The origin of mankind

[Stosh]

Integrity also has something to do with consistency in one's behaviour.

I couldn't agree more, but to emphasize it. If I understand correctly.

I think integrity is generally used in a way where its something to be approved of rather than just indicating  its 'consistent', and perhaps not synonymously  matching personally derived genuineness. Since a person could willfully demand integrity of themselves in situations where their true instinct is to go some other way. Im not sure whether the overriding ones instinctive behavior is consistent with Taoism. What do you think. does taoism promote intentional integrity , or does it promote genuineness or ,,, some other thing. IYO

[Karl]

All we can do is to just imagin and to take care of each other's compassion.It could be that, we will never find out here what we are looking for, but it doesn't matter.....it's all about the art and creativity.It could heal our soul too...

 

We know exactly what we are looking for, the problem is that we don't know how to keep it and gain it in such a way as we experience no negative emotions by doing so.

 

Compassion for others-as a primary value-is a state of sacrifice. As a secondary value it may or may not be affordable. We can only be charitable in any sense, if we have sufficient spare value. If we are so ill that we cannot care for ourselves then we cannot care for others. If we are so poor we cannot afford to eat, keep warm, or find shelter, then we cannot give what we have not gained ourselves. If we are imprisoned we cannot give others freedom.

[Stosh]

You must choose a set of principles, they aren't given to you, they have to be discovered and they have to function to bring the values desired as well as the happiness from gaining those values.

Thats optional , in practice, isnt it? 

Where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ?

The third one is truly the most important question of all time, the others ... eh. 

 

It is not for me, or anyone to say what your principles should be, but I leave you with this thought. Man must think, he can do so irrationally, or rationally, he must choose to force his mind to work and not trust to instinct, God, emotion, or supernaturalism.

Why not use those time tested options? Theyve been chosen for thousands of years , people lived loved and died trusting in these. 

His first thought, his first choice must be to decide if he should live or die, his next choice is how to accomplish that aim. That means-presuming that he chooses life-that he holds life as his primary value, not just his life, but all human lives. He knows that in order to keep his primary value, that he must be free to choose a philosophy which values his life specifically over all others, it must allow him the freedom to choose and therefore it must not deny others the freedom to choose. This was what the founding fathers knew. They did not arbitrarily pluck principles from the aether. They were high level philosophers. They said life-Liberty-private property-justice and the pursuit of happiness. So I add that he must first deserve it: reason-independence-honesty-integrity-productiveness-justice and pride (in no particular order and not as an exhaustive list).

That I do what I need to , in order to live , OK, is fundamentally of significance ,, but this primary status which you are claiming for this as a value ,, umm thats your value. People may sacrifice themselves for others , and I think this would be a different valuation. That I have to include others in that high status position, is also not presumable , you may approve of it , but , again not everyone who is functional makes this same ' valuation of others'. 

The founding fathers also condoned or excused slavery , sexism , killing problematic natives etc. They did set a stage for what we have now, but they really had some significant flaws by todays standards ,so, I dont consider them as great role models , though you may. 

[Karl]

Thats optional , in practice, isnt it? 

 

The third one is truly the most important question of all time, the others ... eh. 

 

 

Why not use those time tested options? Theyve been chosen for thousands of years , people lived loved and died trusting in these. 

 

That I do what I need to , in order to live , OK, is fundamentally of significance ,, but this primary status which you are claiming for this as a value ,, umm thats your value. People may sacrifice themselves for others , and I think this would be a different valuation. That I have to include others in that high status position, is also not presumable , you may approve of it , but , again not everyone who is functional makes this same ' valuation of others'. 

The founding fathers also condoned or excused slavery , sexism , killing problematic natives etc. They did set a stage for what we have now, but they really had some significant flaws by todays standards ,so, I dont consider them as great role models , though you may. 

 

No, it isn't optional, everybody consciously or unconsciously adopts principles and philosophy, they have no other means of guiding their actions.

 

The first two questions are key to creating a succesful philosophy; ethics are the tools of the philosophy. Philosophers have spent many millennia considering those first two questions in order to be able to deal with the third.

 

You are probably using a jumble of virtues, but disconnected from a single integrated philosophy. More like a loft shoved full of bits of past and present, but with no coherence. To adopt virtues based on nothing but what another man tells you is to abdicate responsibility for your own life to some authority. Many do just that.

 

The values you choose are not my values, they maybe very different from mine. You might well sacrifice yourself, but it is never voluntarily 'for others' unless you have abdicated you thinking to another authority. Nothing is ever voluntarily done for others, it just seems that way. Every action is a selfishly motivated action.

 

If you choose your principles then you have to apply them equally to others, otherwise you would be choosing principles that cpuodnt bring you the values you desired. That doesn't mean others have the same principles or values that you do, but then you would find it difficult to trade with someone who had principles which ran counter to your own.

 

As to the founding fathers. Having a philosophy and principles does not mean that you won't ever blur the edges. We are fallible, we evade. The trick is to know when you are evading. This does not mean the founding fathers were bad men, they were acting out of reason, but they were acting at a time when slavery was acceptable and they were also acting in a situation. For instance you cannot have perfect principles in a prison camp because you are denied the freedom to act.

[Stosh]

No, it isn't optional, everybody consciously or unconsciously adopts principles and philosophy, they have no other means of guiding their actions.

This is a bit of a circular argument .. to say they have to because they have to , in order to guide themselves.,, animals dont have these principles or philosophies and can still function, if you say they have instinct , that true , but they also learn and that can still be functional enough for getting around , in the absence of much instinct. Small kids , I think, dont have these lofty 'mechanisms' either. So I contend still , that these propensities exist for humans , but they arent functionally necessary. 

The first two questions are key to creating a succesful philosophy; ethics are the tools of the philosophy. Philosophers have spent many millennia considering those first two questions in order to be able to deal with the third.

agreed, but the third is by far the crux of the matter, answer it and you can proceed with intent. The others are optional to ask. 

You are probably using a jumble of virtues, but disconnected from a single integrated philosophy. More like a loft shoved full of bits of past and present, but with no coherence.

At the very Least there is coherence derived by being all in the same box. If you must , consider my defense of the irrational as rational defense of those who eschew my own habit. But ultimately, no matter how fond one is of having some structured cohesive valuation plan, logic just doesnt bestow meaning , and it only works when parties share the same rules of the game. 

 

To adopt virtues based on nothing but what another man tells you is to abdicate responsibility for your own life to some authority. Many do just that. The values you choose are not my values, they maybe very different from mine.

True. 

You might well sacrifice yourself, but it is never voluntarily 'for others' unless you have abdicated you thinking to another authority. Nothing is ever voluntarily done for others, it just seems that way. Every action is a selfishly motivated action.

Dao of Shen , I think , and I have no objection to the point. 

If you choose your principles then you have to apply them equally to others, otherwise you would be choosing principles that couldnt bring you the values you desired.

Um , no I dont , again , thats optional . This is a principle in itself which one may adopt , but I certainly can set myself outside the need to apply principles to others. ( Founding Fathers vs Slaves ) 

That doesn't mean others have the same principles or values that you do, but then you would find it difficult to trade with someone who had principles which ran counter to your own. As to the founding fathers. Having a philosophy and principles does not mean that you won't ever blur the edges. We are fallible, we evade. The trick is to know when you are evading.

Bingo , case in point. 

This does not mean the founding fathers were bad men, they were acting out of reason, but they were acting at a time when slavery was acceptable and they were also acting in a situation.

Bingo again. Their behavior was dictated largely by context , not really by some undeniable  'noble principle'. 

For instance you cannot have perfect principles in a prison camp because you are denied the freedom to act.

They, however , being founding fathers , if given credit for their actions , must also bear responsibility for them. Of anyone in fledgling america can be said to have had freedom to act , it was the politically connected landowner-nobility. 

[Stosh]

All we can do is to just imagine and to take care of each other's compassion. It could be that, we will never find out here what we are looking for, but it doesn't matter.....it's all about the art and creativity.It could heal our soul too...

Agreed, but my question to you ,was whether you already had a sufficient answer, already, to the question of mans origin.

May I ask what, particularly, about this question would be curative? Since, to me this is not what one need to know, so much as what the source of your compassion says about compassionate behavior. 

[Karl]

I have not said some 'noble principle'. It's you that insist this is what I am saying.

 

Animals don't have morals, they are amoral. Humans aren't anything like animals. The three questions are not simply separate questions. They are answered in sequence.

 

Imagine you found yourself marooned on an Island. You have a compass and a few basic rations, plus a functional raft. You have no idea where you are. You don't yet even realise that it's an Island. Now let's see how you would approach that situation. You can just act like an animal and begin ferreting in the bushes for prey, or curl up in the undergrowth for a sleep. You don't have an animals hunting instincts, it's senses or its lack of fear in the pursuit of its ends.

 

Let's see if there are hidden principles that you hadn't been conscious of having.

 

What is your first order of things ?

Edited June 9, 2016 by Karl

[Stosh]

1 , check if I'm whole and OK and evaluate my current needs   2, check what I have access to  3 decide if this is sufficient 4 , if I discovered I was on an island ,,  I might want to stay.   Is it a nice island ? or some bleak guano covered rock in the north atlantic.

[Karl]

1 , check if I'm whole and OK and evaluate my current needs   2, check what I have access to  3 decide if this is sufficient 4 , if I discovered I was on an island ,,  I might want to stay.   Is it a nice island ? or some bleak guano covered rock in the north atlantic.

 

As far as you are concerned it's land bordering the sea, some sand, shingle, scrub trees rising inland, rocky headlands, some cliffs, shells, birds. The weather is reasonably settled with the potential for rain looking at the clouds. There is no obvious sign of human habitation or activity. The breakers are fairly large, but you could paddle the boat out with some effort. There is only sea on the horizon. The temperature is cool.

 

So far you are assessing your values. As you checked yourself over first and what you will require, then can I confirm you have decided that living will be your primary value ?

 

You are also evaluating your needs, so, can I confirm you will be honest about your condition and the values you must seek, or will you think that things will sort themselves out if you hang about a bit ?

 

As there are no people around can I also assume that you are of a mind that you will have to shoulder the burden of seeking anything you don't have independently and that you intend to be productive by obtaining anything you need ?

 

Further, have you considered if you deserve to survive ? I assume the answer is that you do, but I need to check.

 

 

[Stosh]

Hmm lemme think, starting here ,,, val·ue

ˈvalyo͞o/

noun

 

1. 1.
   the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

   "your support is of great value"

   synonyms: worth, usefulness, advantage, benefit, gain, profit, good, help, merit, helpfulness,avail; More

    
2. a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.

   "they internalize their parents' rules and values"

   synonyms: principles, ethics, moral code, morals, standards, code of behavior

   "society's values are passed on to us as children

My determination to live doesnt appear to be covered as a value.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Stosh

[Junko]

Agreed, but my question to you ,was whether you already had a sufficient answer, already, to the question of mans origin.

May I ask what, particularly, about this question would be curative? Since, to me this is not what one need to know, so much as what the source of your compassion says about compassionate behavior. 

Not at all...how can I find a answer when I came to this world, for some reason my brain was already programmed not be able to remembered anything about what it is about the origin of mankind.I myself struggling to find a answer all the time.Well, I feel we have a time.....!

[Marblehead]

Note to Karl:  We all humans are animals.  Sure, more destructive than all other animals but animals none-the-less.

[Karl]

Hmm lemme think, starting here ,,, val·ue

 

ˈvalyo͞o/

 

noun

 

1. 
   1.
    
   the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
   "your support is of great value"
    
   synonyms:
    
   worth, usefulness, advantage, benefit, gain, profit, good, help, merit, helpfulness,avail; More
    
    
    
    
    
    
   
2. 
    
    
   a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
   "they internalize their parents' rules and values"
    
   synonyms:
    
   principles, ethics, moral code, morals, standards, code of behavior
    
    
   "society's values are passed on to us as children
    
    
    
    
    
    
   

 

My determination to live doesnt appear to be covered as a value.

 

Then you don't regard it as such ? You don't feel you deserve to survive ?

[Karl]

Note to Karl:  We all humans are animals.  Sure, more destructive than all other animals but animals none-the-less.

 

Rational animals-if we choose to be.

[Marblehead]

Funny.  "... if we choose to be."

 

Sad that in real life most don't even have the choice because of their fixation with false dogma.

[Stosh]

Then you don't regard it as such ? You don't feel you deserve to survive ?

I know what youre getting at, that I value my life , but I asked two other people if they thought the will to live was a value, and they said they didnt think so. 

I can however put a relative value on it say , as being more important than a bug ,to me. But that valuation isnt needed for me to try to live. If I eat when hungry sleep when tired , and wake when rested.. it just doesnt seem a 'calculation'. 

Edited June 9, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Not at all...how can I find a answer when I came to this world, for some reason my brain was already programmed not be able to remembered anything about what it is about the origin of mankind.I myself struggling to find a answer all the time.Well, I feel we have a time.....!

Ok fine, but if you cant know , because you cant remember , and neither can we ... you would be struggling to grasp knowledge that is just outside the possibility of answering. Correct?

[Karl]

I know what youre getting at, that I value my life , but I asked two other people if they thought the will to live was a value, and they said they didnt think so. 

 

You wouldn't want to lose it, so it must have value to you. :-) it's your primary value. I did not say the 'will to live' was a value, that is the need to retain the value. Easier to ask 'do you value your life?'

[Karl]

Funny.  "... if we choose to be."

 

Sad that in real life most don't even have the choice because of their fixation with false dogma.

 

They choose that as well. We can choose ignorance or evasion.

[Stosh]

You wouldn't want to lose it, so it must have value to you. :-) it's your primary value. I did not say the 'will to live' was a value, that is the need to retain the value. Easier to ask 'do you value your life?'

Yes, I suppose I have some foggy relative idea about a value of my life, but the question is 'assuming' that I'm representative of all possibilities. I don't think I am, since I see the possibility of proceeding without this valuation process. I can kill and eat something without asking if it was more important than me. For all I know ,that butterfly or fish may indeed be more influential , in the long scheme of things.

You are presuming that I make the valuation, because retrospectively you are deciding that I valued myself more than the fish , but that doesnt mean I'm making value judgement , Im just trying to eat the thing. 

Edited June 9, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Yes, I suppose I have some foggy relative idea about a value of my life, but the question is 'assuming' that I'm representative of all possibilities. I don't think I am, since I see the possibility of proceeding without this valuation process. I can kill and eat something without asking if it was more important than me. For all I know ,that butterfly or fish may indeed be more influential , in the long scheme of things. 

 

Subconsciously we never give it a second thought. It is implicit in our holding of all values and our desire for future values.

 

 

[Nungali]

We are old enough to know what we are writing about.

 

Well, at east I know what I am writing about . 

[Stosh]

Subconsciously we never give it a second thought. It is implicit in our holding of all values and our desire for future values.

Didn't you say that anything we do , ultimately has a self centered reason for doing it? If there is but that single motivation , to do for ourselves as we think best , then we just optimize our welfare. You may consider this as having values Im not sure though that self interest equates to codified values. 

Its true that I never give it a second thought as to how highly I value the existence of a burger against my need to eat. Its only the intrusion of externally imposed values that might make someone consider such, and in the absence of that , you just go ahead and eat it. 

Edited June 9, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

We can skip value, next thing, do I deserve to live? Never thought to ask. But considering now I say no, since there is no deserving. Thats an imagined construct which one can adopt, but deserving , not being a real thing to have, well I just cant have any. Sure Id use the idea in my own defense vs other people,but the penguin doesnt care about its deserving or the deserving of the bugs it eats..its a non thing we use as a rule to guide behavior.Its a system of allocation.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Stosh

[Michael Sternbach]

I couldn't agree more, but to emphasize it. If I understand correctly.

I think integrity is generally used in a way where its something to be approved of rather than just indicating its 'consistent', and perhaps not synonymously matching personally derived genuineness. Since a person could willfully demand integrity of themselves in situations where their true instinct is to go some other way. Im not sure whether the overriding ones instinctive behavior is consistent with Taoism. What do you think. does taoism promote intentional integrity , or does it promote genuineness or ,,, some other thing. IYO

The sage will naturally act with integrity, due to their own integration. There will be no duality, no gap between what they wish to do and what they need to do. That's because they are one with the Dao.

 

Mind you, I'm talking about an ideal state. Another word for it is wu wei.