Thats very goofy. I like where he punches the guy out.
News: 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765 10946 17711 28657, motherfuckers.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Netaungrot on August 18, 2008, 11:03:17 PMQuote from: Kai on August 18, 2008, 08:04:25 PMQuote from: Netaungrot on August 18, 2008, 07:43:40 PMQuote from: Kai on August 18, 2008, 07:37:03 PMQuote from: Netaungrot on August 18, 2008, 05:58:20 PMQuote from: Hoopla on August 18, 2008, 05:07:14 PM
I think Kai was referring to how Buddhism was set up, not what its become now.
I think Kai is fully capable of speaking for himself.
How do you think Buddhism was set up?
Did you not note where I said Classical Buddhism? I meant the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama taken in their original contexts, not the esoterica of modern followings, not the reincarnation of Lamas or tantra or even Zen Koans.
Someone smart points to the moon and people look at his finger, and then their own fingers, and then they start killing or discriminating against anyone whos fingers look different. Its the general progression of any philosophical path in history.
Links, pls.
Because all I see in buddhism is a bunch of people claiming their sect is the true contextualization of Gotama's teachings.
What makes your claim more valid?
Thats the rub isn't it? I can't really back it up. In fact, it would have been smart of me to never have replied in this thread. However, I also have no plans to go out and start a monestary set up under the true realizations in the original context as I have been personally inspired to see it. Yes, there are filters to the information I can obtain about Gautama's teachings. The Pali cannon, what is considered the oldest lineage of the Dhamma, was remember verbally for centuries before it was written down. By that point, only one monk remembered the whole of the teachings, and he was very arrogant about it. You might say that this is not a good source for a philosophical path, but its the closest thing we have to the original. And even then, you have to study carefully, in context, because who knows who changed what to suit their wants at some time in the past. It it seems off, it might be. Thats why Gautama said you have to test his teachings, find them to be true from experience or discard them. That /really/ doesn't sound like something someone trying to start a religion to get followers would say, "question your faith, and if it seems wrong, don't follow it".
But I guess it must seem impossible to a misanthrope such as your self that someone would ever genuinely want to help people relieve their suffering, find a way to do it, and then share it with people without selfishly expecting a return in goods, services, or simply control/power, right?
I genuinely want to help people, actually, but this doesn't mean what I do will be beneficial. Even Scientologists truly believe they are helping people.
I just don't subscribe to the belief that Gotama's way is the only way to relieve suffering, or the best way for most people. There's certainly something to it, but things such as vegetarianism, devaluing ego, and this fixation on maintaining a neutral affect just don't sit well with me to put it lightly.
I've tested various techniques and philosophies of buddhism and kept what resonates. The rest seems dogmatic, based on tradition and asks for too much faith in a fallible and dead primate. Sure, Gotama was clever and said to test his teachings and reject what doesn't line up with your experience, but that gets such little emphasis and development that it's not considered a core buddhist idea as far as I know.
Thanks for taking the time to share this, though. I'll look into the Pali canon. Are there any authors, historians or scholars that you recommend?
Quote from: Cain on August 18, 2008, 08:09:01 PM
Kai, while I can appreciate why this may be a sensitive topic for you, I do think reacting about an Austin Powers reference (especially one where, if you have seen the film, it turns out he is WRONG) is not necessary when it is nothing more than a lighthearted pop culture nod.
We don't exactly tiptoe around other subjects, unless a person is being purposively denigrating and bigoted, and I see no evidence of that here. I may be wrong, perhaps you can point to something otherwise, but as far as I can see, Vene's only crime is that of carefree thread naming.
Quote from: Netaungrot on August 18, 2008, 07:43:40 PMQuote from: Kai on August 18, 2008, 07:37:03 PMQuote from: Netaungrot on August 18, 2008, 05:58:20 PMQuote from: Hoopla on August 18, 2008, 05:07:14 PM
I think Kai was referring to how Buddhism was set up, not what its become now.
I think Kai is fully capable of speaking for himself.
How do you think Buddhism was set up?
Did you not note where I said Classical Buddhism? I meant the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama taken in their original contexts, not the esoterica of modern followings, not the reincarnation of Lamas or tantra or even Zen Koans.
Someone smart points to the moon and people look at his finger, and then their own fingers, and then they start killing or discriminating against anyone whos fingers look different. Its the general progression of any philosophical path in history.
Links, pls.
Because all I see in buddhism is a bunch of people claiming their sect is the true contextualization of Gotama's teachings.
What makes your claim more valid?
Quote from: Netaungrot on August 18, 2008, 05:58:20 PMQuote from: Hoopla on August 18, 2008, 05:07:14 PM
I think Kai was referring to how Buddhism was set up, not what its become now.
I think Kai is fully capable of speaking for himself.
How do you think Buddhism was set up?
Quote from: Reverend Uncle BadTouch on August 14, 2008, 08:01:04 PM
Buddhism is essentially an atheistic religion; at least it's one where believing in gods is not a part of the mainstream belief.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 17, 2008, 10:42:13 PM
he's like a human Cthulhu.
even if you're his right hand man, it just means that he'll eat you last.
Quote from: Regret on August 14, 2008, 11:40:14 PMQuote from: Kai on August 14, 2008, 10:55:49 PM
Holy shit, YES, we have a live one here and they can take my snark!
Okay, to your first point, yes, they are different. Why? Because in sexual selection (a subset of natural selection), mate selection is not random. Natural Selection is not a random process. Genetic Drift, however, IS a random process. The greatest controversy in evolutionary biology is which of those two are more important? Most biologists agree that both natural selection and genetic drift occur in some amount, but very few agree as to what proportion each occur. Are there situations where one is irrelevant?
Natural selection, at least when we speak of it including sexual selection, does not deal with probabilities, as I said. Darwins thesis was that individuals with favorable traits are more likely to reproduce because they are A. more fit with the environment (environmental selection) and b. more attractive to a mate (sexual selection), and that these traits are passed on to the offspring and become a larger precentage of the population. This is counting, however, only for traits that are visible and would be considered detrimental or favorable. The other traits, hidden or neutral, will change according to probability. This change is called genetic drift. Like I said above, biologists argue alot about which one is more important in evolutionary change.
Now, compairing that to chemicals is like compairing apples and oranges. The biological process is a combination of random and deterministic elements with billions of variables. The chemical process is relatively simple. You can't compare the two because they are completly dissimilar. The reduction in allele frequency (I'm guessing you are reffering to peppered moth populations) occured because of a thousand different variables coming together at once, habitat selection for the moth, prey selection and availability for the birds, climate and human population effects. Its such a mixture of complex random and deterministic events that comparing it to chemical processes is oversimplfying to the point where it bears no resemblance to the truth. Its too unpredictable.
When you talk about probability of continued existance, I believe you are talking about variables, whereas with evolutionary biology you are talking about alleles within a genepool. Mixed metaphors, different processes, too many variables.
Also, unnatural selection is a bad misspelling, a satyrical meme, and has nothing to do with the scientific theory of natural selection.
random? do you think that molecular stability is random? which is easier to degrade starch or ethanol and why? these processes are not even nearly random, it strongly depends on their surroundings just as mate selection. it depends partly on properties of the molecule itself (for example the strength and number of its covalent bonds) and partly on properties of its surroundings/environment (the presence of enzymes, temperature, pH)
Is 'more likely' not equal to increased probability?
as to chemical processes being dissimilar, this is of course true but if you think of the effects of the environment on the subject(organism or otherwise) as a black box then the output of said black box is the probability of continued existence(regardless of the processes inside the black box or what it is acting on). Now when i talk about continued existence i do not mean physical existence but the continued existence of this particular bit of information wether this information is encoded in DNA or in the presence of the actual subject does not matter. it does not matter if your genes survive to 2050 inside your body or inside the bodies of your onyl surviving offspring, as long as they can still interact with the other genes in the genepool.
Don't forget that selection takes places at the genetic level and that genes are molecules.
PS i'm really enjoying this
PPS i'm not attacking the theory of natural selection, i just do not understand why it is stil called natural selection when natural implies that it is not influenced by human industry while the theory has the same predicting power when the selection is not natural.
hmmm just had a thought: maybe 'natural' was simply used to set it apart from supernatural i.e. divine, or just used as we use the world 'real' in this day and age.
PPPS my reasoning skills are deteriorating under the influence of beer and exhaustion so i am going to sleep, goodnight Kai.
Quote from: Vene on August 15, 2008, 01:33:24 AM
Kai, I knew there was a reason I liked you.
Quote from: Nasturtiums on August 14, 2008, 10:15:40 PM
Is better?