Mair 6:1

[Stosh]

I would recommend against trying to ride a bicycle backwards though.

 

Some things go forward in a straight line and other thing go 'round in circles.

Care to be specific?

[Marblehead]

Care to be specific?

 

Not really.  However, an example:

 

If you kill someone with intent it is called murder.

 

If you kill someone while preventing them from killing you it is called self-defense.

 

The end result was the same.  The perspective was different.

[Stosh]

Good point. So thou shalt not kill, means ,do not defend yourself.

But Arjuna is urged to go against his conscience, to battle all arrayed against him. His reticence is prompted by his affinities for certain people, and his prosecution , is prompted by a fear of being embarrassed, an attitude prompted from the perspective of Krishna.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yeah, there are different perspectives for nearly all concepts, mostly based in the culture of the people.

[Stosh]

Yeah, there are different perspectives for nearly all concepts, mostly based in the culture of the people.

But not necessarily in the people themselves? 

[Brian]

Not sure how this thread wandered into Buddhism, Hinduism and Judeo-Christianity but...

 

In the Torah, the proscription is specifically against murder (רצח or "retzach").

 

Also, Luke 22:36 is worth reading...

[Stosh]

Not sure how this thread wandered into Buddhism, Hinduism and Judeo-Christianity but...

 

In the Torah, the proscription is specifically against murder (רצח or "retzach").

 

Also, Luke 22:36 is worth reading...

Understood, I didn't know you were Jewish . 

[Brian]

Understood, I didn't know you were Jewish .

I didn't say that I was.

 

<shrug>

[Stosh]

I didn't say that I was.

 

<shrug>

Oh, As Mh pointed out, the blood and tears physical aspect is the same either way , the difference between killing and murder is essentially sanction.  So if you were going to attend to this difference in sanction, it would imply that you were adherent to Talmudic law or the Hebrew God. (Since thats not my thing, I don't see the difference between sanctioned or unsanctioned killing , it equates to a justification). Which suggests that you are ,or were, Jewish.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Stosh

[Brian]

Oh, As Mh pointed out, the blood and tears physical aspect is the same either way , the difference between killing and murder is essentially sanction. So if you were going to attend to this difference in sanction, it would imply that you were adherent to Talmudic law or the Hebrew God. (Since thats not my thing, I don't see the difference between sanctioned or unsanctioned killing , it equates to a justification). Which suggests that you are ,or were, Jewish.

Non sequitur.

 

You mentioned Krishna above, Stosh. Does that suggest anything about you?

[Brian]

Oh, As Mh pointed out, the blood and tears physical aspect is the same either way , the difference between killing and murder is essentially sanction. So if you were going to attend to this difference in sanction, it would imply that you were adherent to Talmudic law or the Hebrew God. (Since thats not my thing, I don't see the difference between sanctioned or unsanctioned killing , it equates to a justification). Which suggests that you are ,or were, Jewish.

Are you of the belief that all life is precious, that no life is precious, or that "it depends"?

[Stosh]

Non sequitur.

 

You mentioned Krishna above, Stosh. Does that suggest anything about you?

Not that I am Hindu. But I can indeed show that what you mentioned is in fact sequitur if one presumes you are providing a consideration you feel valid in assessing whether all killing of people should be considered the same as murder.

[Stosh]

Are you of the belief that all life is precious, that no life is precious, or that "it depends"?

Precious to whom? Me personally ? , no certainly not.

[Brian]

Precious to whom? Me personally ? , no certainly not.

So, opportunistic killing without compunction?

[Stosh]

So, opportunistic killing without compunction?

Of people ? no.  but  I do regard most persons as being appropriate to be assigned value by me ,relative to what I end up doing, as a fall back position. A standard regard. But not all precious , not everyone, and not uniformly applied.

Go on, come at me with the raspberries  

[Brian]

Of people ? no. but I do regard most persons as being appropriate to be assigned value by me ,relative to what I end up doing, as a fall back position. A standard regard. But not all precious , not everyone, and not uniformly applied.

Go on, come at me with the raspberries

Relative, personal ad hoc value judgements, rationalized after the fact?

 

Just trying to understand the belief system you are espousing here.

[Stosh]

Relative, personal ad hoc value judgements, rationalized after the fact?

 

Just trying to understand the belief system you are espousing here.

Somewhat ,Yes relative value judgements, to fit circumstances , in accord with previously established policy-sentiment-attitudes. ( I'd choose the word subjective rather than relative though, and I am not here espousing it for general consumption necessarily, youre testing if my own ideation is sound and I am laying out what it is. )

Is there something wrong with that, or hard to understand? Would you care to offer the better alternative? 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Stosh

[Brian]

Somewhat ,Yes relative value judgements, to fit circumstances , in accord with previously established policy-sentiment-attitudes. ( I'd choose the word subjective rather than relative though, and I am not here espousing it for general consumption necessarily, youre testing if my own ideation is sound and I am laying out what it is. )

Is there something wrong with that, or hard to understand? Would you care to offer the better alternative?

I suspect this is common, with a significant variable being the framework of those "previously established policy-sentiment-attitudes."

[Stosh]

I suspect this is common, with a significant variable being the framework of those "previously established policy-sentiment-attitudes."

True , the thing ,I guess ,is where these ideas originate, is it from some kind of book, strategy , PC, or is it really .. just the genuine evaluation that's really felt,, as a summation of ones empathy , sense of justice , and obligations and all that. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

But not necessarily in the people themselves? 

 

I think the culture must be considered rather than individual people.  With the individuals you will have their biases and preferences.  Something like this is best generalized I think.

[Marblehead]

Yes, we have moved to open discussion in this thread.  Not a problem as far as I can tell as there was plenty time to discuss the Mair section before the thread went off topic.

 

But I'm not going to get involved in that discussion y'all are having.

[Brian]

True , the thing ,I guess ,is where these ideas originate, is it from some kind of book, strategy , PC, or is it really .. just the genuine evaluation that's really felt,, as a summation of ones empathy , sense of justice , and obligations and all that.

You kinda asked so I'll throw this out...

 

It is my perspective that all life is precious, even those manifestations I choose to kill for my own selfish reasons. This may seem contradictory but I think it is merely a conscious reflection of the juxtaposition of non-duality with duality. Both are equally "real" and the dawning of that awareness changes everything -- at least, it did for me.

 

My "value system" has absorbed aspects of much with which I have come in contact and it is necessarily judgemental despite the parallel understanding that none of it matters in the big picture. In this way, judgement can be dispassionate yet compassionate, and "least action" is an appropriate default stance.

 

I wouldn't call it Judaism or Christianism or Taoism or Buddhism or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism or Cherokeeism or any other "ism" -- call it "Brianism" if a name is needed.

[Stosh]

You kinda asked so I'll throw this out...

 

It is my perspective that all life is precious, even those manifestations I choose to kill for my own selfish reasons. This may seem contradictory but I think it is merely a conscious reflection of the juxtaposition of non-duality with duality. Both are equally "real" and the dawning of that awareness changes everything -- at least, it did for me.

 

My "value system" has absorbed aspects of much with which I have come in contact and it is necessarily judgemental despite the parallel understanding that none of it matters in the big picture. In this way, judgement can be dispassionate yet compassionate, and "least action" is an appropriate default stance.

 

I wouldn't call it Judaism or Christianism or Taoism or Buddhism or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism or Cherokeeism or any other "ism" -- call it "Brianism" if a name is needed.

I'm giving this subject a lot of consideration. Its been suggested to me , something along the lines of what you are saying , that everything has value,  because nothing has value. I accept the logic of that , no problem, but , This is  a sword which cuts both ways, and it lends no direction to what would be the suggested better path.. either to attribute everything value, or attribute nothing value , or to attribute value, as you put it, ad hoc. 

There's problems with all three, to put value on everything , then everything is your business problem and burden. To value nothing means people are just animate cinder-blocks. And if you cherry-pick what to value , you're essentially unguided and left with Brianism or Stoshism , which comes with no testimonials, warranty, or manual. 

Its kind of like clicking the like box on everything, it loses its meaning except to obscure what one really does like, or emphasize the few times you didn't click the box. There's more , but it'll keep. 

Ciao

[Brian]

I'm giving this subject a lot of consideration. Its been suggested to me , something along the lines of what you are saying , that everything has value, because nothing has value. I accept the logic of that , no problem, but , This is a sword which cuts both ways, and it lends no direction to what would be the suggested better path.. either to attribute everything value, or attribute nothing value , or to attribute value, as you put it, ad hoc.

There's problems with all three, to put value on everything , then everything is your business problem and burden. To value nothing means people are just animate cinder-blocks. And if you cherry-pick what to value , you're essentially unguided and left with Brianism or Stoshism , which comes with no testimonials, warranty, or manual.

Its kind of like clicking the like box on everything, it loses its meaning except to obscure what one really does like, or emphasize the few times you didn't click the box. There's more , but it'll keep.

Ciao

I would suggest that everyone already does the "Brianism" or "Stoshism" thing, just without actually giving it much thought.

[dawei]

I'm giving this subject a lot of consideration. Its been suggested to me , something along the lines of what you are saying , that everything has value,  because nothing has value. I accept the logic of that , no problem, but , This is  a sword which cuts both ways, and it lends no direction to what would be the suggested better path.. either to attribute everything value, or attribute nothing value , or to attribute value, as you put it, ad hoc. 

There's problems with all three, to put value on everything , then everything is your business problem and burden. To value nothing means people are just animate cinder-blocks. And if you cherry-pick what to value , you're essentially unguided and left with Brianism or Stoshism , which comes with no testimonials, warranty, or manual. 

 

Cutting both ways means dualist thinking, yes?   

 

I find the issue is with non-value as if that is dual to value...  in dualistic thinking.

 

How to characterize non-value to mean non-dual aspect of value ?