I think when it comes to the subconscious psychology seemed to split. I vaguely remember something about this, but there are plenty here to correct me. I'm not sure how Jung is received, but I recently picked up the I ching and read this from the forward. I started this book when I was younger but I couldn't read it because I had a habit of skipping forwards and intros. Here are the words, to which I hadn't read until a few days ago:

I think we are not yet sure that I need to make such decisions or if (I give up my thoughts) these decisions won't come out of themselves. Or in a different way...was there a tree, that I saw, and then avoided...or is there just an experience of me avoiding a tree, not causal.

Practically speaking what difference does the answer to this make to your life or anyone else's? There is no need to be skeptical of the evidence received through your senses, especially when we can use this evidence to create a better world for everyone.

Is it a better world though? Or has using the conscious, or making decisions, or not allowing the natural subconscious to shine through created this world we live in now. And that world is not a nice place to live. It seems to me you either live in suffering or you live in ignorance of that suffering.

It seems to me that what we deem natural, which is really not natural, has created the division between the individual and the group.

I wonder if you would argue at first, the idea that prejudice, is born and maintained in those that covet causal beliefs, and not very possible in those that don't?

A cheap 2 dollar per blowjob Chinese prostitute can now live richer and longer than a King could 200 years ago. The king would die from a serious flu or food contamination, where now, the prostitute could afford antibiotics to ensure she lives longer and gets to experience more of this world. She can also afford refrigeration - something a King 200 years ago could not afford irrespective of the money he had. This is progress. If you want to deny this as progress and continue on with your anti-establishment pseudo-provocative pop-philosophy, you will continue to be left out of the more important conversations - such as those in SMP. I am not going to sugar-coat it sorry.

you dont' need to sugar coat it. But I am pointing out that it is only progress depending on a certain utility. And it doesn't suggest that the progress is optimal even if it is in the correct decision.

And what utility do you consider more important than life longevity (which equates to more life experiences)?

This depends on how we approach the question. We might decide that no utility is the correct utility, that is to take the approach of eliminating all our conditioning towards utility. For some this creates a new utility but that is not the purpose. This is akin to buddhism, although I'm not sure others would agree.

The other way to take it is to inquire into the question of "what should be my utility" or what should be the ideal 'individual utility'. But we may have made another assumption in that the individual is valid. The question possibly should be closer to 'what should OUR utility be', such a change in view may not need a solution, and may be the foundation of beginning of change. Its tough for these reason to suggest such change should or could be favorable to 'my' or 'your' projected utility.

Its a tough direction to have dialog but I think it is different that the semantic masturbation you are used to.

And the prostitute you refereed to is nowhere near the bottom person in this world. More people live today, but I think more people die. We have better cures but better killing machine. But thats not how I wish to argue that question, I wish to point out that if our utility is somewhere along the lines of the world getting along, I think we have not really budged a bit.

The other caution about suggesting the world has changed in a meaningful way, over the history of man, comes if we understand that having a proper view of causality is the lifting of ignorance. And if the world in fact has not changed then suggesting so, as a supporting point for a counter argument, would itself be ignorance. And in that we might be able to see that ignorance has a great hold on the entirety of mankind and man has hardly began to even acknowledge it let alone attempt to deal with it.

If you don't value anything, then where you do you get value from? in order to want to live?
These are questions social scientists have been working on and continue to work on every day. I am offended when someone devalues all their life-long work and effort through appeals to impractical, pseudo-provocative philosophies.
Its a tough direction precisely because it is semantic masturbation. If you define all your terms clearly, none of the issues you are having at conveying your philosophy would be there, but defining your terms clearly would be counter-intuitive to the very philosophy you're trying to convey. People can not take the ideas of someone else seriously if those ideas aren't presented in a form that is easily digestible.
She doesn't need to be in order to demonstrate the contrast in progress between living like a king 200 years ago and living like a third-world prostitute in the modern era. The prostitute is better off thanks to only 200 years of scientific progress.
Do you want to know what the main reason is as to why more people die? Because more people live. The planet now has double the population it had in the 60s. This means that the management and distribution of resources is now twice as difficult as it was in the 60s. This can not in any way be attributed to the scientific method - which has predominantly given us progress, and provided us with a way forward in situations where it looked like there was none. If anything, this can partly be attributed to the distribution of power, and the fact that some people (namely politicians) who know little about the world have more power to change things than other people (namely scientists) who know much more about the world but have little to no power to change it.

And yes, people are working on this issue too. Its nothing new.

I haven't had the misfortune of living through a world-war so my opinion on this may be biased but it does currently seem a lot more peaceful than through the majority of the world's history. Particularly the world prior to science.

Its not a different question to ask what is our utility or where to we get our value. Again it may not be the correct question. A different one might be should one seek value? or What happens if one does not seek value of any kind. Its might seem this is a dark path that leads to things such as violence towards others, or in ability to feed oneself, but I think there are many monk types or Jainists that would fit this. To take it further, it is the things we value lead us to destructive behavior.

We need to address this want as valid first.


Just because they have spent a lot of time on such questions does not mean their efforts are creating valuable results tho. We shouldn't get offended if someone wants to question such directions.

The issue is the definitions aren't things that you accept.
I'm not sure how you are quantifying such a thing but here is an example, and I'm not sure this is the lowest form of prostitute. But I take no pride in the progress of man until we actually begin to deal with these issues. Suggesting things are better off therefore we are going in the right direction, is the issue, ignorance to the fact creates these issues.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8t...s-red-l_webcam


100 million killed maybe this century from war, and we are still not sure whether we are going to have a nuclear world war at some point in the near future. I don't see this as improvement, just glorified tribalism.

And yes, people are working on this issue too. Its nothing new.

I think war has not stopped as far back as our history goes, and continues in our daily life. I think the world is ignorant to such a fact and always has been.

In the context of the op the question was can we change this by outcasting or beating our enemy?

Hard to say. In Zen Monasteries, monks are beaten with a stick when they slouch during meditation.

Depending on the situation, the skillful means of eliminating self-cherishing thoughts will differ. But, as I said before, the intention matters. Tilopa hit Naropa with his sandal and that was the cause of enlightenment ... A violent means but skillfully executed.

The thing is you deny any kind of causal reality - you said you would be happy if we could agree the relative reality is not foundational or whatever. But that is not really how it works - there is no hierarchy it just is... Karma and Emptiness both exist. The elimination of this "selfishness" is the developing of bodhicitta - and we should work to develop both relative and absolute bodhicitta.

So perhaps "fire" means are necessary ... The problem going in is the labeling one way as better than the other.

I agree with this completely, and that its the intent and intelligence of the teacher that would make the difference.

And we redefine violence this way.

I imagine most pitbull owners that hit their dogs to reprimand them, prob create mental issues in the dog. But for intelligent dogs and owners, a little swat is prob fine and better than say a squirt gun from an idiot owner which could be traumatizing if the dog fears water. Or could be quite an abusive/suppressive thing if the dog begins to fear water in general.

So intent yes, but in relation to the thread reference in the op, I don't think is what we are doing there.

Well, I couldn't find a link to the specific thread, but from what you said in the OP, reminds me of what OrP said once about people treating another's idea harshly - it is tough to weed through all the information and sometimes the harshness acts as a signal.

Though perhaps another way to treat the phenomenon is silence.

I recently participated in an animal release, the Lama talked about how in a way working to save animals destined to die creates greater merit than working with humans since humans (for the most part, there are exceptions) have a voice and the means to help themselves, while animals do not.

linke was in op. dunno what orp is.
silence can be action that is absorbing, or silence in speech, but it seems there are issues in this world created by too many people remaining silent.

this seems like a whole new issue, the definition of those that have an inability to help themselves.