Karl

Then perhaps you have misheard the lesson ? This seems entirely consistent with what I have said: First of all, Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If anything at all, it is realistic, for it takes a realistic view of life and of the world. It looks at things objectively (yathābhūtam). It does not falsely lull you into living in a fool's paradise, nor does it frighten and agonize you with all kinds of imaginary fears and sins. It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness. One physician may gravely exaggerate an illness and give up hope altogether. Another may ignorantly declare that there is no illness and that no treatment is necessary, thus deceiving the patient with a false consolation. You may call the first one pessimistic and the second optimistic. Both are equally dangerous. But a third physician diagnoses the symptoms correctly, understands the cause and the nature of the illness, sees clearly that it can be cured, and courageously administers a course of treatment, thus saving his patient. The Buddha is like the last physician. He is the wise and scientific doctor for the ills of the world (Bhisakka or Bhaisajya-guru). Lama Surya Das emphasizes the matter-of-fact nature of dukkha:[13] Buddha Dharma does not teach that everything is suffering. What Buddhism does say is that life, by its nature, is difficult, flawed, and imperfect. [...] That's the nature of life, and that's the First Noble Truth. From the Buddhist point of view, this is not a judgement of life's joys and sorrows; this is a simple, down-to-earth, matter-of-fact description. Exactly, objectively and realistically. That is as clear as it can possibly be. You cannot misinterpret it.

Formal definition of logic : Logic is the method by which a volitional, non automatic consciousness can ensure that its content corresponds to the facts of an independent reality. Putting logic to work is called proof. Formal definition of proof: process of deriving a conclusion from anecdotally known truths, to and in the laws basis of logic. And before you ask, you can never have proof of proof.

Genus is just a formal grouping. For a definition we are trying to get the genus sufficiently wide enough without it being so wide it becomes meaningless. 'An Dog is an object in the universe' would be an example of a genus which was too wide. If the differentia would include the specifics of an address then it would be part of the definition. A child might say "A dog is that hairy thing called tricksy and he lives at number 4" that's an adequate definition for a child until more experience is gained.

I haven't avoided the question. What you are trying to argue is that logical reasoning itself is in error, whilst using logical reasoning to argue. That's the fallacy of the stolen concept. Everything is conceptual. This is exactly what I have already said. If you base your arguments on unproven or misty ideology then you bake a sponge cake without the flour. You cannot intuit the flour into a sponge cake, or intuit a sponge cake which requires no flour. This is why accurate definitions are so important because they allow us to integrate experiences directly.

I refer you to the stolen concept. You cannot make these assertions without using reason. If you say that you cannot define your concepts then why would I continue the discussion. I would be a fool to argue with the wind.

That's easily cured. Your suffering is caused by refusing to accept reality. The tooth ache is real, there is pain, it is unpleasant and of course you would prefer not to have it. The tooth ache confirms your identity and shows you reality. The pain will be there, you will not like it, but neither will you suffer. When you are dead the pain and suffering will both end. Better to have the pain and life, than end suffering with death. You have that choice. I'm glad that I'm alive, I rejoice in it and celebrate it. Pain tells me I'm alive.

Then we must define intuitions to our satisfaction. My understanding is that intuition is purely a feeling that something is true.

I think you meant tough herd ? Not a unicorn amongst us would challenge you.

Wouldn't 'everything' include your imagination ?

Here I am making an inductive leap, or educated guess. I don't need the address as the genus, unless I was making different claims. I don't necessarily think 'canine' either as I see a dog, but I have the stored mental images, sounds and textures which I can reference. Every car that I drive has lots of differences but I can easily adapt to drive any car despite these differences. Every door I open shares characteristics with other doors, I don't need to explicitly state the genus and the reasoning process I have used. If a door does not exhibit these common characteristics then I can be stumped for a while until I learn this new type of door and add it to my repertoire of doors.

What is your definition of suffering ?

You mean how do we know a German Sheperd and a Poodle are in the same genus ? By characteristics and environment. We haven't seen a dog that is as big as an elephant, we have books that explore nature and none of them show that to be the case. Neither have we seen dogs as small as a cricket. We know generally dogs have owners and walk with their pets. We have little evidence that much in the way of cat or pig walking takes place although I'm sure it does, but pigs and cats have their own particular characteristics that differentiate them form dogs. We can make an inductive leap which we do through reasoning that a hairy, four legged, barking animal on a lead is most likely of the genus canine.

I'm sure you have gleaned by now that this is 100% in opposition to how I view things :-)That not withstanding it is necessary to prove that your argument is false. The first part of that is to show that you are using the fallacy of the 'stolen concept' with which to put forward your assertion. You are not using intuition-all though you might well draw on it to form your concept. The problem is then how to test intuition, because if intuition worked that well, then you could never be wrong about anything. I don't see any people who make all decisions purely on gut feelings. We should unlearn bad learning :-)

Actually I said 'man is a rational animal' to which you replied 'then you have nothing to teach him'. We hold millions of concepts which are ill defined. This can be useful for generalisation. We directly perceive an animal which we label 'horse' 'dog' etc. we don't always define these things because we see them and then can make generalisations about other members of the genus. We can perceive different types of dogs, wolves, horses, zebras etc and simply classify each one as it appears to us in that group. It's not likely to go far wrong unless we are so poor in our perceptual skills that we generalise a Tiger as a horse because it is an animal with four legs and a tail. Where it gets more tricky is fundamental concepts such as freedom. If the state promises us freedom it might well mean 'freedom not to need to worry about making decisions for ourselves' an individual might have an image of streaking down a beach, stark naked with the wind blowing the curly hairs. For others freedom might not even have a definition, it might just be something that they have been told is a good thing and have not yet begun the process of deciding that for themselves.

What kind of time ? You mean as we measure it, or as a universal arrow pointing forward ? Space as in the stuff we point to in which stars and planets appear to hang, or the generality of the universe in totality ? Is it anxiousness or just unease with a particular situation and isn't that just the root of all action. I mean when the belly signals a need for food then it's time to eat. Eating means moving in space and time.

Yes, you had better keep me on track as I have a habit of just going with the flow :-)

Ignorance is insufficient, incomplete or corrupted knowledge.however 'that which is knowable can be known'. I've just said this in the other thread. First define suffering, as opposed to something like physical pain, emotional grief, sadness or anger. It's only when something is first defined that the cause can begin to be identified.

That man possesses the faculty of reason does not mean he cannot misuse it. Man is not omniscient, he must learn to learn. Then he must also experience the world and the result of his actions. We are learning machines, but the old adage applies-RiRo. The clearer the reasoning the better the thoughts and actions will be. All communication is a trade in thoughts. The more defined the object of those thoughts, the easier will be the trade. Definitions can always be improved with new information and concepts can be integrated to form new learnings. If all the definitions are purely a feeling, then we have left reasoning behind and the words that describe concepts will appear as mere sounds backed by a mental fog. "I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing, due to crumble unless we grow and strengthen our communication". To quote the lyrics of a song. Learn and grow wiser.

Man is a rational animal.

Suffering must have a cause, it is impossible to be a cause of itself. One cannot suffer suffering. If the one who suffers does not know the cause, then by implication it is not choice, but ignorance of the root cause of suffering.

They say that hot spices help circulation and lower blood pressure. Also to stay off carbs and eat healthy fats like avocado and eggs. Thinking about the gym, I think weights helped as did losing a stone of fat-as long as that isn't achieved by starvation, poor diet and over training which makes things worse.

This is because you do not have clear definitions for things. Logical reasoning is the only option for correctly integrating concepts dragged from the universe. However, integrated concepts are only as good as the definitions they are based upon. If the definitions are poor, then the entire concept will remain floating. It is a house built on sand. The more poor definitions and floating concepts are held, the greater the error becomes. This is why mysticism becomes more attractive. If key concepts are floating then why trust any concepts at all ? The delusion is due to inherent sloppiness in building the concepts. It is like feeding your consciousness with junk food then sitting on the sofa and watching TV for hours at a time. Eventually the consciousness becomes the junk it is fed with and then responsibility turns to blame and a requirement for miracle cures. Man is a spiritual creature with free will and emotion. He is suited to living in groups and functioning cooperatively in order to realise his own desires and those of his fellow men. Logic is only one half of us. It is a tool for knowing reality nothing more. It is a tool of learning. It keeps us ploughing straight and true. The more things we can know, the greater becomes the requirement for ensuring that what is stored away isn't rubbish. Subjective feelings lack any accuracy and have resulted in some of the worst crimes and cataclysms man has embarked upon, what's more it has allowed the base man, the coward, the corrupt, the manipulator, the psychopathic to become rulers. These people know the value of fear as a tool for control and they know that reason lessens its effects. Hiding behind subjective mysticism might make you feel better, but it doesn't alter what is happening in the world. Pulling a sheet over the head might hide the world from you, but it won't stop a bullet.

Talking to a guy who had a kitten on a lead. I was considering how difficult that would have been with our cat. It would often run up trees and get stuck about 20 feet from the ground.

Right, that's how I used to think. I've always believed in responsibility and self empowerment and was brought up to be independent. However I always new there was something odd about school, I just couldn't put my finger on it. If you have been to a state school-unless it was Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Eton, Cambridge then you have been indoctrinated. Logic won't wash out that indoctrination. It has to be an entire different education system without any state involvement. It's exactly the same issue with ego. If it is damaged then you (I'm talking figuratively) are a trying to fly with clipped wings. Everyone else has clipped wings as well so no one really thinks they are damaged in any way. Did you listen to Gatto on Western Spirituality ? That really sets the cat amongst the pigeons.

There is such a lot of rubbish talked on that program, but it's mixed in with some sense. The fundamentals are that it will be privatised, but it will continue to be tax payer funded. The U.S. System is awful and is now worse following the introduction of the over priced Nazi Bama Care. Bleeding heart liberals are intent on stopping it being privatised, but have no solutions to the problem of funding. Neither unions or doctors clubs are prepared to cut pay and legalities created by Labour, mean that the cost of damages is escalating year on year and to try and prevent that, a high cost army of bureaucrats has been introduced into the system. The answer is to tell the health care crony corporates to go sling their hooks and go for a full free market system and they can compete if they can, otherwise find some other blood to suck. We allow insurance companies to compete for the level of care just like we do for our cars and homes (although this state controlled monetary monopoly is making it almost impossible for insurance companies to survive as investment opportunities are practically zero- neither does VAT help ). The government should not be involved in any shape or form as this was exactly what has made the U.S. System so expensive-the government has virtually created a monopoly for the health industry which offers unnecessary treatment because the state tells the insurers they must cover everything from a split end to a flaky toe nail. Of course this isn't going to happen. Instead people will hold hands in the street, foist placards, create petitions and all the rest, but the inevitable will happen and we will be stuck with a version of the hated US system by default, essentially because of socialism. There is a reason that no universities teach Austrian economics and the only libertarian candidate was in a majority of one-and I suspect that was simply controlled opposition. Corporates don't like libertarians or Austrian economics because it kills the opportunity to prey on the feckless.