Stosh

Personally I dont understand how the bridge is made between regular life and this other view , but .. I figure theres got to be a way.

This here is perhaps the basic idea , if I am getting it correct. Strive at first to meditate upon the sameness of yourself and others. In joy and sorrow all are equal; Thus be guardian of all, as of yourself. The hand and other limbs are many and distinct, But all are one--the body to kept and guarded. Likewise, different beings, in their joys and sorrows, are, like me, all one in wanting happiness. This pain of mine does not afflict or cause discomfort to another's body, and yet this pain is hard for me to bear because I cling and take it for my own. And other beings' pain I do not feel, and yet, because I take them for myself, their suffering is mine and therefore hard to bear. And therefore I'll dispel the pain of others, for it is simply pain, just like my own. And others I will aid and benefit, for they are living beings, like my body. Since I and other beings both, in wanting happiness, are equal and alike, what difference is there to distinguish us, that I should strive to have my bliss alone?"

Good response actually ! Point taken , within Dzogchen it may indeed be a functional perspective to hold to for a while. Very good.

Taking responsibility for that which other people do ,allows one to avoid assigning blame where it belongs ,and suggests one has powers they do not have. I doubt it really reduces the resentment toward the actual responsible party but it probably does a good job of sweeping it all under the rug. Many suffer guilt they didnt earn , it can burn one up from the inside, create neurotic behaviors and send them in self destructive directions. Thats why normal reation is to blame others, especially when ones own intent was not as negative as an outcome.

It sets the parameters for answering your questions, without deciding, the excercise isnt even presented.

That which exists is true undeniably whether we know about it or not , right?

Impossible to crack. But since I didnt say that it was quantitatively tallyable I think Im safe on that one.. but go ahead with it if you feel its still a good angle. Im still game and if you got a plan you like Ill play it out. youve got a right to a win playing fair.

Then if Socrates didn't run out of patience , he must've 'cut to the chase' somehow. Very much faster would be responding from the Daoist position, which would go something like.. There is no such thing as morality and nothing to defend about slaughtering beasts. From this end , however , it appears you would need to set up two competing claims ( by me) , that I believed a thing was moral , and that I believed another thing was not , and somehow conjoin them. I'll tell you , the toughest question was actually the very first one. Are you saying some action is morally correct whenever it accords with the values of the person who is acting? This would have fit nice in any court cross-examination. Ironically perhaps, the path you were following, was indeed investigating whether my values were consistent, in a single vector , or series of them. And that's relatively easy to defend even if its 'surrounding' my position. Asking me Many questions , presents me as being chock full of answers, which bolsters my attitude , that I can handle anything ya got. Whereas ,as regards the task of punching hole in the defenses -' taking a yard of earth is far harder than yielding it.'

If you would like , I could try the side of questioneer , and you can pick which angle you would prefer to defend ,or even change subject , this is difficult methodology to get the hang of .

Explain please. How do you define morality and why wouldn't dolphins have any. I here define morality as a set of rules made abstractly , which define the right and wrongness of behaviors. They are not known to clearly act outside the parameters of their instinct , and so without any proof of having a moral code , I think it logical to presume there is none. Presuming there is none , fits better with observation than presuming there is. How are those things morally relevant? You asked whether my life would be negatively impacted , not just my morality. But as I have stated , continuation of my life is promotional of morality. This brings in also whether I have a right to a pleasant life , and its another can of worms, is it not? It depends on how you define the amount of morality. Can you please explain: a. Can the degree of morality be measured? Its relative , not quantitative G is greater than F b. Is there automatically more morality when there are more (moral) people (is morality additive)? yes , relatively C-B is less than C c. Is there a zero-point of morality so that there are people with a negative morality? yes There are a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions (about economics, ecology, animal welfare) contained in that one sentence. Could you expand on that to prove your point that eating dolphins is morally correct? True , is this important to get into ? Its rapidly expanding inquiry , and I thought the game was to find my self contradiction, with so many branches reaching the ground , I'm thinking that finding contradiction on one , will not significantly undermine the morality of eating dolphin.

I have one for you W, if that's allowed ,.. If you nor anyone else who wishes to overthrow the 'morality of eating dolphin' conclusion,cannot , will you now freely eat dolphins without moral concern, or be supportive of hunting them as a food source ?

He was mistaken.

No they have no morality. Yes , they are tasty, nutritious , and financially within my means. Yes, it would hurt , a smidge the overall morality of humanity , since There would be one less moral person eating a morally available resource. So possibly yes or no. 4) Would a vegetarian diet diminish your morality? It may , dunno , but the worlds resources are finite , and exploitation of them for profit means that the most financially beneficial sourcing is the most efficient.

I , a human , derive my morality from humanity. We are required to eat, and the morality of us humans must allow for our existence for morality to continue. Dolphins are edible, and nonhuman , so we promote morality by eating them.

Sometimes you just wade in and see if its cold Good first stroke . No, not that it IS correct because it accords with its originator , but that I deemed it a correct valuation , and still do.

But I am still going to think I was right , if I had said dolphin hunting was just fine , ( since I value humans more ) theres no discourse to do.. and I wouldn't have reached the promised land of new insight. Nor did you loosen your grip on the idea that it was a destructive or bad practice. There's got to be something to resolve the issue of opinions. No?

it is ! The sun shines on the wicked and the just , treating all men like straw dogs, and blowing out new life like a bellows ...

Ok, yeah, that is a fair comparison , I can go with that. But I want to reinforce that I think they did not label , umm eating ,itself, as good or bad. The desire to eat as good or bad , the enjoyment of eating , as good or bad.. but rather the extension beyond a balance point on the spectrum of consumption. Similar to , and , As Mh once said to me, - Do the right thing, ( which is an elusive standard , IMO)

Who presents the issue thats going to be discussed ?, and is there a formal presentation of each ones stance ? ... and , What is the procedure when you get to a value based selection , like .. say..., the lives of people are more important than that of dolphins?

My resolution of your basically correct problematical consideration ,, is as follows.. Obviously Chuang eats , so it should be recognized that there is a line of demarcation between that which is done within ones boundaries of purview , and the stuff which extends beyond it - considered problematical. Their line is drawn at the border of abiding by ones innate- constant - harmonious human nature, and that which is unbalanced -excessive -destructive. Its often not a far leap from what we might call common sense. Though there are exceptions , they too draw this line, at least ,, for the great man ( I think , not the sage though)

Reading a wiki article, it looks to me that Socratic dialectic is most like our introspection, , as we do testing of a hypotheses ( with an open mind). It requires a cooperation and intellectual honesty, but tends to force a conclusion of what is true. Rhetoric is characterized by an emotional appeal to 'truthiness' and is usually done defensively , without subject of its own origin, and , is not generally, making an affirmative point of its own. The basic point is to obstruct- to defend . Hegelian dialectic is most similar to the presentation of lao; Lao relies more heavily on inference based on similitude as 'proof'. But! like Hegelian dialectic , (and in brilliant manner), both thesis and antithesis are presented in a way , that each may be fairly seen as valid... leading to a synthesis (a rendering of that which is true) . By Lao , thesis is the overtly presented , antithesis is subtly implied , and the reader needs to grasp the synthesis. Contradiction admitted Contradiction prevailing Contradiction nullified

Agreeing with Mh ,,, the point reads to me a delineation of the view, that valuations , are contingent upon circumstances and comparisons and so one needs to consider things individually in their context . a nutshell sized excerpt.. "the etiquette of contending and yielding, the conduct of Yao and Chieh, may be either prized or despised in accord with the times, but may not be taken as constants" So when one might be tempted to label external things and people as either , having virtue ,or lack of it , in and of itself, that is a false view - being inconstant.

It seems there may be some difference in the perceptions of what doing is and what selflessness is... though I am not sure on the buddhist view. So from yalls view, does ice 'do' ,and does the self exist apart from doing? My reading of taoism is that ice does not 'do' by melting, and the doing of wu wei, is not a manifestation of self doing but being the choiceful origin of that being manifest is, which would make charity 'doing' and not selfless.

I dont know how the method is supposed to work, but consider it to at least have potential.. Ill play by the rules , volunteering to be cross examined or grilled, hoping to gain from it. And ask only that there be an impartial judge to keep all kosher and fair. Any takers?

Yeah I know , but you asked for an explanation to understand my tea, so I feel obliged.