From: Natasha Vita-More (natasha@natasha.cc)
Date: Sat Jul 20 2002 - 11:07:12 MDT
Eric Chen Yixiong, Eric wrote:
Natasha:
><We value aspects of Buddhism because it brings out a mature,
>understanding and wholesome aspect of humanity. But we must
>remember that Buddhism, like most religious philosophies, are best
>appreciated in their pure state as they were written, in their
>ceremonial quality, and then borrow the elements of the belief that add to
>our own growth and transhumanity. >
>
>I would like to speak about this.
Okay.
>Buddhism has the goal of minimising suffering for non-sentient beings as
>much as possible. This does not mean it "disires" to do
>that. A "goal" and a "disire" has different meanings. Our usage of
>language contributes to this confusion especially when the
>concepts of Buddhism originate from another language.
A desire is a desire is a desire. Desires stem from emotional need, wish,
or a longing. It has no definitive purpose or result. A goal is a
different concept. A goal stems from an intellection toward a decision, or
a purpose to fulfill an intended act. It is a final point or omega.
>The core intrinsic source of suffering, and thus desire and other Buddhist
>"unskillful activities" lies with ignorance. This does
>not mean the ignorance of "no-knowledge", but the ignorance of proper
>mindset, perception and self-awareness. It also hints at the
>incongruence of our actions with our goals.
Yes.
>The main component of "ignorance" lies with the self, or more precisely,
>attachment. When we desire something, we have an attachment
>to it. The attachment gives us the motive force, not ourselves. We
>surrender our power to decide by letting the attachment gain
>motive force. If we encourage the attachment of base power, then we
>empower our genes. If we encourage the attachment of power and
>wealth, we empower the lower brain. The self helps make the illusion of
>self-control complete by providing a foundation for
>attachment and making an opaque block to "true reality".
Modern day psychology and newagers use these similar ideas very fluidly,
although in a different construct.
>When in operate in our society, the more attachment we have in respect to
>our environment, they more dependency we have on others.
>When you disire some stuff, you have to folk out money or some other
>payment for it. Later you may find that you might absolutely
>need to depend on others for your life's operation because you disire so
>many things. Expensive addictive drugs illustrate this
>effect very well. People closer to true freedom make do with the least,
>not the most disires.
Yes, of course. This is understood. But, you are romanticizing Buddhism
and applying it to modern 20/21st century people.
>One should not underestimate the power of attachment. It causes many
>problems, from flames in discussion group from people who have
>too much attachment to their opinions and ideals, to our global
>environmental problem. Because we disire, we take. Because we take,
>the Earth gives. Because the Earth gives, it depletes. Because it
>depletes, it not longer operates as well as it previously did.
>Because it no longer does that, we have so many problems today.
Clearly there have been many, many takers and not enough givers. I prefer
to think of extropic transhumanism as being a giver. Not necessarily to
the "earth" but to the intellection that proposes a more conscientious
sense of the world around us and the balance and proportion with which we
co-exist by for the sustainability of the world.
>I do not mean that we must never have attachment. Having attachment
>probably remains an essential step to our inner development,
>much like a child learning to speak with simplified but "incorrect"
>grammar. However, we eventually have to learn to outgrow it and
>explore further frontiers.
There is nothing wrong with being attached to you friends and
responsibilities. There is something severely wrong with not being
self-responsible.
>You cannot innately understand the core idea with logic and without
>adequate preparation of the mind. Only when your mind allows
>change to happen will you understand. Zen masters speak with actions and
>koans, because they know normal words would not have the
>required effect. The mindset of many people here, Libertarian and
>materialistic, prevents the proper mindset from occurring to
>understand this. This does not mean your mindset has inferiority, but that
>it diametrically opposes the teachings of Buddhist and
>thus you will still have to content with suffering if you choose it.
I agree with you, based on the mind-set of Zen Buddhists, but then Zen
Buddhists don't have to go to work every day in traffic. Many don't have
children.
Zen is a major aspect of my life for which I live each day by in some
manner or other. I have no interest in aspiring toward being a Zen master,
or a Zen Buddhist because it is unreasonable and irrational to pursue such
a goal. When people today try to walk the walk of a Buddhist, they do so
with a nouveau -Buddhist thought. At least they are trying to integrate
the benefits of what they believe brings peace of mind and value to their
lives. This is a far better goal than to pretend being a master in today's
world is a better or more honorable lifestyle. The most advantageous
philosophy today is one that integrates the values and principles of
extropy and transhumanism and individual choices for ways to better one's
life based on one's goals and needs. Further, we do have a responsibility
to bring to the front line the most appropriate ways to deal with the
pending Singularity, the foremost necessity of prolonging life, and the
many, many issues that lie before us. It is my belief that this is of far
greater current-day necessity than Zen Buddhism, but it does not mean that
we can achieve transhumanist goals without certain aspects of the Buddhist
philosophy which is indeed beneficial to both our perceptions of the world
around us and the manner in which we respond to the world around us.
>Once, while on the subway, I thought deeply about life and suffering.
>Then, all of a sudden, I realised why we should remove our
>disires. We pay the price with the immense dissatisfaction we constantly
>receive, a form of suffering, from our disiring to acquire
>certain things and yet our apparent inability to fulfil them. When I can
>sense the suffering from my past thinking clearly, then I
>can realise innately why I should live with minimal disires and
>attachment. I still "own" things in a legal sense, but I know they
>do not really belong to me.
While I understand your thoughts on this, I do not agree with it for myself.
>It has also taken me many years, from my first intellectual exposure to
>Buddhist philisophy, to truly understanding some of what it
>really means. I realised the power of mindset when people flame me for
>things I did not say because they do not take the effort to
>understand my mindset. This has a lot to do with the duality mindset many
>in the "West" subscribe to, in effect: "If you do not
>think X, you must think anti-X. If you do not support me, then I consider
>you an enemy."
This is not a fact, only an assumption based on an overly rigid stance or
opposition to the West. While I may not agree with the governmental
policies and practices of the "West", I certainly do not think that this
phrase is the credo for the West. Let's take into consideration all the
many helpful and humanitarian acts the West does on a daily basis and then
reconsider the phrase. Sounds like bad propaganda to me.
>When I said the concept of rights has no relevance in my theory, they
>immediately interpret me as denying rights to people. When I
>wrote that my proposed economic system will not work like a free market
>system, but more like a carefully maintained self-operating
>system, they take it that because I do not support free market systems as
>they understood it, then I must subscribe to communism and
>thus want to build a static, state controlled market system! Of course,
>when I said I found flaws in Libertarian thinking and thus
>would no longer support it, they then think that I support government control!
Yes. I think there are flaws in the representation of Libertarian
ideas. I think that it is probably the smartest political perspective, but
not the most user-friendly.
>Perhaps one day we might gain the ability to literally make our world. We
>could then live in a computer simulation of our perfect
>universe. However, do we really want that? What do we really one then?
>Maybe, we will all have to go the path of the Buddha, because
>in the end, if we seek to pursue true reality for eternity, then we will
>see emptiness. Perhaps another possible explanation for the
>lack of alien intelligence.
This seems like an avoidance for dealing with the issues that face us today.
Thank you for your reply and I wish you well.
Natasha
Natasha Vita-More
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Executive Art Director, Digital Design
http://www.natasha.cc http://www.extropic-art.com http://www.transhuman.org
"I'd rather be inebriated on a classic life than a 1996 classic Merlot."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:36 MST