Up Front: The Missionary Position
200 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
笨 bèn: stupid; foolish; silly; slow-witted; clumsy
-
mark, reading about zen seems very pointless. But you do have to read a bit about it to realize that.
I noticed that in Thailand my name also seemed to arouse a lot of mirth.
English: Mark: ....skid-mark, a trail of left on the ground by tyres, and....
-
sorry Ben, no offence intended, it's a very light word, used most amicably in this case.
-
English: Mark: ....skid-mark, a trail of left on the ground by tyres, and....
ha. Thanks. perspective!
But you do have to read a bit about it to realize that.
you'd think...at least to know how what you're knowing is defined. There is something telling in your reading of that book to the end.
-
Don't worry dude, I know you're just amicably making your mark. You are not marked for death. It's not a black mark on your name.
I think in Thailand the name lent itself to all sorts of word play, because it's part of the verb "to be".
-
Yes, when I was young and foolish I hadn't learned that it is not necessary to read a book to the end.
-
I think in Thailand the name lent itself to all sorts of word play, because it's part of the verb "to be".
Sounds like great fun...partake:
-
Yes, when I was young and foolish I hadn't learned that it is not necessary to read a book to the end.
I can only assume that your parents weren't 'The Beatles' obsessives...
Dao de Jiing #47
-
I really can't for the life of me understand why so many people consider feelings as somehow occurring outside of biology.
Nice, Giovanni.
The English term 'spiritual' itself, with it's secondary definition,
of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiritual?qsrc=2888
does seem something of a misnomer.
-
I really can't for the life of me understand why so many people consider feelings as somehow occurring outside of biology.
I can understand it. I just don't agree with it. I'm sure the reason people don't see the mind as biological is because they themselves have one. It's the only mind they can see, and furthermore they see it directly. But no-one else can. So it's pretty easy to think that maybe it's somehow intangible. Also, the illusion of free will is a particularly difficult conundrum for seeing ourselves merely as machines.
But what is easy to think is so often not true.
-
But what is easy to think is so often not true.
Even so, why some feelings and not others? Lust, because it makes blood rush places I guess, is generally considered a 'biological' feeling (hence pejoratively an urge) whereas the contemplation of beauty, or friendship, or human solidarity and altruism, would be spiritual hence higher, better. That discrimination alone has been the cause of untold misery throughout history, I think you'll agree.
-
being a motorcycle rider myself
I find that 3-4 hours of high-speed worship on a sunday morning almost always fills me with a deep sense of spiritual calm...
-
I am confident that feelings are compleatly biological. But again, what is spirituality? I think its a humen construct, that has practical purpose...
The practical purpose being?
There is beings of a comprehensive literature on this subject. It does challenge in a very substantive way the mind/body dualism humanity has been saddled with for a very long time, to our deteriment I think.
Anyway Descartes made his reputation out of it, underserved IMO -
EDIT
Beginnings of a comprehensive literature.Descartes reputation is undeserved in this area of study.
Just as the new era of christian apologist who resort to digging out Augustine and Aquinas to prop up their convoluted belief systems and throw in quantum woo just for good measure.
If one has to go to that much trouble... why F....ing bother. -
Resilience in the face adversity...
Is a "spirituality" necessary to be capable of this?
Isnt an intelligence from which to decide and choose from a variety of plans of action enough (in the case of hominds such as us). -
Okay, wow, a lot went by here while I was watching cricket and playing Carcassone, and obviously I can't do justice to all of it.
Mark, your criticism of the Buddhism quote is justified. I said right after that that it was 'harsh', and I actually was going to write more, but I felt uncomfortable because I'm not a Buddhist, and I didn't want to be speaking for them. The basic 'you go your way I'll go mine' attitude of Buddhism has a lot in common with Wicca, and I find it appealing. But it has a very 'fluffy bunny' reputation in the West that isn't really representative of the whole story. The John Saffron vs God episode on Buddhism - 'get the koan or we hit you with the big stick' - was an eye-opener.
All religions are cultural. Eastern Buddhism is different from Western Buddhism like Christianity in Africa is different from Christianity in Europe.
And now that I've pretty much offended everyone...
-
Even so, why some feelings and not others? Lust, because it makes blood rush places I guess, is generally considered a 'biological' feeling (hence pejoratively an urge) whereas the contemplation of beauty, or friendship, or human solidarity and altruism, would be spiritual hence higher, better.
And, what really fascinates me, why this neurochemical reaction to this particular thing, and not that one? Why is this thing beautiful, but not that?
Remember that the most beautiful things in the world are the most useless, peacocks and lilies for instance.
Yes, this thread is reminding me of Ruskin and the counter-reaction to Utilitarianism.
-
I prefer enjoying beauty to understanding it.
-
Missed this until Emma dropped it just now:
Remember that the most beautiful things in the world are the most useless, peacocks and lilies for instance.
Subjective of course, but I'm still compelled to disagree. Both that lilies & peacocks (what is more garish? their very name has become a synonym for strutting men in single minded pursuit of a lukewarm hole - the very least interesting people in any bar) are among the most beautiful things in the world, and that beautiful things are useless.
I find people pretty beautiful, and I also find that people are the most useful things in our world. (This perception might be a little affected by the huge number of pregnant women in my life at present. Everyone seems to have discovered their uterus, all at once.)
And the most useful, well designed, functional things, also tend to be the most attractive - take the time to cast your eye over the aesthetics of an old, well used, well organised workshop some time. Everything with a job, and everything with a place.
But still, subjective.
-
I prefer enjoying beauty to understanding it.
I find beauty in understanding.
-
Ruskin and the counter-reaction to Utilitarianism.
Getting obsure there. But I read he was of the era of Hume.
And thought pigs unlovely and so used them as an example to dismiss utility being beauty.
Those old english types eh! sitting round insulting pigs or not. Seems he may have had a distaste for pubic hair as well(pure speculation of course). As he took his vision of the female form from classical greek statues.Whatever way Hume and others intended the notion of utility to be taken, in these terms the swine would have been beautiful. And swine are not beautiful.
Ruskin may have been able to dismiss the theory that the beautiful is the usefulStill he had some good ideas.
Oh where was I, thats right looking for a job.
Now thats an ugly prospect -
I enjoy that.
-
Finding beauty in understanding, that is.
-
Subjective of course, but I'm still compelled to disagree.
Oh, I don't agree with a lot of what Ruskin says, but I find him really interesting anyway. The Stones of Venice contains some weep-makingly beautiful prose, especially if you've just read some of the Utilitarians - JS Mill, Jeremy Betham. And that's what Ruskin is responding to, a doctrine that beauty comes out of utility, and that only. And so you get a wild swing away from that - Romanticism, the Arts and Crafts movement, Wilde's 'art for art's sake'. I think it's much easier now to realise that the "truth" (if truth there is) is somewhere in the middle. But gosh there were some interesting ideas.
Good art is done with enjoyment. The artist must feel that, within certain reasonable limits, he is free, that he is wanted by society, and that the ideas he is asked to express are true and important.
-
I has been presented with an acute awarness of my own being, not alot made sence and I was turning manic.
Diagonally parked in a parallel Universe?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.