A Skillful Morality

Hi Sombra I like your position here and I think that it has some merit, however, I did not create the me that is me. It began with my need for air, food and water. Quite difficult to ignore those selfish requirements. Every time I satisfy those needs I am reinforcing the concept of the 'me'. I appreciate that we can reduce our desires but I don't see how we can eliminate them. The 'me' is necessary in order for there to be a will to survive.The benefits of this state of mind are also evident. That is that the 'me' can also lead to great happiness and achievement. It is the competition between individuals for scarce resources that has led directly to the robustness of all those creatures that have managed to survive. You can't have competition without a sense of 'me'. This does not negate cooperation but cooperation is also driven by a sense of personal benefit.So our relentless curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge and wealth have brought mankind to our current state. Sure there is lots of suffering but there are also hospitals and libraries and air conditioning. All of these achievements were driven by of our sense of me.I can attest to the fact that reducing your desires is an effective way to increase your happiness but there is a limit to how far you can reduce them.Edit; In other words it is sort of the way of things and you can not have a sense of happiness if you do not also have a sense of suffering.Edited by Prototypical, : No reason given.

This also has a lot in common with things like math as well. You could likely make the same claim to me if you were trying to explain some element of quantum mechanics.I may be off the mark but I think Leonard Cohen said something like what Sombra is saying when he said,'You are locked into your suffering and your pleasures are the seal.'

All of the suffering takes place in the mind. What is the essential difference between hitting my thumb with a hammer and weeping for the loss of a loved one? I don't understand what it means to say that I have a body because of my actions. Why do you separate the two? Without the body there is no stimuli. There is no useful distinction, in this context, between my ear and the auditory processing center in my brain.

No I mean in the mind which I would not distinguish from the brain in this context. It is the mind that perceives the suffering. The suffering occurs there, in that place or in that machine. The pain only exists because the mind is aware of it. The pain is a tool or mechanism that the mind uses to protect itself. Suffering is the mind's response to stimuli that it has evolved to avoid. Without the mind there is no pain. Dreams are like echoes and without the original input from the body there would be no echo.As far as I know, the brain can only receive information from the senses. As we grow and learn the information is categorized and patterns are developed. From there we begin to make predictions and we verify those predictions with more sensory input. So we can predict the existence of new information in the mind by the process of inference and deduction but it is all built on the original sensory input and must be verified by the senses.I guess that my point with all of this is that our awareness is wholly dependant on our body/brain system and that there is no awareness without it.So how does all this impact morality and the determination of skilful and unskilful actions or thoughts?I think that it shines a light on what our motivations are and where they come from. The realization that too much pleasure will generate suffering is similar to realizing that by giving to others we actually gain something. Perhaps counter intuitive but verified by the senses to be true.My real interest is in the idea of suppressing the ego or the 'me' and how far to take the idea. One of the foundational elements of survival is the notion of 'me' and that I deserve to exist. In a world of scarcity this requires that I assert myself and that I fight against others who would use the same resources. This seems to be a natural state and suppressing the ego is somewhat unnatural. However, I can certainly see how the ego can bring lots of unnecessary suffering and that more is not always better.In the end though, everything is based on the idea of 'me'. Right or wrong, skillful or not. Good and bad. It is all determined by your concept of you. Society and morality only work because what is good for me is also probably good for you.

Sure everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone's perspective is different. Not many are entirely wrong or right but some are more wrong and some are righter. Some positions are certainly more reasoned than others and some people are more skilful at recognizing flawed reasoning. It is here where the perspectives clash that the imperfections are revealed. Not only clashing opinions but exposure to new perspectives. I am looking for the flaws in my own reasoning and appreciate the contrast that you provide. I disagree. The mind is fully subject to the constraints of time and gravity. The location of the mind will always coincide with the spatial coordinates of the brain. Could you give an example where the two do not match up? While I have met some folks who were out of their mind I have never encountered a mind that was out of it's brain.What extra-corporeal coordinates does the mind occupy? Would you say that consciousness is similar to radiation? This is true and the mind will do it automatically in many cases when it is primarily concerned with immediate survival. In all other situations the mind is keenly aware of any pain. Ignoring pain can have severe consequences. I thought that avoiding the suffering was the whole point. WTF man? Are you some kind of masochist? (Insert appropriate emoticon displaying shock, confusion, dismay and laughter.) Why do you think that and could you offer any definition of what they might be like or how they would work? I guess that the input is what it is. The failure, if any, occurs in the processing. I argued at some length in the Morality without god thread that all action is selfish and that the self is our only true point of reference. Ever present. When you know yourself all of the weighing has been done and the skilful action will emerge without much conscious effort.We have no other choice than to use the self but we are kind and empathy is one of our survival tools, thank goodness. It is the recognition that others endure the same suffering as we do that compels us to reach out and alleviate it. This is all self referential. I am not against training altogether but I am much more of a floater than a paddler. You know, go with the flow, follow your bliss, be here now. I have so few moments that I am loathe to spend many of them on a future that may never arrive. Somewhere between self denial and over indulgence is a middle way that presents itself. I usually just go that way.Of course the middle is located between the sides and the degree of my humility will change the position of the middle. There is a tradition in hunter-gatherer societies known as 'insulting the meat.' The group praises achievement but demands humility of it's members.There is another thought that I have been having about balance and the middle way. All forces seek a balance point. We call the process entropy. Equilibrium equals death.

Emotions are not some ethereal thing. They are the result of the electro-chemical process of the brain. They are built of matter and energy and the same applies to memories. What else could they be? The mind, like everything else, exists in the present. It's focus can be on the past or the present or the future. Memories are a review and imagination is a projection. Both activities are taking place in the present. The brain is affected by time and gravity and has evolved to work within the constraints that they present. The brain is full of feedback loops that keep very close track of time. This is essential in order to avoid biting your tongue while chewing and hitting your thumb with hammers. The structure, wiring and function of the brain are dictated by the nature of time, distance and gravity every bit as much as the course of a river. With an fMRI machine we can take a picture of where fear is located in the brain. We can see in real time which parts of the brain are active when some mental process is under way. That is where the fear is. It is not off to the side or out in front or some other place but right there in the brain. If we pluck out the amygdale from the brain then the brain will no longer produce the emotion of fear. The emotion of fear requires the physical presence of an amygdale. My guess would be that it is more socially acceptable and that sexual preference is suppressed to a lesser degree than it used to be by society in general. So the ratio has not really changed but rather is simply more visible. That is that a homosexual 50 yrs ago may have suppressed their preference out of fear.I suppose that it is possible that some environmental condition is having an impact. For example, we can detect the presence of hormones in the drinking water because of all the residual birth control ingredients that have ended up in the toilet. Minute quantities of some hormones can have a profound impact on the development of children if they are introduced before they would naturally occur.I really don't see any mechanism for a group sub consciousness. Nature or the environment will limit population in much more overt fashion using things like starvation, pestilence and war. This is not to say that we are not approaching some type of global consciousness but it is not some mystical thing but is apparent in our communications network and our increasing connectivity.The remarkable thing to me is that our global consciousness is being built up in exactly the same way as our brains are built. The shapes are the same and the processes are the same. It is just the scale that differs. In a word, fractal. Understand fractals and you will understand the nature of the universe and everything in it. I am at least a little familiar with the tenets of Buddhism. I read a book called 'The Tao of Pooh' probably 20 yrs ago. I intentionally used the phrase 'middle way' but I meant to make the point that I arrive there sort of naturally. I didn't really reason it out. I just follow the course of least resistance. 'Wei wu wei.'What does make an impression on me is that many of the core ideas of Buddhism and religion in general coincide with what science reveals to us. The idea that the universe is one thing. The Buddha, the Christ, the Vishnu. When the bible says that 'God created man in his image', that is the description of a fractal. Coincidence? I don't think so. I think that is more like a self evident truth that was recognized thousands of yrs ago and has since been obfuscated by the power struggles of men.The idea of knowing yourself and then using that as a reference point may sound as if it is selfish but if the self is an exact replica of the universe then what better reference point could we possibly have.