This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

religion brings progress!

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. religion brings progress!

User Info: InfiniteOpening

InfiniteOpening
3 years ago#111
"Some guy I know said something that sounded smart" is really not convincing in any way : /

You act as if utilitarianism is embedded in the universe or something. Depending on a country's ethos and a person's personal goals in life, sometimes what one considers as "maximizing happiness" is not applicable. This is pretty obvious to people who read diverse literature or watch meaningful films. I recommend watching the film Bird People in China if you want to understand why utilitarianism is flawed in many situations.

Because the cardiovascular excercise, endorphine release and oxytocin stimulation would have a positive effect on the sort of condition that nuns and other clergy usually suffer from.

I can cherry pick PubMed articles about how too much sex or periods of celibacy can help one. You're being too reductionistic here. We obviously don't understand the human body as a large yet, and while the effects with OXT are interesting for bonding and so forth, I don't see how that has a place in this discussion.

And had you actually paid attention, you'd have seen me say that being more narrow or open wasn't an objective measure of worth.

You seem to have this false impression that being open is about trying out new activities without any inhibition. I would say your assumption here is the fact you view your "self" as an accumulation of experience. In reality, every moment the self arises and then perishes. It's not like you are reaching some ends here. The cultivation of one's self is just as much as a process of deconstruction.

You've pretty unabashedly hailed monogamy as superior. How can there not be an inferior if there is a superior?

It depends on one's goals in life. I would say you learned absolutely nothing from Buddhism and instead just engaged in cultural appropriation. I would also say the way you view and make sense of "cultures" is pretty destructive. Like I've said, watch the film Bird People in China.

It's based on your attitude towards other points of views and you assumptions about people who disagree with you.

You're being a hypocrite. You said I am narrow for preferring monogamy, right? Well, are you going to call celibate monks on Zhongnan Mountains narrow too? Who are you to impose your standards of healthiness onto others? Who are you to say who is expansive or not?

Solid arguing. A person who actually understood Buddhist thought would start telling me why those things were wrong, not just repeat empty pop-psych versions of Buddhism.

1. Our sense of "I-me-mine" is an illusion. Read neurophilosopher's Thomas Metzinger's Ego Tunnel or Being No One.
2. When we cling to our bodily appearance, sensual pleasure, and so forth, there will come a point where such things fade away. To form an attachment to such transient things is what is truly narrow in my view.
3. Time is inherently non-differentiable. When we think conceptually of ourselves in relation to others or objects, we create a mental narrative that is not based off anything substantive.

Rather I look at the different philosophies I encounter and weigh their ideas against each other, thus gaining a personal understanding of what is said and whether it is of value to me.

You didn't learn a single thing from buddhism and just half *****. My issue is with you going up to people like Chinese celibate monks or nuns and telling them what's healthy for them or not. Something tells me, given your character, you would even take off your clothes and try to seduce them in private. You are full of yourself, and you truly don't care about anyone except fulfilling your own desires. You want to just show off in one form or another.

User Info: InfiniteOpening

InfiniteOpening
3 years ago#112
But all of this is just bonus writings since you didn't actually address my response, just a completely misunderstood part of it.

You don't seem to address the contradiction here:

You said:

"By having one experience you're automatically excluded from some other experience. You can't be a kid growing up in a metropolis and also have grown up on a small farmstead in the country."

I responded:

"The lack of a dimension can sometimes lead to the opening/strengthening of other dimensions." (meaning depending on one goals sometimes one has to sacrifice certain things)

You responded:

"OH YOU'RE BEING NARROW! WITH YOUR MONOGAMY!!!"

*Bahamut then imposes his standards of health as if its absolute as a way to measure whether someone fulfills his requirements of happiness*

Those who obsess about sex and have too much of it are generally too busy to empty themselves of their sense of "I-me-mine" or invest more energy in other tasks. In this convo you've told me you're a doctor and traveled across many lands, and also made many lovers, as a way to give off a prestigious aura (one of being "expansive"), but I respond that I don't care and I'd rather you not impose your values implicitly onto others. Reading about people like you makes me wish countries go back to closing their borders to tourists who can't immerse themselves into the lifestyle.

Also, don't lie to people about wanting to risk your life to save them. I don't like overly sentimental and fake people. Maybe this is a consequence of how you've never formed a deep bond with anyone except your own lusts?:

"That's a shame, because I'd hug you and risk my life for you. Because you're a human being and everyone deserves life. I'd risk my life for your wife and children too, again simply because they're alive and as a simple baseline deserve to remain that way."

I saw through this **** right away. I'd rather we not talk anymore. I'd rather you just leave traditionally minded people alone because you are not as wise or "open-minded" as you make yourself out to be.

People like Hsu Yun, nan huai chin, Han Shan (Cold Mountain), Shiwui (Stonehouse), Kusan Sunim, Kodo Sawaki, and etc. experienced something profound. All of them recommend either being celibate or monogamous (without too much sex). Read Hsu Yun's biography for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsu_Yun

I don't need a conceited ****** like you telling me what is most healthy for myself. You can do whatever you want, but please leave people who don't like your company alone. You're not as great as you make yourself out to be, and I don't care how attached you are to your lovers' transient perceptions of you.
the final bahamut 3 years ago#113
InfiniteOpening posted...
You act as if utilitarianism is embedded in the universe or something.


Where? Because this is another instance of you pulling my supposed views out of your ass.



I can cherry pick PubMed articles about how too much sex or periods of celibacy can help one.


Difference is, I don't have to cherrypick. I can just look at the publications as a whole. Sex is objectively healthy.

and while the effects with OXT are interesting for bonding and so forth, I don't see how that has a place in this discussion.

A typical problems in nunneries is a strict hierachial order where people don't really trust as much as obey, due to various social stress factors and lack of capability for growth as an autonomous individual. Oxytocin would improve the social dynamics here.
And it also has, y'know, health benefits that aren't just related to bonding. I'm surprised you didn't know that since the bonding aspect is the pop-culture effect that you'd know from stuff like Cracked.

You seem to have this false impression that being open is about trying out new activities without any inhibition.

Not without inhibitions, but essentially, yes being open is about being open to things. Good tautology.


It depends on one's goals in life.


How so?


You said I am narrow for preferring monogamy, right?


No. That's what the paragraph you were responding to specifically told you that I didn't.
You simply repeating it will not make it true.

Who are you to impose your standards of healthiness onto others?

A doctor.
: |


1. Our sense of "I-me-mine" is an illusion. Read neurophilosopher's Thomas Metzinger's Ego Tunnel or Being No One.


One of the axiomatic truths of Buddhism that fails because it doesn't really hold up to being relevant to how one lives. It's a philosophically interesting concept to be sure, but not actually one that ends up with a lot of real world applicability, even among most devout Buddhists.

2. When we cling to our bodily appearance, sensual pleasure, and so forth, there will come a point where such things fade away. To form an attachment to such transient things is what is truly narrow in my view.

So... you don't really realize that both your wife and your children will fade away from you and be lost to you in time?

3. Time is inherently non-differentiable. When we think conceptually of ourselves in relation to others or objects, we create a mental narrative that is not based off anything substantive.

Okay, take that thought further and see where it leads you.

What you're going on about is fluff Buddhism. It's base philosophy without actual follow through. It's not the sort of thing you'll find in a temple, it's the sort of thing you'll find in the sort of person who spends some time with buddhism and walks away before he's really learned anything other than what fitted into what he wanted to hear. Ironically, it's hippy-speak.

My issue is with you going up to people like Chinese celibate monks or nuns and telling them what's healthy for them or not.

Again: Doctor.
But what's healthy for them is not necessarily how they must live. I think you're one of those people who don't understand this fact and think that your "religious" or "moral" optimal lifestyle must therefore necessarily be healthy.
Faciendere id pro RAVz.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random.
the final bahamut 3 years ago#114
Something tells me, given your character, you would even take off your clothes and try to seduce them in private.

And once again, you have me completely wrong. I respect other people's attitude to sex and wouldn't dream of having sex with someone who's celibate or in a monogamous relationship. Nor would I hit on them. I don't even like the idea of seducing people.

You are full of yourself, and you truly don't care about anyone except fulfilling your own desires. You want to just show off in one form or another.


Hey, sure, tell yourself that about me if it helps you feel better about yourself.




InfiniteOpening posted...

"By having one experience you're automatically excluded from some other experience. You can't be a kid growing up in a metropolis and also have grown up on a small farmstead in the country."

I responded:

"The lack of a dimension can sometimes lead to the opening/strengthening of other dimensions." (meaning depending on one goals sometimes one has to sacrifice certain things)

You responded:

"OH YOU'RE BEING NARROW! WITH YOUR MONOGAMY!!!"


I really didn't, I pointed out the problem in your question and how it really didn't support anything. I never mentioned you monogamy at any point during that line of conversation, you were the only one who brought that up.


In this convo you've told me you're a doctor and traveled across many lands, and also made many lovers, as a way to give off a prestigious aura (one of being "expansive"), but I respond that I don't care and I'd rather you not impose your values implicitly onto others.

Actually I did that because you were crowing about how I was an unfulfilled person who had done nothing with my life, so I told you what I have done with my life and that I've reached many of my goals. I didn't bring it up out of nowhere, it was in a direct response to your accusations. And again: Where have I "imposed my values implicitly" on others? Because so far, you are the one doing that.

I'd rather you just leave traditionally minded people alone because you are not as wise or "open-minded" as you make yourself out to be.

If you want to be left alone by eeevil non-monogamous people like me, don't start s*** about how monogamy is inherently superior and celibate people are smarter. Because if you start s***, you'd better be prepared for when s*** gets finished.

You keep accussing me of deriding you for your monogamy when i don't actually do that and on multiple occassions said that it wasn't inherently better to be monogamous or polyamorous. You say I deride you for it even when I don't mention it by a word. This makes it really hard to think that you aren't really, really upset and insecure about your own lack of sexual experience, in which case, you really should sit down with yourself and figure out what you want and why you have an issue with yourself. Dealing with this sort of thing is healthy.
Faciendere id pro RAVz.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random.

User Info: InfiniteOpening

InfiniteOpening
3 years ago#115
Difference is, I don't have to cherrypick. I can just look at the publications as a whole. Sex is objectively healthy.

You realize how in research one has to randomize picking subjects for studies, right? Because biases, expectations, and assumptions can be deeply conditioned into us without realizing. It may be the case sex is beneficial for daily modern life, but in many instances and for different goals it's not (check below). You can't argue sex is healthy based off how it changes OXT levels. The mesoscopic dynamics of the brain are far more important and nuanced, and we barely know anything about it.

A typical problems in nunneries is a strict hierachial order where people don't really trust as much as obey, due to various social stress factors and lack of capability for growth as an autonomous individual. Oxytocin would improve the social dynamics here.

My point is, depending on their goals, sometimes the scientific reductionist approach doesn't work in trying to determine what is most healthy for them. Inhibition from sex could lead to more self-control and quiescence of mind. I remember reading a good collection of journal articles arguing this. If one lives in solitude without engaging in sex, I think one's perspective becomes more all-embracing than someone who seeks to "broaden" themselves.

How so?

If one wants to learn an instrument like the Guqin well or delve deeper into Ch'an practice, prolonged periods of celibacy are essential because the mind cannot fix itself on any other attachment, cling to duality of pain and pleasure, and so forth.

Who are you to impose your standards of healthiness onto others?

A doctor.


And you think you're special because of that?

It's a philosophically interesting concept to be sure, but not actually one that ends up with a lot of real world applicability, even among most devout Buddhists.

Read about the third Bhumi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bh%C5%ABmi_(Buddhism)#The_third_bh.C5.ABmi.2C_the_Luminous

"even if someone...cuts from the body of this bodhisattva not just flesh but also bone, not in large sections but bit by bit, not continually but pausing in between, and not finishing in a short time but cutting over a long period, the bodhisattva would not get angry at the mutilator.[10]"

Now read about how Mansur-al Hallaj died.

So... you don't really realize that both your wife and your children will fade away from you and be lost to you in time?

There is no one to ever grasp them. I live my life with my Hua Tou and the recognition of its dreamlike quality:

"So you should view this fleeting world --
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream,
A flash of lightening in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream."

Okay, take that thought further and see where it leads you.

Right here.

Again: Doctor.

Doesn't mean you apprehend the complexity and variability involved in health especially in relation to goals or intentional states.

And again: Where have I "imposed my values implicitly" on others?

By acting like your standards of health are absolute.

This makes it really hard to think that you aren't really, really upset and insecure about your own lack of sexual experience

Actually, I'm not thinking about myself anymore fyi. I'm thinking about cultures where they have diverse sexual practices for spiritual reasons. I defend both celibate monks and tantric sexual practitioners, and I don't view either as healthier than the other. I respect monogamous or celibate monks a bit more though. I don't like Ikkyu personally.
#116
(message deleted)

User Info: WhiskeyDisk

WhiskeyDisk
3 years ago#117
InfiniteOpening posted...
I don't like Ikkyu personally.


to be fair, Ikkyu was kind of a smartass.
http://i.imgur.com/4fmtLFt.gif
http://s1.zetaboards.com/sba/ ........lol, Mods!

User Info: kidpokerfan

kidpokerfan
3 years ago#118
BetaSquadron posted...
Jimayo posted...
And I don't know how you can possibly believe they would fly planes into buildings without religion.

What part of it sounds impossible or even difficult without religion? Hijacking planes was pretty common a few decades ago. Sacrificing yourself for a cause is common throughout all of human history including the present. I want to say that the difficult part in carrying out an attack like 9/11 is convincing a person to kill thousands of civilians, but given how unapologetic and callous people are about civilian deaths in war, it really isn't.


How many of those terrorists would have gone through with it if they didn't sincerely believe that they were going to eternal paradise afterwards?
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. religion brings progress!

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived