dust

Do you really see nihilism at work in general Western society? Materialism, sure. In the physical/philosophical sense of the word, that existence is 'made' out of 'matter'. As a remnant of Christianity -- the notion that the world was created, put together by a creator, out of 'matter' -- materialism lingers on, even though we are starting to realize that 'matter' isn't really there in that sense. In the commonly used sense of the word -- that one who loves to buy stuff and have nice things is a 'materialist' -- it's certainly true all over the world, not just the West. Modern Eastern cultures are just as 'materialist' as modern Western ones. Nihilism, though... I don't see that an atmosphere of nihilism "pervades" the West at all. Western philosophy, yes, and this has been true for a long time... but not Western culture, not the life of the average Westerner. People love to believe in the inherent meaning and purpose of life, especially that of human life.

.

Thanks. Not sure how I missed your post. I guess it's unlikely that I share her exact problem but it does share intriguing similarities with my case (history of knee pain, major muscle imbalances and inflexibility in lower body). I'm certainly very aware of mistrusting my legs/feet. Climbing, walking on rocky terrain, getting over walls, standing at a height, etc -- all related to a fear of falling but also mistrust of my feet. I realize this is a tangent from what your post describes, but in either case perhaps continued focus on addressing the imbalances will help.

Once again, you write as if I haven't already agreed upon much of what you say (I have and I will point it all out), and then manage to bring capitalism into it when the discussion does not merit it at all. Quite a lot. Here's a very, very small sample (an image I made a while back in response to another thread) Here we go again with the survival thing. Yes, we all want to survive. Yes, we have to eat things and make houses, etc. We need to cut down some trees, mine some stone, pick fruit, etc -- fine. There's a lot that we do that we absolutely do not need to do. I'm pretty sure it was 'nature' which gave us life. Without which we would not be here. I already said this. You act as if I don't agree so as to drive your argument forward, but I already agreed to this. Again, I already said this. I do do this with a lot of things. More people would benefit from actually considering the impact of their actions on themselves and others and the environment (the environment that was damaged in its production, for example, or the environment that will be damaged after its use..). Yet you claim to believe that the future of humankind is important, do you not? We had a long argument about whether or not the spread of humanity throughout the galaxy would be like a plague -- as I remember, you think it is the way forward, and I said that I do not really care, but that it is not my favorite idea of all. You do care about the future of humanity, and you do believe that we should consider it, do you not? You do not believe that all we can or should care about is the present. That's me, I'm the one who doesn't look into the future very well! I didn't say any of that, did I? Or even imply it. I don't think I implied it. What I said was: Great disasters and periods of destruction are as necessary as periods of tranquility and prosperity ... These things will happen whether we want them to or not. But we have some say over our own contribution to the damage. And you seem to want to disagree that we do have any say over our own contribution..? Or that we just shouldn't give the slightest fuck, even over the short-term? The oil spills, the landfills, the billions of caged animals, the forests being destroyed (yes, much is still being destroyed)...? I'm going to leave it there for now because (in my experience) you're unlikely to respond to 90% of what I've said anyway, so less is probably easier.

On this point, I agree with you to an extent. The Earth itself has no long-term plan for 'survival', and indeed Mother Nature often wreaks havoc with the surface environment causing destruction of life on a scale that humans, with all our modern technology, cannot match. Volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, great waves, droughts, ice ages, diseases... And some look at all that as 'natural', whereas what humans do is not. Natural is acceptable, human is not. And these people should realize that the distinction is essentially meaningless, especially when death and suffering and extinction are concerned. On the other hand, there's really nothing we can do about volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, etc -- and there is an argument to say that it is because of these things that life on Earth has reached the levels it has. Great disasters and periods of destruction are as necessary as periods of tranquility and prosperity. There is a balance to be found. These things will happen whether we want them to or not. But we have some say over our own contribution to the damage. As you, Karl, so often point out, reason is our defining characteristic -- or, at least, we believe it should be. Can't we use reason, then, to note that we can't blame 'the planet' for being the planet, but we can blame ourselves for not using our own reason to see the damage we cause and work to minimize it before it causes more damage than we can recover from?

More CO2, warmer > more plants > more food > more humans > more CO2, warmer > more plants > more food > more humans.... and aren't humans great? So! it must be a good thing... Anyone can take a myopic view of a situation and make it fit with their long-decided opinion, make it seem either good or bad. Once there was a farmer who worked his poor farm together with his son and their horse. When the horse ran off one day, neighbors came to say, “How unfortunate for you!” The farmer replied, “Maybe.” When the horse returned, followed by a herd of wild horses, the neighbors gathered around and exclaimed, “What good luck for you!” The farmer stayed calm and replied, “Maybe.” While trying to tame one of wild horses, the farmer’s son fell, and broke his leg. He had to rest up and couldn’t help with the farm chores. “How sad for you,” the neighbors cried. “Maybe,” said the farmer. Shortly thereafter, officers came around drafting young men to fight in the war. Because of his broken leg, they left the farmer's son behind. People said to the farmer, “What a good thing your son couldn’t fight!” “Maybe.”

Interesting. The question is, is this good or bad? At first sight, the title seems unarguably positive. But as they (leave a single paragraph to) point out in the conclusion, it's all a part of the warming, droughts, rising waters, severe weather, etc... And we might note that the increased greenery probably isn't making up for all the ecological / habitat destruction we've wreaked for so long..

(edit: removed bit about topic being in wrong forum) To be as clear as I can... The oldest extant version (oldest known surviving text) is a part of the Guodian slips, containing 33 of the verses from the text we now know as the Dao De Jing. It was found in 1993, but was probably written (and then buried in the tomb) around 300 BCE. The Mawangdui slips date from around 168 BCE -- quite a bit later than Guodian. So the Mawangdui texts are not the oldest known versions, but they are the oldest surviving whole physical texts that are almost identical to the Dao De Jing as it has been passed down through the centuries to us. Neither of these, of course, are claimed to be the oldest versions of the text -- only the oldest surviving physical versions that we have discovered. There might be more buried out there, somewhere, waiting to be found. The oldest versions of the verses of the text were probably not written, but spoken/chanted, and probably date from hundreds of years BCE. We'll never know exactly when they were written. It seems unlikely that a single man called Lao Tzu / Laozi ever wrote the text as a book -- much more likely that verses of wisdom of a particular school of thought were naturally collected over some decades/centuries and eventually came to form a recognizable volume of verses which was later given a name (and an author was attributed to them). (This authorship topic is controversial and I foresee people chiding me for bringing it up, but...hey ho..)

It's grown on me. Using ctext.org a lot, it's right there with the Chinese text and so I have been exposed to it quite a bit. Though I admit I haven't read it all the way through from beginning to end. I object quite strongly to the occasional floral language, most particularly the bits where he tried to make it into rhyming verse. It's hard enough getting the meaning across in the first place, without trying to make rhyme and fit a meter. Whenever I get to one of those bits I go read someone else's translation. But that's about style, not meaning. As far as meaning, I find I usually agree. More so than with many of the other popular translations. He didn't take too many liberties, and his use of parentheses (to highlight things not specified, but perhaps implied, in the text) is something I wish more would attempt. And as Taoist Texts says, Legge's is a foundational translation. All others take something from it, if only indirectly.

Thanks for that. Very interesting. I think many problems with Laozi translations arise because of assumptions about and inclusions of words/structures not found in ancient Chinese. Many crave verbosity, and often idiomaticity, making the text seem more conclusive than it appears to read in the Chinese.

I would suggest that the OP has asked for an explanation of the Bible without reference to the Old Testament. "Why did Jesus say the things he did? But I'm not interested in a discussion on religion.." As steve says, the 'practical' benefits of vegetarianism on one's spiritual practice, including of meditation and energetics, cannot be separated from the physical and ethical. All too often on here people ask a question in such a way that if answered directly, no help can genuinely be given.

Karl: Yes, I would consider it an act of love. I suppose most of us have been in similar situations. Loved one dying, having the choice of whether or not to force it to go on as long as possible. I cannot possibly say if your wife made the 'right' choice or not, but absolutely it was a choice borne of love. cold: No, I hope nobody is interpreting what I've said as "It's good to just commit suicide at the first sign of trouble" or "Putting one's dog down is fun for the family." (Leaving general suicide aside,) assisted suicide might indeed have unintended or otherwise damaging consequences; it might be done too early, it might be done with the wrong intentions, etc. But if it is performed out of love for the person concerned, it is an act of killing and of love. That was my only point.

Many people I know have expressed firmly that, should they find themselves in a position of extreme pain, complete paralysis, a 'vegetative' state, or similar -- with no foreseeable end -- they would not want to be kept alive indeterminately. In such a case, to kill them would be an act of love.

Problem: Someone has extreme, excruciating period pains. They vary in degree but more often than not, the pain/discomfort so intense that it causes vomiting & shaking, and the sufferer is bed-ridden for at least some of the day (and night). This has been going on for some years, and neither Western nor Eastern medicine tried thus far has been much help. Acupuncture relieves to some degree. Diet is mostly home-cooked, fresh ingredients, including a variety of 'food groups' -- green & other vegetables, grains, tubers (potato, sweet potato etc), fruit, some dairy, meat, & fish. Possibly more sugary food than most here would recommend (probably equivalent of 1 chocolate bar/day). No alcohol, tobacco, drugs. Any suggestions? Thanks

The true spiritual benefit was the earlier mental change that allowed me to admit that there was no benefit in eating animals. In other words, the kind of benefits you speak of come not because of any direct affects of not eating meat, but are the result of a prior spiritual change. Ignoring the physical health aspect... one doesn't give up meat for their own benefit, but for the benefit of others.

Human, inhuman, subhuman, animal In this topic, I saw lots of talk of humans vs animals. "he can be regarded as nothing more than an animal and not a human being," "ISIS are subhuman, they are animals." "dark potential exists ... when I call start labeling others as animals" "The wildest of animals don't even do what they do." ...blah blah. On both sides of the discussion, there seems to be universal acceptance of the notion that humans are not animals, that to be inhuman or subhuman is to be both an animal and extremely cruel, that for us to be 'animals' is a terribly scary idea; there seems to be general implied agreement that we are better than animals, whatever that means. Look here: Humans are animals. The distinction is absolutely fallacious. And yet this seemingly harmless trope is so common it has become a basis for dangerous thought and discussion. This isn't just coming from a vegetarian. Yes, I would like people to take note that the other species are fundamentally no different from us (they eat, shit, sleep, move, bleed, suffer), and that there is no logical reason to treat them any worse than we do humans. If I am to kill and butcher and eat a pig, why not a human? If I am to say that a human's life is 'precious', that it is 'wrong' to kill humans, how does my logic not extend to other sentient creatures? Because I alone among the animals am able to use reason? Reason should allow me to see that using reason does not make my suffering any more tolerable, my fear of death any more potent, or my future of any more 'importance'. In fact, a rational human is likely more capable of accepting a violent death with tranquility and understanding than a dog or a chinchilla ever could. In that case, our reason only strengthens the case that we should be kinder to the others, in thought and deed. But I don't want to focus on that (the value of human life vs other). Please, if you respond to this post, let it be to the next part: When we talk of being "less human" or "more like animals", what do we mean? There's an assumption that being "more human" or "less human" is possible (we are biologically human -- that can't be changed), but there's also the notion that this non-biological, abstract, ethical mode of being 'human' equates with compassion and benevolence; that to be 'inhuman' is to lack compassion or kindness, to be cruel and barbaric, "like an animal". What we're usually doing is confusing the biological and the abstract terms. To be 'biologically human' on the one hand and 'ethically human' on the other. And so when we say "he's not human!" we're talking of the ethical version (he is biologically human), but we confuse it with the biological version and end up believing that we are not, ourselves, biological animals. Then we carry on in the same vein: "he's not human! he's an animal!" The thing is, humans are among the only creatures capable of cruelty. That is, if we are intellectually superior to the other species, and we alone recognize fear and pain in another, and we alone are capable of modifying our behaviour to minimize it, we are then the only ones capable of intentionally causing suffering, whether for pleasure or simply because we don't care. So in saying that cruelty makes one 'inhuman' and that this is the same as being "no better than an animal" we're saying at once that one is 'alone among the animals in behaviour' (i.e. capable of cruelty) and "treat them like we treat the other animals" (i.e. give no thought for their suffering because they're not human). In other words, we're claiming to be benevolent and compassionate whilst at the same time admitting that we treat the other species with no compassion or benevolence. Stop it, please. Even if you give no shit for the other animals, stop this nonsensical use of language...

Stuff I stumbled across on Youtube and can't stop listening to... Toxic by Yael Naim Freedom by Anthony Hamilton Banshee by Kendra Morris

Well, yeah.. I'm not determined to believe that it is vertigo. I'd be glad to know it's just based in fear. But the dizziness and imbalance remain a problem. Hopefully it is indeed based solely in fear, not physiology -- and if I believe it is, I should be able to master it. Not something I've ever believed I can do.

Yeah, I have every intention of getting somewhere to do it outside. Eventually.. Indeed it is much more gymnastic than I expected when I started last year! Come to think of it -- I meant to mention it earlier -- an odd thing: I don't get the vertigo when I'm up a bouldering wall. Certainly some fear of falling, especially falling backwards, but when I get to the top, mostly no problem hopping off. And it's usually at least twice as high as the tree stump. But I trust my hands, and there is a soft mat. Perhaps I should find a gymnastics gym and try some incremental stuff with mats below me...

Well, yes. In terms of common sense, survival, the instinct has served me well. I've never even broken a bone. In terms of "living life to the fullest", though... I'm afraid it has held me back. I've never even broken a bone! I suspect knowing about my grandfather might help make clear whether it's learned or genetic. I will try and find out. Abseiled once, as a teen. One of those outdoors team-building adventure trips with school. Terrible time. I love bouldering, and went to a climbing centre a few months ago to see about higher climbs with ropes. Just seeing the height of the walls from below was enough to make me turn around. Maybe worth trying again now I have more drive to overcome.

Sure, there would be much more peace. I do think there's a better word for it than 'nationalism' though. And, again, I wouldn't hold my breath...

Nationalism is the belief in the importance of the interests of a particular nation. I'm not sure how the chapter outlines that. The Jarawa thing, though.. I agree very much that any individual culture / nation should be free to choose how much they participate in global affairs, free from intrusion into their land. On the other hand, no nation on Earth has a great history in this regard. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for people to learn not to "help".

Interesting idea, but no, it's not the getting up itself. I stand up from sitting on the floor or crouching many times each day with no problem... thanks for the suggestion though. I'll watch them in a minute. Thanks. Sounds like the ticket so far. Do you have experience with it? That is pretty shit. Sounds like you've done pretty well with it (recalling your mention of climbing etc) My father is very similar in his reactions, though I'm not sure if it's that I learned the behaviour from him as a child, or inherited it genetically. (The vertigo doesn't seem like something one can learn from observation though..) I don't think it's anything to do with childhood trauma. Heh. Cave climbing sounds fun...and incredibly dangerous! You use mats? I suppose they'd be fairly useless from that height? The blindfold thing sounds solid. I'm not on a 25th floor any more but even from lower down it might have some effect. Thanks for all the thoughts

Yes.. exposure. If there's something stable to lean against, or if I'm sitting down, the dizziness and fear subside a lot. Probably should have thought about all that before climbing the stump, but honestly didn't think it would be so bad. Meniere's? That can't be fun For me, nothing as bad as MD, but I suppose it's something to do with the inner ear.. I get dizzy very easily from turning around just once too fast. I also just read an article about research suggesting that acrophobics have trouble with vertical perception, e.g. thinking that something 5ft high is actually 15ft, or 15ft is 50ft, and responding more or less accordingly. As you say, I don't expect the fear to go away, and I realize that everyone has the fear to some extent. I do hope that working through it will help to lessen the vertigo. I shall try and figure out a method for gradually increasing exposure, and then height. Though no rocky outcrops around here..

Would just like to thank everyone for their input. Back in November I gave her a rather long list of potential treatments! She'd tried some of the things mentioned but was going to look into the others. I must be honest and say that I don't think anything's 'worked' yet, but time will tell.