»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Considering The Source
| The Alley |
|
Considering The Source |
|
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738
|
I'm looking for some accurate news sources--a non-partisan watchdog, if you will. Is this a good one? http://www.publicintegrity.org/ |
||
| © Copyright 2008 serenity blaze - All Rights Reserved | |||
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I know Bob and Balladeer have mentioned it before, but I've found that for unbiased, unsensational, unhyped reporting this: http://www.csmonitor.com/ is about as good as it gets Karen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you, moonbeam.  I'll put that one on my list too. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
There is no such thing as an unbiased news source. Nor can there be. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I don't understand. Isn't objectivity the mainstay of journalism? Explain please? And what do you read? I tried to read "all of them" but it's kind of impossible. So I'm looking for a choice few... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
All meat comes with some fat. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Isn't objectivity the mainstay of journalism? Not in this world, serenity gal. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
And to think that I didn't take Journalism because I didn't think I would be able to reign in my emotions... sigh but I thought I could be a proper anthropologist? HEH.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Usually, Karen, yea. In spite of what Mike believes. Teachers are supposed to be objective, as well. Policemen and judges. And, okay, maybe anthropologists, too. Trouble is, true objectivity leaves a person absolutely no basis on which to make decisions. And journalism, like all of life, is just filled with decisions. Which stories do you want to run in your publication? Unless you can print everything, obviously not possible, you're going to have to make some non-objective decisions. Which facts do you want to include in each story? Which facts are too unimportant to warrant inclusion? What order of importance do you want to give each story? What order of importance for those facts? How big is the headline? Does this story rate a picture? Whether your decisions are motivated by a hidden agenda, as Mike often contends, or by a desire to sell newspapers, every one of those decisions is going to introduce subjectivity into your journalism. Every decision is the result of what you think about what you're reporting, not simply on the facts of what you're reporting. It can't ever be helped, can't ever be eliminated. Good journalists try, just as do good teachers, policemen, and judges. No one ever completely succeeds. You don't have to read everything, but you DO have to read widely. And, more importantly, you have to read critically. The bias is always there. Look for it. Look for your own, too. Only in looking for the bias can you hope to guard against it. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
bbc -Juju |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, Ron, but, on the other hand I can take a story and present it in different ways. Dog Bites Man ============= I can give it as straight news. Mr. Roland Garros was bitten by a large snauser while walking down 4th avenue on Tuesday, July 4th. Mr. Garros was treated on the scene for a minor puncture of the skin and released. The snauser was taken to Passion's Animal hospital to be checked for rabies. I can give it as being biased toward the victim.. Mr. Roland Garros, while walking down 4th avenue, was savagely attacked by a large snauser and suffered a bite on his left forearm. Fire Rescue was summoned to the scene and treated the victim, obviously in a great deal of pain by that time. According to Mr. Garros, the dog came out of nowhere and he didn't have a chance to get away. The animal who instigated the attack was taken to be tested for rabies. I can make it biased against the victim.. Mr. Roland Garros was bitten by a large snauser while walking down 4th avenue today. The dog, which has no record of ever having attacked anyone before, bit Mr. Garros in the forearm. There were no witnesses to describe the incident in detail or to state if it was an unprovoked attack or if Mr. Garros had somehow been antagonizing the pooch before the attack occured, but the dog's owner, Samuel Grinch, claimed that his snauser was a completely tame animal that never attacked anyone before and was very good with children. He opined that there had to be more to the attack than Mr. Garros had offered. The animal, offering no resistance and even licking the face of the animal control officer, was taken away for rabies testing. I can write from the dog owner's point of view or even the dog's point of view! Once the press chooses the news they want to make public, then they choose how they want to present it. In a biased manner due to political views? In a sensationalistic manner to sell a lot of papers? THAT is where the bias comes in and today's journalism engages in it. Seldom will you see a straight story given and Joe Friday (just the facts, ma'am) would be out of place in this world. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ah, I see. I think. (I was off making snowflakes...  )But now I'm getting all Karenoid again, because all that you said sounds reasonable and makes perfect sense. What I find shuddersome is that if gathering of Intelligence and resulting Operations runs pretty much the same way, it is no wonder we're in such a mess. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Those aren't the only possibilities, though, Mike. If Mr. Garros was bitten on Fourth Avenue in Kalamazoo, I doubt you'll read about it in Ft. Lauderdale's Sun-Sentinel. Sensationalism isn't the only way, or even the best way, to sell a lot of papers. Relevance sells, too, and most Florida newspapers are unlikely to judge Mr. Garros very relevant to their readers. Journalists are just like poets; they write what they hope people will want to read. Most honest reporters will write your first story, Mike. However, printing "just the facts" is still biased reporting because the alternative is to NOT print the story at all. The guy who tries to make you feel sympathy for the dog is not hiding his bias. The guy who refuses to print any story about a dog biting a man is no less biased but is far more likely to catch us unaware. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_48/b3910102_mz016.htm |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ron -- Sorry to come in late, but can't cameras be an unbiased news source? Of course, they aren't always unbiased etc, but I think your remaks included the word "never." From our Vietnam era, for example, the picture of the little naked girl on fire, the presumed VC person being shot in the head, and the Buddhist monk setting himself ablaze in protest seem to be unbiased photographic accounts of what was happening in that precise location at that precise moment in time. My personal Vietnam picture of a one legged Wietnamese man with a handkerchief stuffed in a hole in his face didn't reflect a personal bias. The man was standing in front of me. Similarly, were the infamous pictures from Abu Ghraib biased, or were the events actually taking place? Were 9/11 photo's and videos a fraud or biased? Are the photos and videos of dead Palestinians and Israeli's biased, or are those humans actually dead? This is almost an easy contention to beat to death, except that you bring up the question of the selective eye. I do not think that an unstaged event which is captured in 1/250th to 1/1000th of a second involves a lot of biased forethought. I think to contend otherwise by inserting a "never" is just silly. I also anticipate the totally irrelevant argument that an editorial decision to print one authentic image over another authentic image has anything to do with the authenticity of the image. Pure bolognaise, as far as the pictures and videos go. The written word, on the other hand, I agree almost inevitably involves the personality and biases of the writer -- the source of the old adage "Don't believe anything you read," with the more questionable addenda "and only half of what you see." The universe, in it's amusing way, has endowed most of us with functional crap detectors. Serious journalists attempt to cut through the crap. Frivolous journalists exploit the crap. There is very little crap attached to unstaged documentation of what is front of one's face in the instant it is before one. Basically, I reject the notion of the impossibility of objectivity. And Schroedinger's cat was HIS problem, not the cat's. Best, Jimbeaux ) [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (01-14-2009 01:28 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Only if they give a 360 degree view, Jim, and have been running since time began. Otherwise, you won't know what's happening behind the camera and, often more importantly, you won't know what was happening before the cameras started to roll. You can, of course, choose to decide that perspective and cause are irrelevant for any given photographed event? You make that decision subjectively, of course. quote: Yea? Based on tabloid sales figures, Jim, I could have to guess most are broken. Based on personal experience, I think everyone's detector is probably mangled beyond redemption. At best, they only work selectively. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think rather than pit obectivity against subjectivity, since uninvolvement is impossible, we should ask the difference between bias and something like commitment. In other words, the self-same principles are sometimes good and sometimes not, depending upon context. Stephen |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Yeesh, I was trying to make a non-metaphysical statement about if you take a picture of something, it's probably there. It didn't have to be there from time immemorial, it only had have to have been there when the photo was taken. On "crap detectors," yes Ron, you're right. I'm a "smart rat" you're a "smart rat" and Stephanos might be the "smartest rat" of them all. Occasionally I forget that most people are really, really "STUPID RATS!" It's painful. I know some things about some things, and I know I don't know a damned thing about most things. But I was sort of talking about people who can distinguish their butt from their elbow, forgetting they are in the minority. When I express OPINIONS, I try to express informed opinions, informed through experience or somewhat less informed through research. I try to learn from those who disagree with me, which is almost everone, and I have no particular need to be "right." I also, like all "smart rats," feel no particular need to put up with fools. Just wondering: Do you accept that there might an objective reality, whether or not we're in touch with it all the time, or have you an alternative view? In accordance with recent thread suggestions, I am never going to post another link, which I don't know how to do anyway, and simply declare myself the ultimate authority. Laughing, Jimbeaux |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I missed this. You are quite right Ron. I should have said: I know Bob and Balladeer have mentioned it before, but I've found that for lack of bias, unsensational, unhyped reporting this: http://www.csmonitor.com/ is about as good as it gets Karen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: There's an old movie I always liked, Jim, called "Absence of Malice," starring Sally Fields and Paul Newman. Near the end of the movie, the journalist that Sally Fields plays is being interviewed by one of her colleagues. It goes something like this: "I need to know how to describe your relationship with Gallagher. Mac said to quote you directly. You can say whatever you want." "Just . . . say we were involved." "That's true, isn't it?" "No. But it's accurate." Your hypothetical photograph, Jim, is probably accurate as hell. But someone decided what to shoot, what angle to shoot it from, and just as importantly, they decided what not to shoot. Some would contend that the best lie is just a truth removed from its context, and I think photography is as vulnerable to that as any other kind of reporting. Usually, of course, the result isn't even really a lie; it's just someone's version of their truth. So, to answer your question, no, I don't believe there is a truly objective reality. If someone else isn't lying to us, we're lying to ourselves. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But the presence of subjectivity doesn't mean objectivity is not still present too. I would argue that it is just as inevitable for human work to have some objectivity as it is for it to have some subjectivity. Also who looks aright may see the "realm" of subjectivity is far smaller in the width of things, for it is confined only to things that have life and perception, probably the smallest minority of the universe [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-15-2009 12:00 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, if you believe in God, shouldn't you say there's at least one trustworthy view (I'll sidestep the word 'objective' here), whether or not we can know it completely in the now? We still can know more of it than we let on most of the time ... it chaffs against our own biased view so often that we suppress it. You did say that you didn't believe in objective reality ... which is a far cry from saying we can't observe or know it rightly. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-14-2009 11:17 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Right, Essorant. And just because a woman is pregnant doesn't mean she's also not pregnant, too? No one is going to force you to stop twisting the English language. But no one is going to force me to accept your convolutions, either. A woman can't be a little bit pregnant, nor can she be partially objective about something . . . because the word that means partially objective is called subjective. quote: Actually, Stephen, if you want to change the word from objective to trustworthy, I'd probably give quite a different answer. Those are not the same things, and indeed, I think they differ in much the same way as "true" and "accurate." I honestly don't know if God is objective or not. I have my doubts. What I don't doubt is that everything we know about God is necessarily known subjectively. That, I suspect, is why so many get it so wrong. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: No, but she still has more to her than just her pregnancy, Ron. In fact a lot more. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, Just curious here, you certainly wouldn't call God's view "parochial" would you? Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Parochial, Stephen? You mean in the "imperfectly all knowing" sense? LOL. No, I wouldn't say that an omniscient god has a restricted viewpoint. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ron, I'm either misunderstanding what you are saying, or we're miles apart on this. RE: "Your hypothetical photograph, Jim, is probably accurate as hell." I'd certainly agree with that, which is exactly what I was saying. But when you continue with: "But someone decided what to shoot, what angle to shoot it from, and just as importantly, they decided what not to shoot." I have to say that's not what I was talking about at all. Any photo can be manipulative. Probably 95% are, from the Raising of the Flag on Iwo Jima which was restaged, to MacArthur's return to the Phillipines which was staged from the beginning, to the "art" photography so carefully contrived by photographic artists. But what happens in the cases of a WeeGee or Braisai for examle. They shot what was in front of their face, primarily because it was in front of their face, and the only self-censoring moment, if there was one at all, ocurred in the instant between sight and anctivating the shutter. I do not believe this was a "considered" act. I think it was an act without consideration, a gut, not mental, reaction the instant. You seem to dismiss the notion of "the immediate" I say "seem" to not put words in your mouth. A possible analogy might be found in the experience of being shot at. One reacts -- ducking is a common response -- without thinking too much about it. In this same way, a photographer can take a picture without any intervening rational/irrational or editorial considerations. There is no "choosing," there is only the "doing." Re: "So, to answer your question, no, I don't believe there is a truly objective reality. If someone else isn't lying to us, we're lying to ourselves." Here's one simple examlple of "objective reality." If you or I or anyone else were confronted by a 1,000 pound or so boulder and required to push it up a hill, we couldn't do it. The underlying metaphor in the Sisyphus myth is that Sisyphus was condemned to deny, or not catch on to an objective reality. Here's a more abstruse example: We currently posit that everything is made of atoms in constant motion, and that everything made of atoms contains more empty space than solid matter. If this is so, it is then possible that my atoms and empty spaces just might line up with a brick wall and its empty spaces, and I could walk through the brick wall. Personally, I wouldn't bet the farm on this, or try to walk though a wall on the off chance that everything was aligned. There is an objective reality at work. Brick walls are hard no matter how I choose to subjectively view them. To claim that there is no objective reality is one of the mind traps that drive most of us dotty. To get over that nonsense isn't easy, and I don't know if anything is gained by it, except the ability to see what we see, and maybe take a picture. Best, Jimbeaux [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (01-15-2009 10:48 PM).] |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Ron -- Other potential objective realities: The speed of light, the table of elements, and single malt Scotch. Stephen -- You're one of my best Pip friends, and I know you don't think there's any "hooey" in what you say. I just disagree with your underlying premises so profoundly that it cracks me up. You also make a fabulous hot sauce, which, drop by precious drop, I've consumed. I hope you are right and I am wrong. I think I would rather go to whatever "heaven" might be than to, to my mind, a more predictable nothingness. I'm not too worried about going to Hell. That's even wackier than Heaven. To paraphrase an old Mel Brooks' joke: "If God is omniscent, how come He made the pits in the avocado so big?" Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Subjectivity = imaginative objectivity |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ess! Boy, would I ever buy that! There's a whole business about seeing through a veil, darkly. Let there be light, or at least a little less diffusion! Best, Jimbeaux  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The self-censoring moment, Jim, occurred between the moment of their birth and well past activating the shutter (consider the photos they took that no one ever got to see because the artist didn't like the result). I will, however, agree that self-censorship need not be a "considered" act. Indeed, the greater danger, both to artist and audience, is when the inherent subjectivity remains unconscious and unrecognized. quote: Okay, I'll do it for you. That guy ducking when he hears a gun shot? That's a learned response, and in most instances an incorrectly learned response. Most modern rounds travel faster than sound, so the poor guy is ducking what has already passed him by. Of course, he probably wouldn't duck at all if he didn't know what a gun was. At best, he might be startled by the loud noise, a reaction that apparently doesn't need to be learned. Humans don't seem to have a lot of those instinctual fears, though. quote: Really? For years now, I thought the lesson was that washing the dishes tonight, only to have them dirty again tomorrow night, was an unwarranted punishment from the Heavens. Seriously, Jim, in one way or another, we are ALL rolling our boulders up the hill every day. One man's routines will inevitably be another man's curse. And isn't that the very definition of subjective? quote: Jim, I'm not denying the existence of an objective reality. Only the possibility that we can ever perceive it objectively and, more specific to this thread, our ability to communicate that perception objectively. Your four examples, I think, offer a perfect example of what I'm trying to say. The wall is not made up of empty space (there is energy even in the absence of mass), the constraining speed of light is almost certainly determined as a result of our perceptions (tachyons may exist but will never be perceived), and single malt Scotch tastes like something someone already ingested once. I'll give you the periodic table of elements, though. Objective communication is an oxymoron. If you don't pick and choose what is said, nothing can be communicated. quote: Omniscience clearly doesn't preclude a delightful sense of humor. Anyone who has got what he prayed for already knows that. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: That's a "delightful" quote. I could wear that, lol! And I'm not one who has ever advertised anything on a T-shirt or a bumper sticker or even a coffee mug, but THAT statement really appeals to me and I hope you know I'm not making a joke out of it, Ron. It at least belongs in an inspirational calendar or something. It's witty, bold, amusing and profound. so I'm considering You one of the best sources of my inspirational reading this morning. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think Ron stole that one from "Chicken Soup for the E-Poet blogger's Soul". Though I wouldn't accuse him to his face of plagiarism. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I've always like the notion of the spontaneous moment, the spontaneous piece of art, the spontaneous painting, line drawing, photograph, throw, or strike. Zen mind, beginner's mind. This is the reason why one practices the same calligraphic stroke literally a million times — so that on the million and first time, it will be natural, spontaneous and unhindered. However, you may have noticed that the spontaneous art of a particular person bears an eerie resemblance to other spontaneous art by the same person. Nobody writes haiku quite like Basho, even though they are supposed to be spontaneous productions, though of course imitation is possible. Even in these spontaneous moments, an editorial process goes on about what is the center of the photo, what is the focus, when the photo is taken, when one is prepared for the photo, how one places one's self in situations in the world that reveal themselves as significant in a visual way and so on. These elements reveal a level of intentionality that is perhaps greater than Jim is initially willing to grant. What the chinese call Yi in the term [i]Hsing Yi Chuan[i], or mind/intention boxing, placing one's intention flexibly, effortlessly forward into the boxing: By extension, doing so into the world as well. Even the seemingly casual snapping of a photo is a highly individualized process. That's my thought at least. Comments? Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ron and Bob: Here's another way to think about it: The ability to percieve an objective reality is not innate, it involves a practice that overcomes an innate disability to percieve an objective reality. Most people seem to believe in "ghosts." "Ghosts" here is a metaphor for whatever nonsense we make up to deny or avoid the objective. It can be anything from thinking that water can be found with a witchy-stick to the nonsense of Prester John or Nostradamus, traditional Tibetan Buddism with it's "ghosts" as 'Ghosts," of the belief that whichever line you enter in a grocery store is going to be the longest, of the shortest. I'm agreeing with Ron that our minds fill our minds with a lot of irrelevant junk. Seems to be it's job. I'm agreeing with Bob in the sense that an act of spontaniety may well not take place until a millionth failed attempt. (The practice part.) We're getting closer, which may or may not be relevant or objective, but interesting because its a conversation, with no links! Still another way to look at it, the old nature or nurture stuff. There is a possibility that there is no dichotomy. In essence, I think Ron and Bob are saying is that we are what we WERE, and cannot escape/transcend/trnsform/ignore/move or whatever on from our past. We are zotzed from birth. I don't know that that's so. I think that sometimes we can get "out of our minds," not in a crazy sense, but just in the sense of being in the moment, not thinking about or judging the moment. Maybe riding a roller coaster is a simple example of this. When the bugger goes straight downhill, most people, experiencing this for the first time, scream in fear -- are in the moment. If a person does it a dozen timers, there is a learning experience in objective reality. The roller coaster isn't going to crash and kill one. (Except when it does, which is not germane). Bob: Re: "Even in these spontaneous moments, an editorial process goes on about what is the center of the photo, what is the focus, when the photo is taken, when one is prepared for the photo, how one places one's self in situations in the world that reveal themselves as significant in a visual way and so on." This doesn't seem to hold up. If a "spontaneous" situation turns up, it can't, by definition, or at least my definition, involve an editorial process. There you are, there it is, click! It doesn't matter how you got to where you are. There you are. Click. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim, With all affection reciprocated ... What's so wacky about Heaven or Hell? The atrocities we've seen just in the last century speak of the plausibility of hell. And the laughter of a 3 year old, the plausibility of Heaven. At least I can be glad that you hope I'm right. For it makes me think that though he hasn't gotten all your head just yet, there's a part of your heart. Nice to talk to you again Jim, it's been a bit. Stephen |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Stephen RE: "What's so wacky about Heaven or Hell?" Ok, maybe the're not wacky, or at least not wackier than, say, reincarnation or the fountain of youth. They may have an appealing internal logic, but they are figments of the imagination. Hell, or the way many Christians might think of it at the moment, was specifically a figment of Dante's imagination. It doesn't fit with a Biblical definition or hell, because, as far as I know, there isn't such a definition in the Bible. Sartre's cynical definition: "Hell is other people," is an aphorism, not a trueism. Etc. RE: "The atrocities we've seen just in the last century speak of the plausibility of hell." Nah. The atrocities we've seen in the last centrury only speak to the fact that we haven't learned much about the consequences of committing atrocities, just gotten more efficient at it. Most of human history, at least the parts that get recorded, involve one atrocity or another. RE: "And the laughter of a 3 year old, the plausibility of Heaven?" Sure, or at least the plausibility of worldless-ness, which may indeed be a Heaven like state. Nirvana, in a Buddhist, not Hindu state, is another example of this. Re: "At least I can be glad that you hope I'm right. For it makes me think that though he hasn't gotten all your head just yet, there's a part of your heart." Well, yeah. I don't think I've ever denied my church schooled roots, and I've never gotten entirely away from them (Which may be a nod to the notion that no matter who we is, we are also who we was.) I can quote Johnathan Edwards (or at least this line," from Presbyterian memory: "Thus all you that never passed under a great change of heart, by the mighty power of the Spirit of God upon your souls; all you that were never born again, and made new creatures, and raised from being dead in sin, to a state of new, and before altogether unexperienced light and life, are in the hands of an angry God." There's not much difference between the "experience" Edwards is describing and the experience of "satori," except that in once case God has something to do with and in the other case God doesn't. Neither belief nor disbelief have anything to do with experiencing the experience. I once found a hummingbird nest, about the size of thimble, with two humming birds in it, about the size of M&M's. Whether the eggs were the product of God's incredible imagination, of two hummingbirds having had sexual relations, it was still pretty nifty. Best, Jimmy |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ron: Re: "Objective communication is an oxymoron. If you don't pick and choose what is said, nothing can be communicated." Well no and yeah. The two statements seem to contradict themselves. Objective communication may very well exist in the language of mathematics, in which the numbers do not care about who spouts them or what someone non-objectively thinks about them. Thermodynamics isn't dependent on subjectivity, though an irrelevant discussion about what one thinks of thermodynamics might. There is probably a difference between gibberish, the ravings of a disfunctional madman, and communicative speech, which doesn't mean that all communication is subjective or open to interpretation. When a Drill Sergeant says, for example, "Drop and give me twenty," there is a kind of immediacy and clarity there. I admit that I get confused about this, though. Most of the time, I don't know why the hell I say what I say. I have no idea about what is going to come up until it comes up. It's subjective communication in the sense that somebody else might very well have something else come up. It's also objective in the sense that if I didn't say it, or somebody else didn't say whatever they said, it wouldn't be there at all. In the simplest of communication paradigms, somebody says something, and somebody hears it. Within this paradigm, however, there is the stinker of interference, the subjectivity not of the speaker, but of the hearer. There is the possibility of objective communication if the listener is willing to listen, and it goes back a forth. Unfortunately, most listeners are too busy making up responses to what is being said before the speaker is finishing whatever her or she is saying. It's not easy stuff. You almost have to whack somebody on the back to get them to shut up and listen. I suspect you may have encountered that. Which still doesn't mean it can't happen. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim: quote: As a religious dogma, I don't think re-incarnation is wacky at all, though I would say it is mistaken. Probably what I would ask you to consider, is the question of why people of most cultures have tended to believe in some kind of reward/punishment paradigm? It seems to be a bent of our race to think there is more to life than just the here and now, and that what is done in the now matters beyond the moment. To a Christian, this is existential evidence that God has given a general awareness of something more perfectly revealed in the Bible. Probably the only fatal flaw (no pun intended) with reincarnation is its incongruency with the Hindu-Buddhist world-view in which it sits. An ultimate reality which ultimately says that good and evil are illusions, can hardly support the kind of standard that Karma presupposes. And likewise, my response to atheism would be to ask whether or not all human value becomes prone to the charge of being only "internal logic"? In the face of absolute death, everything is relative transient and absurd. And an atheist only overcomes this awareness by imposing arbitrary values. It is interesting that these values invariably concord with those proposed by the Judeo-Christian view ... love, benevolence, giving, goodwill, etc. In one world-view these are by design, and our adherence to them are therefore fitting and understandable (though not without mystery). In the alternative view, they are only contrived attempts to make meaning. I still think Nietzsche, for this reason, was the most unflinchingly honest atheist, who realized (for good or ill) that heart-values in an atheist universe is just an intramural subterfuge. So, if you're going to have faith in that much (else embrace the nihilism of Nietzsche), God is no unthinkable leap. Some may end up thinking that our humanity itself is doubtful. But Christians believe that this general tendency to "faith" is a signpost to something much greater. quote: The popular imagination about hell, in art or otherwise, is symbolic. But the reality is more terrible than the symbol. And the difficulties inherent in a simplified symbol shouldn't make anyone skeptical of the reality, unless they insist on the strictest kind of literalism they often reject in some fundamentalist circles. The common understanding of the atom as taught in beginning science class, for example, is fraught with error, and entirely symbolic too. I don't think a case against atoms can be made from pointing out the frailty of analogy. As far as the question whether there is a fairly unambiguous "doctrine of hell" inherent in the Bible, I believe I could show you there is. What about where Jesus spoke of "gehenna" as the fire that is never quenched, and the worm that does not die ... and about it being preferable to enter heaven maimed than to enter hell with all of one's faculties? Not to mention the many scriptures of the apostle Paul on the subject, and the description of the lake of fire in the book of Revelation? I would say to you that a plain reading of scripture would reveal a provocative portrait of a fiery hell, and that predating Dante quite a bit. The Bible also doesn't limit the conception of hell to externally imposed punishment, but also as a state of being. This is the most unsettling aspect of "hell" to me ... though for others perhaps literal flames do the trick. If anything gets someone to do an about face, then I can't criticize the means to that end. One can at least think of more subtle descriptions of hell than a medieval furnace. Consider Dostoevsky's words from "The Brothers Karamazov": "(From Talks and Homilies of the Elder Zosima) "Fathers and teachers, I ask myself: 'What is hell?' And I answer thus: 'The suffering of being no longer able to love' ... People speak of the material flames of hell. I do not explore this mystery, and I fear it, but I think if there were material flames, truly people would be glad to have them, for, as I fancy, in material torment they might forget, at least for a moment, their far more terrible spiritual torment. And yet it is impossible to take this spiritual torment from them, for this torment is not external but is within them ..." And here is an article entitled 'Seeing Hell through the Reason and Imagination of C.S. Lewis' that might interest you, if you're willing to explore an orthodox view about hell that is different, but not necessarily contradictory to more material descriptions. I guess I would conclude by saying that all of such views (whether of St. John, Dante, Dostoevsky, or Lewis) are incomplete at best. quote: I agree. I wasn't saying that the last century has the market cornered on atrocities. I was rather making an a minore ad maius argument, that if such horrors have been caused by people in just one century (which might at least make the notion of Hell plausible), then how much more if one considers all of history? quote: I honestly can't see how the laughter of a child would remind one of a worldless state. To me, it is makes me think of a heavenly joy with its feet on the earth ... making most connection with the Christian doctrine of a good creation (in spite of the fall), and the hope of resurrection, not eternal disembodiment. quote: I would say "experience" divorced from a coherent context makes the distinction. What is the metaphysical ground for joy or bliss in a monistic system, if all such distinctions (and even individuality itself) are meaningless? And I would simply disagree with your statement that faith/belief is not connected to Christian spiritual experience. Scripturally we are told explicitly that it is, even if we cannot unravel the mysterious interplay of human will, belief, and God. And even if you wanted to defend the strict causal Calvinism of Edwards (which has its short-comings), I'll bet he didn't say that the New-Birth was divorced from human will and belief ... even if that will and belief owes completely to the divine will. quote: I'll bet that was quite a sight! I would say that secondary causes (Mr. and Mrs. Hummer) would not rule out a primary cause and significance, such as the creative brilliance of God. Jim, it's always a pleasure for me to chat (if you can call it that), with such a nice guy. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'll be back to consider the philosophical arguments later. I was wondering though, is there anything wrong with this one? www.factcheck.org |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I have had a piece of the reincarnation experience in miniature, in this life. Actually, I have it from time to time. Whether it translates to multiple lives or not, I don't know, but I think it goes something like this: I am in the middle of a discussion with somebody, oftentimes a heated discussion, and both of us are getting more and more stuck in the positions we have staked out; more stubborn and more convinced of our rightness. If only that other dolt would understand the way things actually are, then we could get on with life, with things and complete the plans that I've had so rudely interrupted! All of a sudden, I take a deep breath, and I find myself able to say, "I'm sorry, I lost track of you there." I really have to be able to mean this. The truth of everything they have been saying suddenly becomes clear to me. It's as though I am able, for a moment to switch positions in the discussion and see with absolute clarity the truth of everything the other person's been saying, and it's as though an enormous weight has come off my back. I'm not necessarily suddenly a believer in everything that they've been saying, but suddenly a large piece of the self protective illusion I've been using to keep myself distanced from this other person lifts, and I can see myself and sometimes the other person with gratitude, affection and even joy. Often the feeling will stay with me for a day or two, as an understanding of the way things can be if I'm able to step outside my habitual ways of dealing with the world. What the Hindus call, I believe, Maya — illusion. The notion of reincarnation has to do with coming back and coming back to the same task, throwing off the bonds of illusion gradually, over millenia, and becoming free, able to step away from the bonds of illusion. Some folks think that this is actually a metaphor for each person's task is for a single life and that all you get is that single shot at it. In either case, the task is a worthy one, and one can attempt it with or without a Deity. Illusion is something we seem to produce for ourselves automatically in the process of living. To quote John Clare, "I am the self-consumer of my woe." That's truth for most of us, I think. Learning how to stop and then not inflict it on others, and then how to help others in ways that help them and yourself as well isn't a bad target. Best to you, Stephanos. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Marc-Andre Senior Member
since 2008-12-07
Posts 501 |
Actually, if I found a news source that is entirely objective, I probably wouldn't read it...I like to read a paper that is honest about its view though. My favourite one is The Economist: in-depth reporting, global, and they're not even trying to hide their bias. My mother advised me long ago to read from at least three different points of view (e.g. right wing, left wing, religious, secular etc.) for news and history. I think it does make a lot of sense. Mark |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear M-A, I agree with you about the bias in the economist; it's clearly right wing. I also think that their facts are pretty solid. I steer clear of their editorial comments, for the most part, and use them for their research, which is good, and I have used them more than once in these pages when talking with folks with a bias for the right because this is a source they are sometimes willing to believe. I find The Christian Science Monitor is also excellent with their facts; though I don't always agree with their editorial bias, their facts are always very high quality. Thank you for sharing your interest in good and reliable source material here. In the discussions you'll notice frequent references toward "media bias," so having stable. reliable sources becomes very important to furthering the discussion. Just recently, Balladeer used "The Atlantic" as a source. "The Atlantic" has in recent times gotten a bit of a reputation for heading toward the Right among a lot of us Left wing folk, but it is still a terrific magazine, and I thing a trustworthy one. You might have a look at some of the articles there and make your own estimation. I tend to trust them. Nice to meet you. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I agree with Mark. The notion that we shouldn't have "bias" to begin with I think is rather faulty. It is like saying humans shouldn't have thoughts or imagination. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Why mind bias, so long as the bias is clearly stated? In the case of The Economist, it is clear and the facts are first rate. I don't mind the right wing bias at all because the facts are good, and I can get additional good facts other places to put together something that resembles a decent picture of reality. My concern is for sources that actively distort facts. That bothers me. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Bob, I'm aware that this brings us back around to the usual wrestling point where we tend to meet ... But the problem I have with the Hindu use of "Illusion" in order to escape all duality and embrace Pantheism, is that duality is inherent in the word itself, and in the world. When rebuked by a friendly adversary, for insisting on an either/or paradigm rather than a both/and paradigm by a friendly adversary, Ravi Zacharias could only reply with the question, "So you're saying I must either accept a both/and paradigm or I'm wrong?". His antagonist could only smile and say "The either/or does seem to emerge doesn't it?". Plato did not invent duality ... but it emerges from reality itself. Illusion presupposes the non-illusory, or real. The Hindus are honorable in trying to uncrux the cross ... but they only do so by offering non-entity in return. I guess our bit of common ground (and it is important) may be this: I agree that all people, and even all religions have valuable insight hidden therein. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I suspect that duality is as much a habit of discourse as anything. It may be about the number of hands we have. But there are other ways of breaking up reality. There is Unity, as in there being only One God. There is of course duality — the coin has two sides, doesn't it? Trinity harks back to three-in-one, yes, the threefold nature of God? Jung reminds us that this threefold nature will often exclude the Feminine, and that therefore many cultures regard the quatrinity as the number of wholeness. It is through the exclusion of that fourth element that Jung believes we bring the demonized feminine element into the world through our attempts to supress it as the Magna Mater. The Marian element has often found its way back into the Church by way of the pressure exerted by the exclusion of the Feminine. So to, in distorted form, have mythic elements like The Tooth Mother and Kali the Destroyer. You can go right up the number chain talking about the significance of numerical elements in addition to duality that have a great deal of significance. Maimonides frequently organized his writings after the Muslim traditions, using other sorts of groupings than the either or groupings of two we have become fond of. 13 was a biggy for him. 10 was a great number for commandments. Because it is simpler to think in terms of Good/Evil, we are easily distracted into ignoring the possibility there may be other than a continuum of points along a line, simply because the trap of the prestructured thinking pattern lies there in front of us. "The five colors blind the eye," says the Tao te Ching. "Maya" is a useful concept. Illusion. You tie it up with pantheism as though it has to be there, when it not. It has more to do with understanding those times when you are caught up in things that are generated by your own thinking process, and not necessarily by things that have substance and are real. In T'ai Ch'i boxing, one of the principles is to start after the person with whom you are boxing, and to arrive at the place you are going first. This sounds impossible, and it certainly is for me, but I have sparred with people for whom it is not. They certainly know where I'm going, can start after me when I start and get where I'm going first because they don't have to filter their need to move through all sorts of contradictory nerve impulses, urges to start and stop, moments of indecision that even the quickest of us have to deal with. They simply read my motion and they're right there, in front of me. They have a clear understanding of what's real and not real, right down to the motor level. A lot of Taoist meditation does the same sort of thing to one's mind as well, it takes the clouds of dust out of one's thoughts, and allows a person to have a clearer view of the world. Polytheism has nothing to do with it. I think if you're Christian, it would give you better insight into the workings of the Holy spirit in the world. If you were Jewish, you might have a better view of God's hand. The meditation is more about making the world clear and keeping it that way. Hopefully, you get beyond the structuring that dualism provides, or at least you learn to use it as only an occasional tool to use picked up very carefully because of the marks it leaves on the work you're doing at the time. Any thoughts? I'm trying to respond here your last post in a reasonably thoughtful fashion. And I'm trying to offer a different look at some of the oriental religions than you've been voicing. Think of it as something to place beside what you've been saying for very critical consideration, not a replacement; I'm not offering it in that spirit. All my best. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, I will thoughtfully consider all that you say. Though, I don't think the concept of "illusion" is absent either from Judeo-Christian thought, or Western thought in general. And for that reason I don't see what "Maya" adds other than the Pantheistic element. I am aware that dualism can distract one from missing and savoring subtleties of thought. My goal is to find the middle path of wisdom where Heaven and Hell are not married, and yet there are more swatches than just black and white. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, In western thought, I believe that "illusion" is more often used in terms of error or sin or delusion, some sort of mistake about what is the spiritual correct course. In eastern religions, illusion is possibly more fundamental than that, dealing as it does with one's basic perception of reality. Polytheism or pantheism is really extraneous to illusion. One may be trapped in illusion about polytheism or pantheism as easily as one may be trapped in illusion about anything else. One may be trapped in illusion about love or hate or almost anything that clouds the mind or that gets you stuck in any single place in your mind, unable to move about freely. The Jesuits have a series of exercises that are, I believe, helpful in this matter, in gaining clarity, so I don't believe the matter is purely east versus west. As I believe I said, I have an appreciation for the taoist exercises in this matter, though, simply because it doesn't insist on any theological answer. In my own experiments with the taoist meditation practices, I believe I've had a few brushes with the divine, or with something very much like that, but I'd rather not try to nail an experience like those experiences down. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, Though the idea of "hamartia" as pertains to morality, is present in Western thought, it also includes mistakes and/or ignorance. This is true of any worldview that acknowledges the existence of an objective reality. I do think that reality itself (which would allow for the concept of both amoral illusion and moral failure) is most tenuous within Monistic belief systems (since illusion and reality, good and evil are all included in the "one" with nothing to arbitrate or make a meaningful distinction). But I think you're correct in saying that the expression and importance of minimizing illusion is not East versus West. And there's nothing wrong with appreciating any particular tradition that addresses the issue. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Perhaps you should dilate upon your understanding of "Hamartia." My understanding was that it was the tragic flaw within the hero that brought about his downfall, and that it came from Aristotle and his poetics. I have also used in in psychotherapy, when working with Transactional Analysis. Claude Steiner has made use of it in his Script Work, and you can generally find it in people if you look at the nature of the sort of things that get them into trouble, over an over again. In the original concept, "Hamartia" is specific only to the hero, and only to tragedy. The notion of an hamartic event in a comedy or in a satyr play would be an extra encumbrance, would slow down the action, and would not fit because one cannot truthfully say the characters are heroic. The characters cannot be said to have a single flaw in an otherwise noble character that brings about their downfall. When you say "mistakes or ignorance," being contained in the thought of the Hamartic flaw, I'm not sure I agree with you. It sounds as though the play you have in mind as an illustration here is Oedipus Rex. Here it looks as though your assumption is that Oedipus's flaw is ignorance or error; when, from at least a clinical perspective, his flaw is passivity in the face of the feminine. He's a stranger in town, and the queen takes a fancy to him. Doesn't he think there's something a little off about that? She's old enough to be . . . what? . . . that's right, his mother. And this isn't New York with plastic surgeons and a new age mentality of What's wrong with older Women and Younger Men. This is ancient Greece, when that sort of age difference was huge, and this sort of power difference was even more enormous. Oedipus is utterly naive about this sort of stuff. It's just good luck. And that is his fatal flaw, his unquestioning passivity to it all, and his dumb acceptance. It being ancient Greece, of course, it is also his fate, which is a different thing. This he cannot escape. Aristotle, Freud, Hamartic flaw, this is one way to organize your life. The Buddhist way is probably simpler. Life is suffering. Suffering comes from loss. Loss comes from attachments. Unhook yourself from your attachments. Learn and practice compassion. Exactly where that last one fits in, I don't know. Compassion doesn't mean saccharine. The sword is one of the Buddhist ways. It cuts through illusion of all sorts. It cuts too sharply for me, for example. Compassion, however, seems to work well as a way or sorting things out, and following the notion of compassion as it reveals itself to you over years of meditation on illusion and on compassion and the like. Error also helps to sort things out as well, especially when we can pay attention to the errors we make. We learn from each other. You teach me those things I'm able to learn from you, and the reverse as well, I suppose. We are here to help each other and much of the time we do. This is hopefully the way we burn through our illusions. I see it as a fairly active process. I like Teilhard de Chardin and his notion of the omega point. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, when I spoke of "harmartia" I was including its further development in Christian thought, as "sin". My observation, however, is much less specific than either the Biblical use of the word, or its use in Greek Tragedy. Western Civilization has placed moral failure, and ignorance in a related category, in relation to something that can loosely be called "reality". My issue with Buddhism is less the sword of this world, than with the idea that distinctions and individuality are finally illusory. And tackling illusion requires distinction. I appreciate your interesting references. For now I still can't see that, pragmatically speaking, either Western or Eastern thought has any more or less of this idea, which to me is universally intractable. Still, whatever is helpful, let us use. As a side note, what do you think about the Buddhist idea that "Life is suffering"? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Life presents us with one loss after another. I agree with the notion that Life is Suffering. I suspect the notion is pretty much universal, or religion wouldn't be of much interest to as many people as it is. The differences I think have to do with the solution. The problem for many good religious folk is Why is there suffering? In the more Deistic folk, you might fancy the question up and say, Why does God allow suffering? But I think the two questions are really one, and the simplest version is probably the most useful way to put it. It covers all bases philosophically. The Problem of Suffering. For Good Atheistic Folk, the problem remains as well. So yeah, I believe in that first supposition. I also believe that the rest of the four noble truths are true as well, and that it's a workable path of liberation. I suspect that you wouldn't have asked without a reason. What's up, Doc? Your friend, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, to say Life is "-----", defines the whole. Yes, life contains suffering. Or suffering is a part of the drama of life. Yet I've never met anyone who truly feels that that is all. And when they say so they belie their true feelings by protest. Somehow I think if we were fish, we wouldn't know we were wet, if that makes any sense. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, You asked me what I thought; I told you what I thought. You didn't ask if I thought that every moment was suffering. My thought about that is that there are moments of great joy and pleasure in life, as well as other feelings. The Buddhists will tell you this is true as well. They (and I) will also say that those moments of joy make the suffering in those moments of loss more difficult to bear, because you understand the depth of the loss is all that much greater. My sense is that most religions share this basic point of view, including Christianity. The differences come in how they suggest a person deal with suffering. The differences range widely. Where did you get the notion that the Buddhists don't or can't make distinctions? Or the Taoists for that matter? Puh-leeze! Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (02-08-2009 12:09 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
No, I asked (in not so many words) whether suffering is the ruling principle of life according to the Buddhist. Even the joy you've tipped the hat to in your reply, gets trumped, in that it invariably exacerbates suffering. While the Christian view acknowledges the profundity of suffering, it doesn't seem to be the reigning principle. The Cross gives way to Resurrection. This is simply a difference I see, between these two systems of thought. One seems, in spite of bright spots, essentially pessimistic. The other, in spite of drearest valleys, essentially optimistic. "Life is suffering", sounds like an equation, no matter what accidental cheer the left side of the equation happens to hold. And Bob, I never said Buddhists can't or don't make distinctions in the now. I said that the very world of individuality and distinction is illusory according to their ultimate view of reality. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Ego, yes, that's illusion in Buddhist terms. Distinctions, no, though I would have to wonder which distinctions, really, wouldn't you? Some would probably be spurious, some not. quote: I think we may be talking past each other here. The cross and redemption through Christ's suffering is a solution, as I understand it, to the suffering of the world and of humankind in the state of original sin within the world, isn't that right? This is the state of the world within the frame work of at least much of Christian theology. The solution that Christianity offers — the relief from the suffering of the fallen state, as it were — is salvation and grace through the intervention of a personal savior in the form of Jesus Christ. If I have the details wrong, please forgive me here; I'm not trying to dispute the theology. The muslims believe in bodily resurrection and the Jews have at times believed in it as well, though I think the belief is probably not a large part of modern Judaism. It certainly was in the tenth and twelfth centuries C.E. The point is that there is essential agreement about the place of suffering in the world between the Buddhists and the Christians, at least to my mind, about this thing. Where there is disagreement is about the solution. In the various Christianities, the notion has generally been that the acceptance of Jesus as one's personal savior and a sincere attempt to bring one's life into line with that commitment is the solution to the suffering in this world "in the sure and certain hope", etc. While there has been original sin, a belief in The Christ may save one from the fires of hell, whether experienced in this world or the next; or, as may be most likely, both — at least within that framework. The Buddhists accept this suffering as the condition of life, and attempt a different solution. I believe it inferior in no way to the Christian solution. Both Christianity and Buddhism are pessimistic about the native state of humankind. The Christians say it is original sin; and any attempt to suggest that original sin is essentially optimistic would run against a considerable amount of Christian theology. The Buddhists say that Life is Suffering. You may see these as vastly different statements; I see them as identical. Both points of view offer solutions, good solutions though not identical. The Christian solution is more dependent on faith. The Buddhist solution depends on actual practice to produce personal change; to some extent it can be measured scientifically in the physiology of long term Buddhist meditators. The readings are distinct from long term yogic meditators, by the way, but are still measurable. This doesn't mean better, but it does mean something is happening that fits the description of what the Buddhists say is supposed to happen. I know long term believing Christians who seem to have gone through similar transformations, by the way, though I wouldn't know how to measure them. I would suspect that you know them too. I would suggest that you may be hasty in suggesting pessimistic and optimistic designations to the suppositions of the two world outlooks. If religion in general didn't solve some sort of problem for people in general, I would assert that it would not have so many staunch adherents willing to fight over fine points either to prove themselves right or to prove somebody else wrong. Or both. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: You may think I'm quibbling, but the doctrine of original sin, is also held alongside the doctrine of a good Creation, and humans being made in the image of God. As bad as "the fall" is, the overarching principle is still God's will in creation. Even redemption is referred to in the New Testament as a "New Creation". Christianity says "Life is fallen, but life is good". But when one says "life is suffering", where is the modifier? I have had a hard time seeing nonentity, dissolution of all desire, or the ultimate elimination of self holding the same admittance of optimism. Of course, I am not denying similarities between these respective views either. quote: I deny the means of showing personal change is any different between the two. Personal change is always just as intangible (in a strict scientific sense) and tangible (in a practically observable sense). When someone turns from a selfish life to God, there is not instantaneous perfection, but there is a notable difference. But again, I get the feeling that the "physiological" change you are talking about would be worlds apart from what a Christian would describe as 'regeneration' or a 'new birth'. quote: You should only imagine that I mean that Buddhism can never help anyone, if I believe it is altogether wrong. But I don't. Pessimism itself is not completely wrong either... in fact its altogether right as far as it goes. I just listened to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of The Moon" the other day. And I know why it struck a chord with so many people. So honest. So beautifully melancholy (if that may be said). But the ending spoken phrase "There's no dark side of the moon really ... as a matter of fact its all dark", is no satisfying answer. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (02-09-2009 10:33 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Thanks for the very interesting post above. I find it thoughtful and heartfelt, as I do so many of your postings. I think though that you persist in seeing Buddhism as a pessimistic approach to life, and I'd suggest to you that this is not so. Buddhism is about liberation from pain and suffering and about a pragmatic way of achieving this liberation. Acknowledgement of the pain of life is one of the things that motivate people to want their lives to change. I have known very few happy people who want things to be different for themselves. The need to change comes from confrontation with some of these primal feelings of unhappiness. If Buddhism is about any single thing, it's probably about joyfulness, and being able to choose it on pretty much a moment to moment basis. As the zen monk said to the hot dog vender — "I'll take One with Everything." Should you wish to find out a little about the nuts and bolts of the matter, I'd suggest the Library and a book called The Miracle of Mindfulness, very short, by a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, who was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize in 1967 by Martin Luther King. Right Mindfulness is one of the pillars of the eightfold path, but like all the pillars should not be the exclusive property of Buddhists. The book will, I think, be useful in your practice as a Christian, though the basics are at least 2500 years old. Anyway, if you have the energy and time, have a look; I understand that this is unlikely, though, since you are a working dad. You may find the process actually gives you more time in the long run; and better time, at that. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
