Salinger didn't do in writing in the first person.

As to the "one person hauling a herd of whining incompetents across the river of life", well ... first off, you've never seen the Seattle ferries, in which the herd of incompetents is an hilarious image. They got espresso on the ferries before they did compliance with safety standards. And considering the leaking, worm-ridden ferries of the image of days yonder and yore ... everybody's incompetent to a certain degree; if the passengers were more competent, perhaps they would be traveling by different means.

The problem is that if I'm anywhere close to right, I'm still only playing with it at a first-grade level. Polly would smile if she read these words, but she wouldn't tell me if I got it right or wrong. But I do know that even these many words do a poor job of conveying the interpretation that is almost visceral.

Furthermore, there is no indication to be had anywhere in the article that the one person leading the herd of incompetents is in any way shape or form competent herself. In the literary term, she leaves open the notion of the blind leading the blind, so to speak.

One element worth noting, as it seems overlooked in your criticisms, is that she's using generally accessible metaphors and comparisons.

Many people, myself included, tend to localize and familiarize foreign ideas. Truly, when I think of a ferry, and when I first read the phrase about the kayak and the ferry, the big white and green whales puttering around Puget Sound was the first thing to mind. Even if I'd thought of Buddhism in that context, I would still think of the overcrowded ferries we hear about sinking off Malaysia or India or Sri Lanka. But I have to admit, a rickety, ancient, overloaded raft is a very apt image that cultural associations blocked out. There's a vague turn in there not only about the difference between metaphor and reality, but also the difference between reality and the basis of applied metaphors.

The presumption in the worst comes in your focus on the negative aspects inherent to any human being. You do not presume that the words are intended to communicate sympathetically; you do not presume abstraction. Rather, you presume the petty egocentrism which you are, for various reasons, programmed by various factors to expect. At least, that's what I read in the manifest result.

What you're missing is that while everybody is egocentric, not everybody is the kind of egomaniac you're apparently used to. On the one hand, everyone loves to revile an O'Reilly or Limbaugh or ... geez, do you remember when Kinsley was the left side of Crossfire? To the other, though, there seems to be this presumption that everybody's selling snake oil to that degree. It's not so much that you're necessarily dishonest or anything, but that the overwhelming proportion of the signals you receive and filter are so polarized. You're seeing a CNN commentator where you should see a good friend stretched out on the floor babbling about the mysteries of life over a bottle of wine and some Miles Davis. Literally, it's a matter of conditioning; a post-Buddhist friend of mine (Vajrayana) works with "conditioning factors", essentially but not quite quack psychotherapy in the guise of spiritualism. I'm starting to see where the term comes from, but I hate to inform him that it's a myopic notion; conditioning factors are useful ideas to recognize, but only until conditioning is broken; one can only go so far before going primal, or before the refinement becomes a regression.

Incidentally, it's also why I'm so vague about things like the "ancient core" referred to by the Sufis. It's not that you're stupid or anything; quite the contrary. However, our communication speaks to a conditioning that does not recognize the terms. Think of it in computer terms, for instance; I use OSX, some people use Windows, others use Red Hat or Yellow Dog or whatever. Yet at the same time, they're all the same thing arranged somewhat differently. At some point, you're just manipulating electricity. I'm told by a Microsoft developer, and I'd swear I learned this sort of thing back before the Wars of the Windows, that you build the kernels for operating systems out of different programming languages, but that the basis of the programming languages is common.

Something simpler, maybe, just for the hell of it: Maybe you're telling me how to build something with Duplo blocks, while I've got Lego blocks or perhaps even Lincoln logs. Is the common factor that they're both plastic, or that we're both building something?

but to me she sounds like anything but a Buddhist

Well, I'm as sure as I can possibly be that she is not, and no, I'm not calling her to find out.

What's funny, though, is that I tend to see multivalent ideas like the ones I'm playing with here as more along the lines of Sufism, whence nothing is taken purely at face value. However, there is still a joke that there are no Persian Buddhists because they're called Sufis. But I think multivalence was part of the effective point of the article. You've read, before, when I write that "Life is performance art", right? It's very subtle in its own right because it plays more on common, perhaps prejudicial, or more accurately "stereotypical" metaphors and labels, running an almost clinical detachment from itself. Even without knowing the writer, I would still be able to see the writer thinking on the page; that's a huge difference between Crossfire egocentrism and sympathetic-comparative discourse.

Try reading it as an artistic expression, and go ahead and presume the kind of sympathy and trust that you're not as accustomed to.

Incidentally, a lot of atheists who wonder where a certain, meritorious theism might exist; part of that might be a similar distrust of people as I'm asserting affects your perception through conditioning. It's out there. But I should put a cautionary note there; while I can vouch for the integrity of the artist ... well, I can't actually tell you honestly whether she believes in God or not. It's the ability to explore the issues that's important, and what one ... excuse me ... what I can learn from them.

The picture of the art car, incidentally, was intended as a joke based on the title, which is a joke about ... oh, never mind; that part is obvious. A piece of history that might make it a little more clear. If you look at the front-right fender in the picture, there's a ... well, I don't rightly know what's painted there; it gets changed from time to time. But there used to be a painting of mine there, the first painted incarnation of a pencil sketch I keep doing over and over that makes absolutely no sense to anybody in the world but me ... it's a variation on a variation on a variation of a theme related to Alice in Wonderland. At any rate, I painted the small picture as part of a larger entertainment in which Polly invited children to decorate the car. So a few of us sat around and painted the car with a bunch of children, an obviously random moment beyond the children's expectations of any given weekend; it was a beautiful time on a beautiful day that puzzled the children's parents to a certain degree. It was intentionally painted with water-based paints for safety reasons, thus requiring the car to be repainted by various people with various images at various times.

(Hint: I can safely assert that the picture of the car is actually a contributing accompaniment to the article. It actually adds another layer to the metaphor.)

Notes:

° Empirical only definitive perspective: It's a silly analogy, but one of my favorites: You will never see your own face. You'll see your reflection, your picture, but never your own actual face. You can look at a picture or a reflection of your friend, but you can also look at your friend. You can never look at yourself, so to speak. The comparative point has something to do with natural limitations. Not that people are incapable of introspection, although to a certain degree we are stuck with projections and reflections of ourselves, and not our actual selves, but in fact that until you can prove certain philosophical riddles you are stuck with faith. Much of this faith comes easy, but, for instance, if I were to put a specific fragment of a coin-flipping experiment into a computer (the middle 17 out of 25 flips) the computer would think that you could never flip a coin and get tails. Likewise, there are many things we see without deviation; I'm pretty damn sure gravity is real, but until one proves that existence is real and not an illusion, I'm stuck with faith. In the end, the nearest thing to a definitive perspective is what I see and know and remember. Of course, occultism has provided some amazing empirical realities for me, including a moon that can move 180 degrees across the sky in seconds, a cat that can project its being into a second location, living shadows, and a fifteen-foot tall thing that looked vaguely like what some people call Satan. Faith and objectivity is obviously a delicate balance if they are to be balanced at all. I can't actually prove to myself that I exist; actually, I barely can--it's a matter of how nihilist I wish to be on a given day.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

And to this day I don't think you've ever adequately explained what the hell that means. While I can follow the point to a certain degree, I'm just not willing to haul out a dictionary right now to show you the point. The use of the word "egocentric" is inaccurate. Entirely, wholly, and purely inaccurate.

I think we'll be dancing around this one for a while unless we decide to jump back into it again fully and if we do that I think I'm going to need to get stoned first. But I believe, again without review, that the point I was getting at is that the species focused purpose you were driving at still places the self at the center, not as an individual (obviously) but as a concept. Categorization is exclusive, artificial, and essentially arbitrary. To select a category necessarily excludes most of existence; that which is not like you.

This is not to say I do not find it a practical or worthy position. Certainly it is several steps up from what suffices as ethics for most people but if we are examining it philosophically I find it necessary to push deeper. My first rule of ethics is relative equality, rather like Einstein's theory of special relativity; any point may consider itself as the frame of reference.

In defense of my use of the word egocentric I would simply point to this definition:

3.b. Taking one's own self as the starting point in a philosophical system.

Is it possible not to do this in developing a practical set of ethics? I don't know. Certainly, it becomes absurd to attempt to include infinity in a practical definition of anything. But there it is.

but your position has seemed fundamentally dishonest to me in a very "human" way in some part because of that point.

Well I do my best not to be dishonest but I will take a particular tack sometimes merely to make a point or to force an analysis.

It is a presumption of the worst. Consider the flip-side: When I read an article like this, regardless of the author, I look first at what the author is offering is intended as a gift---that's not the best word for it, but it is an offering intended for my benefit; whether that benefit is spiritual, superficial, or sublime is entirely up to me and my prejudices.
...
With "Minivanyana", it's hard for me to shake a direct prejudice, I admit; I can hear that any day of the week over a glass of wine if I want.

And the more I find out about her the more I come to agree with you. But I would point out that the article alone does not provide the context necessary to the interpretation you have given. Taking the picture of the car, for instance, I wonder who would do that and why. I made some assumptions, which turned out to be wrong upon hearing your explanations, but that context was not provided in the article. I had only that which was on the site to go on. Like an inside joke, without the shared personal context it comes across quite differently.

Again, I would stress that I attempt not to address any writing from a presumptive position. The first things I do, when reading anything, is ask, "What is the author trying to accomplish?" "Who did they write this for and why?" I attempt to reserve my opinion until I have finished or have at least gotten a good taste of it.

But I do know that even these many words do a poor job of conveying the interpretation that is almost visceral.

I suggest that this is indicative that your interpretation is founded in a much broader, personal context. While I am coming towards your perspective it is because of the context you have provided/

Furthermore, there is no indication to be had anywhere in the article that the one person leading the herd of incompetents is in any way shape or form competent herself.

Nor is there anything to suggest otherwise.

But I have to admit, a rickety, ancient, overloaded raft is a very apt image that cultural associations blocked out. There's a vague turn in there not only about the difference between metaphor and reality, but also the difference between reality and the basis of applied metaphors.

I hate to harp, and I'll not point it out again but in metaphor context is important. Had I been writing that article I believe I would have taken note of the negative connotations and used a different metaphor or given the appropriate context. Perhaps "ship of fools" would have worked better.

The presumption in the worst comes in your focus on the negative aspects inherent to any human being.

On the contrary, I am extremely positive most of the time. I believe that almost everyone attempts to do and say what they believe is right. Whether they are correct or not is another matter. However, I admit that I am at times hyper-critical.

You do not presume that the words are intended to communicate sympathetically; you do not presume abstraction. Rather, you presume the petty egocentrism which you are, for various reasons, programmed by various factors to expect. At least, that's what I read in the manifest result.

If something is writ well I shouldn't have to make a presumption.

Incidentally, it's also why I'm so vague about things like the "ancient core" referred to by the Sufis. It's not that you're stupid or anything; quite the contrary. However, our communication speaks to a conditioning that does not recognize the terms.

And this is indeed frustrating... I think half of the battle in philosophy is semantic.

What's funny, though, is that I tend to see multivalent ideas like the ones I'm playing with here as more along the lines of Sufism, whence nothing is taken purely at face value.

Try reading it as an artistic expression, and go ahead and presume the kind of sympathy and trust that you're not as accustomed to.

I have no problem with this. Indeed, I attempt to be diligent in addressing my own presumptions and am always willing to at least consider an alternative when proffered. Although I must ask; what happens to meaning when nothing is taken at face value?

I am willing to admit that my assessment was incorrect although I disagree that it was due to a conditioned prejudice. I am also willing to admit that my response was simply a sarcastic retort rather than an attempt to honestly address the issues... of course I did elicit almost two pages worth of reply from you.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

3.b. Taking one's own self as the starting point in a philosophical system

Yes, Raithere, that's exactly what collectivism represents ... :bugeye:

Is it possible not to do this in developing a practical set of ethics?

There must necessarily be some egocentrism in the application, but the formulation can be as removed from the self as reality (e.g. the physical location of the brain) permits.

Well I do my best not to be dishonest but I will take a particular tack sometimes merely to make a point or to force an analysis.

It has something to do with the egocentrism of determining the purpose of life based on the individual's pre-existing prejudices, a practical reality unnecessarily celebrated by those who view the purpose of life as invested primarily in the individual. It's not a personal thing, mind you, but rather something that I see motivating the distrust people generally show each other.

Taking the picture of the car, for instance, I wonder who would do that and why.

Well, what artist is going to reveal all the secrets with neon signs? Believe me, if you spell it out to the last letter, people get pissed.

I made some assumptions, which turned out to be wrong upon hearing your explanations, but that context was not provided in the article. I had only that which was on the site to go on. Like an inside joke, without the shared personal context it comes across quite differently.

But, lacking context, you presumed the negative. The assumptions themselves don't bother me insofar as everyone operates on assumption more often than we like to admit. But the undercurrent determining the nature of the opinion ....

The severe analogy is "forgiving stupidity" (I used to use racism, but reality gave me a better example). In this case, though, it's not stupidity. But, for analogous purposes, if someone is raised, say, racist, or perhaps (as life provided) on a zealous chivalry, there is a point at which we cannot expect the individual to operate outside of the pattern. Meeting, say, a racist, I generally wait to find the reasons for their racism. Good reasons for racism are hard to explain, and they're hard to help people overcome. (In the chivalry example, an enthusiastic young man I know, a friend's younger brother, ended up killing someone for chivalry ... suffice to say, without wasting an additional thousand words, I actually understand how he came to that point.)

Nor do I claim to be immune from the processes I'm describing. Quite often, I find my attempts to break conditioning are frustrated because the method is conditioned. But to flex ... well, something ... at any rate: How hard is it to actually pin me down according to stereotype? I'm not a typical leftist, I'm not a typical theist, I'm not a typical American, I'm well-established in my personal circles as an atypical male ... part of what makes me so atypical is that I'm constantly smashing myself against the conditioning structures that interfere with a liberated thought process. And I'll never clear away all conditioning, but trying to get rid of the extraneous crap doesn't hurt.

But I do wonder about what conditions or conditioning determines the direction of assumption. Not only as relates to you; it's a wonderful human conundrum I spend a fair amount of time with.

It's also worth mentioning that I have inside jokes with writers I've never met. I chuckle at things Clive Barker or Ray Bradbury come up with; I was exceptionally pleased with myself when I got a chuckle out of Steven Brust. I might mention an episode of Voyager I caught the other day. I'm not a Trekkie by any stretch of the word, and rarely watch Voyager, but I did happen to share a number of inside jokes with the holographic doctor in an episode in which he is stolen by a trader and sold to a hideously bureaucratic society. The jokes have nothing to do with Star Trek, and everything to do with doctors.

The point being is that one doesn't necessarily need the inside joke of the writer. The inside joke of a modern ferry in San Francisco, or (perhaps) the European ferries, might suffice, depending on the condition of the travelers, might be helpful, but by and large, I'm not going to argue with Dickens about how the times were.

I do believe a great deal of the difference between how we read the article lies in the basic presumptions with which we approach life. Perhaps it is symptomatic of our different perspectives on the purpose of life.

Think about poor George Bush; because of his actions, I doubt every word coming out of his mouth. It seems logical, in consideration of history. Even without the labels (I treat conservatism much like you seem to treat theism--almost religious distrust) Bush would still annoy me for the simple fact that he is presently the world's most powerful poseur. But I always presume the worst in conservatism; I justify it with fancy rhetoric about necessarily expecting the worst from such policies, but it's true that I generally expect the worst of conservatives despite my best efforts.

The first things I do, when reading anything, is ask, "What is the author trying to accomplish?" "Who did they write this for and why?"

I think these are very vital questions; however, in terms of who for, and why, we might consider that KtB is a site oriented to atypical, pioneering, and alternative theological notions; its audience is generally accepting and often welcoming of the written voice you find egocentric. As a comparative note, I'm a fan of Parabola magazine, which carries some very interesting theological notions indeed; I think the egocentrism you fear would be more likely found there ... I never understood what business motivational speakers had writing theological discourse ....

I suggest that this is indicative that your interpretation is founded in a much broader, personal context. While I am coming towards your perspective it is because of the context you have provided

I am, as noted, subject to certain prejudices on this; however, it has in the course of our discussion become of growing importance to somehow convey to you that the "useful" theism that many people wonder about--specifically, if it actually exists--is alive and kicking, but people are just looking past it because of--and I shudder to pair these words--conditioning factors.

Nor is there anything to suggest otherwise.

Which leads us back to the nature of the presumption. You say tomato, I say tomato ... wait, that doesn't work well in the written form, does it?

I hate to harp, and I'll not point it out again but in metaphor context is important.

I would assert that you're looking at least one layer too shallow.

Had I been writing that article I believe I would have taken note of the negative connotations and used a different metaphor or given the appropriate context.

Maybe, but that's a fine line.

Perhaps "ship of fools" would have worked better.

Cliches never work better unless one is exploiting them as a motif, and that's just dangerous.

However, I admit that I am at times hyper-critical.

Well, that makes at least two of us ... I'll check with my alter-ego if it ever wakes up from its coma. But I'll note here that when you get right down to it, you'd be amazed at how deeply the myth of man's fall at Eden runs through Western thought. The idea of original sin is a prevalent conditioning (shudder) factor throughout the formerly Christianized world.

If something is writ well I shouldn't have to make a presumption.

This is a paradigm-level presumption; it inherently colors perception.

I think half of the battle in philosophy is semantic.

Sadly, the other half is diversity itself .... Of course, I'm sure there are more halves; in the philosophical world it would be impossible to prove that two halves make a whole, as it would probably be impossible to prove that the whole ever existed.

Although I must ask; what happens to meaning when nothing is taken at face value?

Depends on the presumptions. One can forsake trust, perhaps to the point of paranoia, or one can choose trust, perhaps to the point of mortal foolishness. And any number of degrees in between.

Objectively, to revisit Dubya, my reaction is to not trust him. Were he someone closer to me, he would warrant greater consideration; perhaps I would understand the man's faults a little more. But, as an abstraction "out there", he gets from me the negative presumption. Jack Cady, on the other hand has my full attention when I am in his presence; while he is fallible, he gets a positive presumption. What's the difference? I could say that Cady showed me much respect as my teacher, I could say that his writing buries me in shame at my own inadequacy. But the simple fact is that Bush is primarily identified as a Republican and Cady is primarily identified as a writer. Really, it's that simple. Republicans can earn a positive presumption, and writers can earn a negative. But that's an example of my patterns--I speak the language of writers; I don't speak the language of Republicans. It could be mentioned that I speak the language of politicians, which makes me see certain political affiliations as less trustworthy than others, but that's an unnecessary digression, as it only points back to conditioning.

So in the end, what something means to me when nothing is taken at face value depends entirely on the presumptions I'm operating under.

. . . . of course I did elicit almost two pages worth of reply from you

Well, you'll notice I didn't give much for a topic. But it was a tough one for me, I admit. It's not that Polly will officially kick my ass if she sees this, but neither will she tell me how wrong I got it. In the end, it actually makes me jumpy. But damn it, if someone's going to criticize her, I want it to be on the level .... (I've lost count of my images and smilies ... trust the humor ... trust the humor ... oh, and put yet another wink right there ... or something.) Theology can be put to use if people will allow it.

I think you're looking to rebut a conditioning factor that is not quite the one I'm after. I'm aiming for a more subtle idea; like I said, a paradigm-level presumption.

Drew Carey once noted, "I never understood Hallowe'en. All your life your parents say, Don't take candy from strangers. Don't take candy from strangers. And then, once a year, they dress you up and say, Go beg for it."

Take a look around at how much fear and loathing there is in the culture. The 1990s alone brought us scare-tactic advertising for soaps, tires, insurance, medicine, batteries, investment plans, ad nauseam. Don't talk to strangers. Don't climb so high. You don't need that kind of friends. You'll ruin your future. Other people will think we're horrible parents. Nuclear war, acid rain, the rainforests are dying dying dying, the planet is dying the people are dying. Dog eat dog world. If you don't take it, somebody else will. Compete, succeed, win win win.

And that's just the short list. How many foods will give you cancer? Cholesterol nothing ... have you seen what cheezy-puffs do to you? (How many thousands or millions of American children have learned a primary dualism that brings conflict: You're either with us, or against us ....

The funny thing is that someone could probably say what you wrote in your initial response to my face over a beer and it wouldn't agitate me at all. I have very little idea what it is about the written word and me, but it is, literally, conditioning. In fact, about the only thing I ever feel badly about when I'm raining invective all over the place, even in my nastier outbursts, is that every once in a while I'm reacting to a post that I could possibly be overreacting to. But then again, I've also learned that people tend to think I wield words like weapons. In at least one case in my personal life, I must agree.

What's sad is that my initial response to you was actually designed to give me an excuse for the "anti-religion religious folk" line. Even the Christians comparison was just filler. But now that I think about it, it probably should have been turned into a more legitimate point.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Tiassa
Yes, Raithere, that's exactly what collectivism represents ...

Oh come on. You're telling me that you cannot see that selecting the species of which you are a member as the frame of reference is in some way egocentric? What objective argument elevates the human species above dolphins, ants, or sand?

It has something to do with the egocentrism of determining the purpose of life based on the individual's pre-existing prejudices, a practical reality unnecessarily celebrated by those who view the purpose of life as invested primarily in the individual.

I tend to think wider, not narrower in terms of ethics. However, I believe that purpose can only be determined by the acting individual. Someone may make a hammer for the purpose of pounding nails... if I use instead it to whack an idiot in the head I have subverted the makers purpose with my own.

Well, what artist is going to reveal all the secrets with neon signs? Believe me, if you spell it out to the last letter, people get pissed.

I agree, but the picture of the car was not alone, it was accompanied by text. It was from this reference that I formed my opinion. As with any art, there is more than one possible interpretation. The artist must either provide the context or accept that others will provide their own.

But, lacking context, you presumed the negative.

I was not presuming the negative. Not knowing the author or the unwritten contextual background I relied solely upon the text, in which I found several statements that I took to be rather negative. Given more background I can see the wry humor that is so apparent to you. But I contest that the humor is not readily apparent in that page alone... at least it wasn't to me. I might also point out that the only other context I had to go on was what I know of your postings of various snippets and links, which are quite often rather sarcastic and negative. Did I jump to a negative conclusion? Yes. But negativity is not simply an overriding conditioned response.

How hard is it to actually pin me down according to stereotype? I'm not a typical leftist, I'm not a typical theist, I'm not a typical American, I'm well-established in my personal circles as an atypical male ... part of what makes me so atypical is that I'm constantly smashing myself against the conditioning structures that interfere with a liberated thought process. And I'll never clear away all conditioning, but trying to get rid of the extraneous crap doesn't hurt.

I believe, after changing some of the terms, the same can be said of me.

But I do wonder about what conditions or conditioning determines the direction of assumption. Not only as relates to you; it's a wonderful human conundrum I spend a fair amount of time with.

And worthy of addressing. Personally, I've always been somewhat hung-up over linguistic biases.

It's also worth mentioning that I have inside jokes with writers I've never met.

Then it is not an inside joke but a referential or subtle one. An inside joke relies upon personal experience. If I say to you "Ah Grasshopper, my nuts ache." it is nothing but crudely funny (if that) to you. When I said it to a particular friend of mine he found it hysterical because it references an experience common only to the two of us.

I do believe a great deal of the difference between how we read the article lies in the basic presumptions with which we approach life. Perhaps it is symptomatic of our different perspectives on the purpose of life.

I'm certain it does, to some degree. And certainly there is some level of conditioned bias in my response... although I'll personally take responsibility for that conditioning.

I am, as noted, subject to certain prejudices on this; however, it has in the course of our discussion become of growing importance to somehow convey to you that the "useful" theism that many people wonder about--specifically, if it actually exists--is alive and kicking, but people are just looking past it because of--and I shudder to pair these words--conditioning factors.

I quite accept that. In fact, I believe that most personal religions are useful. Generally, I am more concerned that they are not often honestly realized or critically analyzed. Faith, particularly in western religions, literally becomes a commandment not to use the very abilities that God supposedly invested us with. It becomes an order to close our eyes to reality. Our primary difference, and I know we've discussed this before, lies in our approach to the problems of religion.

I would assert that you're looking at least one layer too shallow.

Am I supposed to just always provide my own positive context; how is that any less biased?

But I'll note here that when you get right down to it, you'd be amazed at how deeply the myth of man's fall at Eden runs through Western thought. The idea of original sin is a prevalent conditioning (shudder) factor throughout the formerly Christianized world.

The presumption of 'evil'. Yes, I agree.

This is a paradigm-level presumption; it inherently colors perception.

There are times when it is not applicable. But overall it is a demand I'm willing to live with.

But the simple fact is that Bush is primarily identified as a Republican and Cady is primarily identified as a writer. Really, it's that simple. Republicans can earn a positive presumption, and writers can earn a negative.

What about a republican writer? Sorry, but I have an intrinsic distrust of categorization. Have you ever asked GW to label himself? Certainly, in terms of his career he has selected to be a republican. But what if, when asked, he responds with "Father", "Husband", "Human", or "Christian"? Point being, the label that categorizes your presumption has been selected by you. (Don't worry about reversing the point, I realize it applies to me as well and it is something I continually fight against doing.)

But damn it, if someone's going to criticize her, I want it to be on the level .... (I've lost count of my images and smilies ... trust the humor ... trust the humor ... oh, and put yet another wink right there ... or something.) Theology can be put to use if people will allow it.

Don't stress too badly, I understand and agree. I am quite willing to redress my presumtions.

I think you're looking to rebut a conditioning factor that is not quite the one I'm after. I'm aiming for a more subtle idea; like I said, a paradigm-level presumption.

Hopefully I'm closer to the topic then this time. I am trying.

How many foods will give you cancer?

I stopped listening when I realized that what they were really saying is that oxygen gives you cancer.

In fact, about the only thing I ever feel badly about when I'm raining invective all over the place, even in my nastier outbursts, is that every once in a while I'm reacting to a post that I could possibly be overreacting to. But then again, I've also learned that people tend to think I wield words like weapons.
...
What's sad is that my initial response to you was actually designed to give me an excuse for the "anti-religion religious folk" line. Even the Christians comparison was just filler. But now that I think about it, it probably should have been turned into a more legitimate point.

Hey, I do the same kind of thing... often. This is written dialogue and debate, however, not some declaration of condemnation. We must work within the limitations of the vehicle we have chosen to use here and sometimes the point needs to be exaggerated to get the reaction we want... and sometimes it's just a human, emotional response.

Someone posted a complaint a little while back that no one was responding to his topics. The suggestion I gave him was that we was being far too reasonable. His posts were well thought out and written, his topics were of interest and import but they simply did not evoke enough of a reaction. Personally, I aim for a reaction. I deliberately attempt to be provocative and avoid using a passive structure. In matters of philosophy, rarely am I as convinced of my position as I seem to be. But if I present a position as a "what if" or "maybe" not many people are going to respond... and then I might as well talk to a wall.

The real question is; what are we trying to accomplish? Hehe... to bring it around; what is our purpose? Over time, I have come to trust yours.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Baby Lemonade and the Gigolo Aunt (or, Insert Title Here)

Oh come on. You're telling me that you cannot see that selecting the species of which you are a member as the frame of reference is in some way egocentric? What objective argument elevates the human species above dolphins, ants, or sand?

Nature.

I don't know what a dolphin, ant, or elephant feels. I don't recognize what counts for "thought" among those species. It's not a political "recognition", but a limitation of being human.

The actions of species generally have the result of promoting or reducing the species. Extinction is just as natural a part of evolution as perpetuation; it's just a matter of what one chooses.

But you only have to go as far as your television set (TLC, Discovery, PBS, &c.) in order to see an individual, non-human organism behaving in a manner that is utterly inexplicable until one considers the collective. One of my favorites was an infirm female walrus straying from the pack and taking a position near the waterline. Sure enough, the predators closed on her, and the rest of the group made it easily into the water. For the feel-good measure, the individual did actually escape to the water, but with some cuts and bruises. I've watched a video sequence of a chimpanzee committing suicide. Salmon die in order to get laid.

To reach from a group-oriented dynamic to whatever perversity it is you seem to have in mind is entirely your own stretch. All I've ever been after with that is that we're human beings, and it doesn't seem so hard to figure out that when humanity does well, it means individual humans--yes, that includes you and me will be doing relatively well. The better things get for everyone else, the better they will get for you. And it sure beats ripping out throats in order to get peace and quiet, I promise.

I tend to think wider, not narrower in terms of ethics. However, I believe that purpose can only be determined by the acting individual. Someone may make a hammer for the purpose of pounding nails... if I use instead it to whack an idiot in the head I have subverted the makers purpose with my own.

That is its own particular arrogance. Hell, you'd be surprised at what I used to create various flamethrowers and other pyrotechnical tantrums. I'm quite sure that a Jack Daniels bottle is made for drinking from and not for exploding gasoline with. Popular myth holds that gunpowder was invented for entertainment.

And it's true: You're welcome to decide that you know more about something than, in the case of a hammer, gun, or otherwise, the people who designed it. It doesn't mean you're right.

Whether or not a person is smart enough to recognize their place in the evolutionary scheme of the Universe matters not to the Universe itself. However, it might matter a great deal to the poor fucker who gets killed or maimed because someone was basing their decisions on self-centered, myopic priorities.

There is an abstraction I don't think you've covered here: It can go both ways. The individual may choose to recognize the collective, but given ideas of fucking and spending money, whence comes the individual priorities of compromise/surrender (e.g. marriage) and the elevating of another (allegedly) above the self (e.g. children)? It's rather quite inexplicable in the individual sense, that the seemingly most pleasurable thing on Earth--sexual contact--facilitates species perpetuation. It puts fear of death in context a little, wouldn't you say? Your fear of death only has to do with yourself because you choose to believe that's the stake. I see your point, I just find it comparatively narrow, and in light of a charge of egocentric collectivism, somewhat laughable.

I agree, but the picture of the car was not alone, it was accompanied by text. It was from this reference that I formed my opinion. As with any art, there is more than one possible interpretation. The artist must either provide the context or accept that others will provide their own.

Agreed. Now ... what does that say about your priorities of interpretation? Stop seeking the worst in people, is my advice. Just because a bunch of superstitious twits came up with the idea of Original Sin doesn't mean the idea has any merit in the modern day save its superstitious value. (e.g. its ability to affect perception, therefore information, therefore action)

I was not presuming the negative. Not knowing the author or the unwritten contextual background I relied solely upon the text, in which I found several statements that I took to be rather negative.

(Chortle!)

Whatever you say, Raithere. Whatever you say.

It is your own internal priorities that compel you to take such expressions as rather negative.

Given more background I can see the wry humor that is so apparent to you.

I agree: The humor becomes more apparent as one wipes away presumptions with a "convention of fact". (e.g. You're taking my word on the author's character, which I cannot truly establish as fact.)

But I contest that the humor is not readily apparent in that page alone.

There's an immense amount of humor in Dickens if you just trust the bastard. Hawthorne can leave me rolling on the floor. Of modern writers, Rushdie can bring me to tears of mourning through beauty and joy. Barker can tantalize with the repugnant. It's all a matter of trust.

I generally trust authors and artists unless they give me a specific reason not to. Believe it or not, I even trust the conservatives I so decry to be somewhat honest; they're not just fucking with people for fun on that level, they really believe that shit.

I might also point out that the only other context I had to go on was what I know of your postings of various snippets and links, which are quite often rather sarcastic and negative.

While it is a more reasonable consideration, I'm not swayed by either its magnitude or its timing.

But negativity is not simply an overriding conditioned response.

Not necessarily. Based on observation, though, that's largely what it seems.

While it is good to be skeptical of just about anything, it is also good to keep in mind the reasons for skepticism. There is much difference between preventing a charlatan from conning you and doing the job for him. Beyond that, welcome to the planet Earth. Welcome to humanity. I can choose to cooperate with my neighbors, I can choose to compete with them. I can choose to ignore them altogether, although that has its practical difficulties.

I believe, after changing some of the terms, the same can be said of me.

And I really do think that if you sack that self-centered purpose of life, you'll find that a whole lot of the extraneous crap becomes instantly easier to deal with, and much of it will go away altogether. Proportionately I don't know what it equals, but the raw weight off one's chest is astounding.

And worthy of addressing. Personally, I've always been somewhat hung-up over linguistic biases.

I think we would make some heads explode. If I think of a way to phrase it that's safe for our fellow travelers, I'll let you know. Do the same, please.

Then it is not an inside joke but a referential or subtle one. An inside joke relies upon personal experience. If I say to you "Ah Grasshopper, my nuts ache." it is nothing but crudely funny (if that) to you. When I said it to a particular friend of mine he found it hysterical because it references an experience common only to the two of us.

In the abstract, experience is reference.

Beyond that, I'll leave it at disagreeing as a matter of terms and degrees.

I'm certain it does, to some degree. And certainly there is some level of conditioned bias in my response... although I'll personally take responsibility for that conditioning.

Fair enough; it should be enough merely to argue about what exactly you're taking responsibility for

Faith, particularly in western religions, literally becomes a commandment not to use the very abilities that God supposedly invested us with. It becomes an order to close our eyes to reality.

While it seems a pointless repetition perhaps, I will here note that this is exactly why I have no specific religion.

And think of the arrogance in that: It is well enough to permit the Universe to be "alive" until I find a better way of naming and defining it.

Perhaps it would make a difference to consider that I do dwell occasionally on what exactly the endpoint is. Many of my considerations come in that context. If you wrap something up too immediately, you can make it sound good no matter what it is. Watch how history takes a severe trouncing whenever someone is about to go to war; wrap it up in the immediate context, and nobody ever stops to think about history or the future that will become history.

Our primary difference, and I know we've discussed this before, lies in our approach to the problems of religion.

That's definitely among them. I'd look more to our overall regard for religion.

Am I supposed to just always provide my own positive context; how is that any less biased?

Something about trust?

What the hell is so hard about presuming toward the positive? Since, in such cases, you cannot have definitive knowledge, we might say that one might allow their presumptions to affect their regard for the alleged knowledge in a positive or negative manner. What the hell is so hard about presuming toward the positive?

If I was walking down the street, and you were coming toward me ... I've never seen your face, I've never heard your voice; I wouldn't know you from ... uh ... Adam, I guess. (Well, I could go back and look at the picture thread ....) At any rate, what should I presume? Let's imagine that we're going to collide, in order to eliminate the "simply ignore" function that works so well for 99.9% of the people I would pass on a city street. Now, should I presume something positive about our near-collision? Such as, "Neither of us intended it; heck, he's probably as wrapped up in vital stuff and having as hard a day as I am." Or should I presume something negative? Such as, "He's just fucking with me. Maybe he's dangerous. Perhaps I should preemptively defend myself by kicking him in the sac."

Admittedly, it's a bit extreme, but metaphorically speaking, you're kicking the writer in the sac for a simple lack of the inside skinny. There's six billion people in the world; how can you or I possibly expect to know each one of them? And, as a practical measure, I don't have time to kick six billion people where it hurts ....

The presumption of 'evil'. Yes, I agree.

If you were into shallow theories of the tarot, I would tell you to dwell on that while contemplating at least three major arcana: Devil, Blasted Tower, and Universe/Aeon. And then, of course, I would remind you of something cryptic like, "Remember that Tzaddi is not the Star." (Which invokes a fourth card, and I'm pretty sure someone more familiar with the deck than I could carry that out to all seventy-eight cards in an Hermetic deck ....)

However ... think for a minute of the film Raising Arizona. There's a great scene in there where the Arizona wardens tell Nicholas Cage's character all about "recidivism", and, having grown up in the 1980s and witnessing the damage of the drug war, I found the 1990s focus on recidivism to be an empty and useless debate that only complicated things by compelling idiots to vote for mandatory minimums and various wacky privatization schemes for the penal institutions. And you know, among the child molesters and murderers and bank robbers and car thieves, I'm pretty sure recidivism is a major concern. But three-quarters of the drug-war casualties are stained by the same fear of recidivism that stains child-rapists. Send a kid for crack, and everyone thinks he's going to dip the till if they hire him. What a wonderful superstition. Michael Moore wants to hire only black people; maybe I'll hire only survivors of Drug War injustices ...

People presumed the worst. If one is born into sin, and has descended so far as to go to prison, how can the one possibly confront sinful ways? There are a number of accompaniment Biblical points that go along with that, but since the Christians by and large ignored them, why should we complicate the situation as such?

There are times when it is not applicable. But overall it is a demand I'm willing to live with.

Few writings, if any, are so undeniably perfect as to require no secondary interpretation by the recipient.

What about a republican writer?

Cady, for instance, once reminded me that if I absolutely must preach a moral position, write a fucking essay. Don't waste a story on it. That is, in part, what I've been wasting the last ten years on. Strangely, my youthful zeal is not dissipating as we all thought it would.

However, noting what was written earlier in this post, well ... recognizing the standards that go with being a Republican (a referential point or joke), I expect the writing to be subordinate to the politic. If this were not the case, the political stance would be simply written. I have somewhere a story by Russell Kirk called "It's a Long Long Trail A-Windin'", one of the finest horror shorts I've ever stumbled across. In the introduction to the story (it's in an anthology I have), Kirk is marked as a "conservative" writer, though I'm unfamiliar with the rest of his bibliography, so I can't speak to what exactly that means. Considering the point from Cady described above, I can say that Kirk wrote as a writer; it was the editor who chose to point out Kirk's politics, and I'm not sure why, other than the fact that aside from Stephen King, most horror writers are crazy liberal fuckers. And even that generalization doesn't hold. But think of it this way: Your buddy in a band writes a song. Is it good? Is it bad? What the heck, does it even have to be one of your buddies? Now, on the other hand, a Republican Senator, in the wake of a national disaster, promises to write a gospel song commemorating the event. Is it at all possible that you might approach those products with differing criteria of assessment or judgment on the grounds that the artists actually demand it in their presentation? I mean, really ... if people weren't so shell-shocked by being bombed by a bunch of Saudi dissidents, would any of that moose-drool pop-culture backlash have had any real effect?

Think about this: Two religious songs--

- So what can I tell you? Life's the length of this play. Perhaps God gave the answers to those with nothing to say. The years are forgiven. God's forgiven in kind. Perhaps we'll all find the answers somewhere in time, somewhere in time. (Savatage)

- You make my life complete, you give me all I need, you help me through and through. I'm calling on you. (Stryper)

You know, the first time I heard it, "Calling on You" could have become a powerful love song to woo a girl by. But no, the Christian artists who demanded their identity insisted that the song could only mean one thing. Savatage, a band that I suspect is deeply Christian, generally spent their time getting criticized by the PMRC and other organizations, despite including the occasional Welsh hymn on their album.

What's the difference? Savatage was telling us a story. Even when D.T. is on his knees in Saint Patrick's making essentially a collect call to God, it's part of the story. Stryper announces their confines, forfeits part of their artistic impact and therefore their merit.

Same thing with Republican and other labeled writers. Voltairine de Cleyre, for instance. She's an admired poet among some circles merely because of her politics. Those people have got to be kidding me. Perhaps in her day it was something, but the poetry sounds exactly like the angry ravings of a disenchanted woman trapped in a man's world. It's a nasty balance to attempt. I don't write the novel right now because even in my personal life, the soapbox is about the only place my sanity can entertain the mere illusion of security. (Example: With a screaming infant and nothing working, Tig starts to get upset because Emma Grace's temperature is way down. Like five degrees low. I'm not ready to panic. All I did was point out that we've never gotten an accurate reading from that thermometer in the sense that I've never seen Emma's temperature over 97.0 Fahrenheit according to that unit. I got a thermometer thrown at me for that one. I actually had to climb up on my soapbox and give a, "What the fuck about Emma's condition is so not important that you have the time to be cussing me out and throwing shit?")

Where's the story, people ask. It's waiting until I'm done saying some other things. Largely because I do not wish, in the end, to sacrifice that part of my integrity.

Point being, the label that categorizes your presumption has been selected by you.

Not always. Read author biography blurbs in books, newspapers, and magazines.

Imagine the article: "Transit system bad for region" with the note at the end, "John Johnson is the chairman of Area Independent Transport Council, a motorist-advocacy group sponsored by several automotive manufacturers, and has served as an advisor to Exxon-Mobil."

Or, "Clinton's Legacy Leaves Bad Taste In Mouth", with the note at the end, "Jill McPhil is the Regional Coordinator of the Republican Collegiate Feminist Advocacy."

Hopefully I'm closer to the topic then this time. I am trying.

I do hope you realize that the only reason you're catching it from me is that you're willing. While some of it is frustrating, I must admit that I can't ever make the point if nobody's coming out to play.

I stopped listening when I realized that what they were really saying is that oxygen gives you cancer.

I fell over laughing during the tobacco fiasco in the 1990s when an industry flak got up to take issue with the EPA's testing methods (e.g secondhand smoke).

(It should be mentioned here, though it is irrelevant, that this is another case of, "If we have the right point, why are we dishonest?")

At any rate, the flak got up and described the testing conditions for subjecting rats to secondhand smoke. The smoke density got up around thirty times that which a human smoker would endure in the smokiest of taverns. An interesting point which he then kind of blew in the public's perception by pointing out that if you put rats through the same test and ratios with orange juice, you could prove that OJ killed Nicole. (He didn't make the Simpson joke; that crass one's mine. But he did point out that under similar conditions, orange juice will kill you quicker than cigarettes, and not from drowning.)

The real question is; what are we trying to accomplish? Hehe... to bring it around; what is our purpose? Over time, I have come to trust yours.

Why thank you. But I think that's what (among other things) the Sufis talk about in polishing the mirror. The day I can answer that question (directly in the smaller context, and not metaphysically; e.g. with this or that post or topic or my general presence at Sciforums, &c.), well ... my mirror will be sparkling.

But there is a short answer that has to do with human suffering and extraneous effort given in vain. It alleges to be compassionate, but after the Easter weekend, I had to pick my mirror out of the compost heap.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Something about metaphors

"I could not save my daughter. I've no right to live." (Hasina Begum)

Something about metaphors, I tells ya.

:m:,
Tiassa