I've lately been feeling like I need to follow something. The idea of an actual god has always struck me as silly, but I think my life could do with some type of code or guidelines...basically, a way of life. I "dabbled" in Taoism and Buddhism when I was younger, and I'm familiar with some of the Japanese war philosophies. Do any of you practice such ways of life? How's it working for you?

This is the code I follow (http://www.diggingforfire.net/FightClub/)

I do.

No murder

No rape, unless you're drunk.

I be still and let the Way that cannot be followed reveal itself to me as it truly is. It is perfect, and thus cannot be followed. It is everywhere, and thus cannot be followed. It cannot be found, and thus cannot be followed. It cannot be sought, and thus cannot be followed. When one is still, and is chasing no desire, the Way shows itself.

Nine Noble Virtues ("http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos653.htm)

In my "code," we are All One. No one is better or worse than anyone else. As we all create our own reality, there are no villains, no victims. Thus there is no need to hate, fear or envy anyone else.

I strive to treat others as I would wish to be treated myself.

Unless of course they break into your neighbor's empty house in the middle of the night, eh Arms? Suddenly the "We are all one" thing kind of goes to the wayside in favor of vigilante attempted murder, does it not?

In my "code," we are All One. No one is better or worse than anyone else. As we all create our own reality, there are no villains, no victims. Thus there is no need to hate, fear or envy anyone else.

I strive to treat others as I would wish to be treated myself.

Except women right?

Unless of course they break into your neighbor's empty house in the middle of the night, eh Arms? Suddenly the "We are all one" thing kind of goes to the wayside in favor of vigilante attempted murder, does it not?

I gather you perceive a contradiction between what I said here and what I said in the other thread. Allow me to elucidate.

One, unless I am greatly mistaken, I never addressed the issue of the ethics myself--I raised it, and let others pass judgement. Nor did I pass any judgement on the shooter himself. However, if you think that crime should be punished--(I myself do not, for the simple reason that punishment does not work, in any meaningful sense of the term "work"), you may revel in the knowledge that the shooter was reported to be distraught by his probably ill-conceived action--he acted out of fear--and will have to live with the knowldge of that action, as well as guilt that you probably cannot begin to imagine. Having been there, so to speak, I think I can.

Two, given that we all have immortal souls, we cannot be harmed in any ultimate sense. The fellows who were killed have either merged with spirit or reincarnated. Granted, their families will porbably suffer--but again, whatever suffering we experience in any given lifetime is immaterial in the context of eternity.

Most of us do not think at this level, nor would it serve society if we would all do so. As E. J. Gold once wrote, if we were all awake (that is, enlightened, in the Gurdjieffian sense), we would all stand around looking at the sky and nothing would get done.

Someone (maybe the Buddha) once observed that the essence of enlightenment lies in balance. This resonates with me more than with others, possibly, due to my being a double Libra. Thus my vocation--weapons sales--balances my spiritual avocation. Depending on what seems appropriate at the time, I can do a psychic reading or spiritual healing, or tear down and service a chainsaw--neither action is "better" in any sense than the other.

What's more, you seem to think that I stated or implied that the shooter was "right." I did not. (Although I did opine that the shooting may have been legally justified. Law has nothing to do with ethics or morality.) As I have said many times, at the Highest Level, there are not such things as right and wrong, good and evil--there is only all One. I strive to think, not in terms of good and evil, but in terms of what works and what does not. As one of the Huna Principles states, effectiveness is the measure of truth.

With the wisdom of 20-20 hindsight, I think it valid to observe that the shooting did not work.

If by code you mean an acquired set of guiding ethical values, then no, not to any great extent. I certainly still have the ethics everyone is deeply instilled with at birth, such as murder is wrong and rape is bad, but I don’t have any conscious set of ethics I follow, like Epicureanism or Christianity. I was a humanist by default for awhile (hooray for science and progress, let’s celebrate the rationality of man, etc. etc.), but I soon thought my way out of that nonsense.

One, unless I am greatly mistaken, I never addressed the issue of the ethics myself--I raised it, and let others pass judgement. Nor did I pass any judgement on the shooter himself.

You said that you thought the shooter should be rewarded. Usually, we reward people when they've done something that we find highly favorable that deserves merit and appreciation.

However, if you think that crime should be punished--(I myself do not, for the simple reason that punishment does not work, in any meaningful sense of the term "work"), you may revel in the knowledge that the shooter was reported to be distraught by his probably ill-conceived action--he acted out of fear--and will have to live with the knowldge of that action, as well as guilt that you probably cannot begin to imagine. Having been there, so to speak, I think I can.

You and I have briefly discussed punishment (in relation to prisons and jails), and I believe we share the same disdain for the system. However, I don't revel in the knowledge that the shooter felt guilt and remorse. That would suggest that I take pleasure from seeing him feel mental anguish. I just wouldn't.

I too have had firsthand experience with how heavy guilt can weigh on your mind and your heart, so to speak. I am a little glad to learn that he did feel remorse though, because that means that he's not a cold-blooded killer, but rather just didn't think before he acted.

What's more, you seem to think that I stated or implied that the shooter was "right." I did not. (Although I did opine that the shooting may have been legally justified. Law has nothing to do with ethics or morality.) As I have said many times, at the Highest Level, there are not such things as right and wrong, good and evil--there is only all One.

True, you didn't state he was "right" ... but you did state that you felt he should be rewarded.

Now, if at the Highest Level, there are no such things as right or wrong, good or evil - why would "reward" even be part of your vocabulary?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, Arms. I'm just trying to better understand what you implied by stating:

"the guy should get a reward"

I find it nearly impossible to attach myself to one moral theory, since none of them seem to be widely accepted and all have serious flaws. Nonetheless, I tend to guide myself by some version of utilitarianism and respect for all sentient beings. I guess I'd fall into the school of Singerism.

Might I suggest reading up on and studying the code of the force found in the star wars movies?

Seriously, it is just as good a code as any other code the ONLY difference is you KNOW it is fiction (though based heavily on eastern philosophy)

I say give it a try if you want to follow something.

Might I suggest reading up on and studying the code of the force found in the star wars movies?

Seriously, it is just as good a code as any other code the ONLY difference is you KNOW it is fiction (though based heavily on eastern philosophy)

I say give it a try if you want to follow something.

Underneath all your bullshit exists something known in the Bible as the 'imprinted word'. Even Hare, a non-Christian, knows it exists. It isn't a guide of ethics or any shit like that, it's the pure state of being that simply is.

Underneath all your bullshit exists something known in the Bible as the 'imprinted word'. Even Hare, a non-Christian, knows it exists. It isn't a guide of ethics or any shit like that, it's the pure state of being that simply is.

WOW. You have just blown my mind.

Pure state of being that simply is.......little hard to fit inside a fortune cookie but that is where that "profound" thought belongs.

I have no code, I need no code, I am my code.

Underneath all your bullshit exists something known in the Bible as the 'imprinted word'. Even Hare, a non-Christian, knows it exists. It isn't a guide of ethics or any shit like that, it's the pure state of being that simply is.

You don't speak for me, you creep.

Underneath all your bullshit exists something known in the Bible as the 'imprinted word'. Even Hare, a non-Christian, knows it exists. It isn't a guide of ethics or any shit like that, it's the pure state of being that simply is.

What the fuck are you talking about? Get the fuck out of my thread, bitch.

I was a humanist by default for awhile (hooray for science and progress, let’s celebrate the rationality of man, etc. etc.), but I soon thought my way out of that nonsense.

Where does the nonsense lie in progress? We know you have a hearty disdain for anyone who "believes in" science, but truly - why be such a sour puss concerning progress?

Where does the nonsense lie in progress? We know you have a hearty disdain for anyone who "believes in" science, but truly - why be such a sour puss concerning progress?

I am not sure if progress is actual. Often it seems to be little more than an ideological weapon.

I am not sure if progress is actual. Often it seems to be little more than an ideological weapon.

1) This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. You're basically spamming here.

2) You can philosophize your way around just about any aspect of reality, but in the end, we're all still a part of this "real world" experience. Progress isn't actual? Has technology not drastically changed over the past several thousand years? If you're talking about people themselves...you might have a point, but denying tangible, technological progress is basically denying reality. You can do that if you want, but don't expect to have an actual argument about it.

The "code" i would like to live by :P

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.


And the "code" i live by right now :)

Everything has its opposite.
Our choices has already been made, by ourselfs.
We are going to die, but still live forever.
Time is needed to think twice before loss, because you don't know what you have untill you lose it.
There is no god, there is only us.
Never push a man too far, because eventually he'll push back.

Walt Whitman once wrote something to the effect--you say I contradict myself? Okay, I contradict myself. I am large--I contain multitudes.

Put this another way--there are seven levels of spiritual development, and very few of us stay at any one of them all the time. Like most folks, I move from love to fear, from altruism to selfishness.

And we are all subject to unseen influences. I don't recall what was going on astrologically that day, or what the state of my blood sugar or general body chemistry was . Sometimes when I have been in a lot of physical pain for hours, I allow that to affect my mood and mode of expression.

I am sure you have heard the saying of Epictetus--you never step into the same river twice. Well, take that a step further--the same person never steps in the same river twice either. We are all growing spiritally--sometimes by infinitesimal increments, sometimes in great quantum leaps. But we are all growing more or less all the time--spiritual evolution and growth is as natural and inevitable as physical growth.

You are not the first person to quote old posts of mine, usually with the intent of making me look contradictory or hypocritical. Thing is, you are quoting a different person.

In general, it is an error to quote anyone's post from more than a day or so back--to reiterate, we are all growing and maturing.

Today I feel nothing but compassion for the shooter and the families of the perps. The perps themselves are in heaven--so to speak.

bushido??

for me, its the moderate libertarian stance

I am in complete agreement with you on most of that, ArmsMerchant. We as human beings are subject to evolving personalities seemingly have a life of their own - sometimes completely sneaking up on us when we aren't looking. I don't believe for one second that in one lifetime, a person could manage (or would want to completely manage) their sometimes opposing personality traits. As you said, our personalities are complex and hold a multitude of polar opposites that should be celebrated and embraced.

I certainly wasn't implying that you were a hypocrite, and if it seemed that way, I'd like to at least try to convince you that I meant to convey otherwise. I didn't feel that the sympathy you displayed for the shooter in that case was pointing to you contradicting yourself, but rather the contradiction of the WAAO philosophy in and of itself.

While I know you'll maintain that you resonate that philosophy internally and that it's an intricate part of being for you - understand that I made the observation from my own perspective, which is one that draws a clear distinction between the person and the ethereal mindset that may sometimes govern them.

Loved the Whitman reference, by the way ... Leaves of Grass is one of my favorite collections of all time.

In my "code," we are All One. No one is better or worse than anyone else. As we all create our own reality, there are no villains, no victims. Thus there is no need to hate, fear or envy anyone else.

I strive to treat others as I would wish to be treated myself.

I embrace some aspects of this world view.

Except that I don't believe that we 'create our own reality', rather that the way we percieve reality is caused by a series of environmental/genetic/epigenetic determinants throughout our life - these determinants shape the way we percieve reality, our beliefs, what action we take, our "character" etc. (for example, it determines whether we percieve the world to be a positive or a negative place)

This essay fairly well explains my view, though I don't necessarily agree with the mild humanist and anti-religion theme. Religion serves a valuable utilitarian purpose in keeping people happy, positive and overall content. A bit hedonistic, I suppose.. Also I am not a hard-line determinist, free will is still a possibility for me and there is quantum indeterminancy (however a new mathematical theory might say otherwise)


http://www.onewitheverything.org/8.html

I believe that free will is a pitifully weak force in the matter of the way each individual percieves reality. Though I am not yet certain of this belief.


"As we all create our own reality, there are no villains, no victims." - Well if you percieve there to be villains and victims in your world, then for all practical purposes there are villains and victims. In terms of some sort of ultimate reality? Well I'm pretty sure we can't percieve that, we are limited by the subjective nature of the human mind/senses/logic and cannot percieve and maybe not even concieve of the objective ultimate reality (if there is one). A form of skepticism, I suppose. Kind of like The Matrix.

"Thus there is no need to hate, fear or envy anyone else" - I disagree. These emotions serve evolutionary purposes and the ability to feel them was instilled in us for a reason. I don't think we should label emotions into 'good' and 'bad' categories; rather whether an emotion is good or bad varies depending on the situation.

However in some sort of ultimate objective reality (one which we could never percieve, since we are confined the the subjective human experience) hate, fear and envy are probably meaningless. In this reality [as we percieve it with our logic and senses] when you analyze or meditate on these emotions closely, they don't necessarily make sense. But they still serve their evolutionary purpose to keep you alive and your genes spreading. If our ancestors didn't fear lions or the threat of starvation they would have likely died and suffered more often, thus putting their genes at a disadvantage. Nature is all about genetic survival/advantage... or that's the way the system seems to work.

Anyway: In today's world, emotions such as fear can often be maladaptive. As is the case with anxiety disorders etc.

Being somewhat of a determinist or compatiblist, I don't believe people have the free will to 'create their reality' (or perception of it) into being a happy, good one. Those that 'choose' to try and do so are influenced by a series of determinants throughout their life that led to the development of their character as a person. Their character determines what thoughts they have, what they percieve to be the best decision to make etc and ultimately what decisions they make. (this is a VERY loose explanation as its much more complex than that)

The thing I do agree with is that good and evil aren't ultimately real in what you call the Higher Reality, more just perceptions of the human mind. However I believe that having these illusiary perceptions serves an important evolutionary role. Same thing goes for the Buddhists who believe the concept of a 'self' is an illusion. I believe it to be a necessary one.

Good and evil may not ultimately be real. But then again, the way we percieve reality through our senses and the way our logic works may well be illusiary too. (think matrix world again) Why eliminate only the 'good' and 'evil' part of the illusion?

Oh and to the OP: Look into deontology, its all about following ultimate ethical principles. Like "lying is always wrong" an idea by Emmanuel Kant.

Or utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory I prefer. Preference utilitarianism is alright.

In the end though... people will do what they will. In the words of Aleister Crowley - "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." And don't misinterpret that as advocating anarchy.

shitt that was a lot of typing.. gotta go throw out my old school stuff now/sleep bye

Oh and in reference to my above post, I should mention:

These views of mine are very uncertain, and I don't believe them with any great solidity.

They are uneducatedin that I haven't read much material on the subject. It's more what my own mind concieved of at this point in my life. You seem to have read a fair amount of stuff, Arms so you probably know more than me on many topics.

Also when you said "we create our own reality" I assume you meant that we create the way we percieve reality. An example being: pessimists create their own reality and optimists create their own reality.

1) This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. You're basically spamming here.

2) You can philosophize your way around just about any aspect of reality, but in the end, we're all still a part of this "real world" experience. Progress isn't actual? Has technology not drastically changed over the past several thousand years? If you're talking about people themselves...you might have a point, but denying tangible, technological progress is basically denying reality. You can do that if you want, but don't expect to have an actual argument about it.

I hope you see the absurdity of your post. You are essentially implying that within this thread, you are allowed to make a post criticizing my posts, but that I am not allowed to post a rebuttal because that would be spam. But (1) I was merely being kind to AngryFemme and responding to her question, and (2) I was not talking about technological progress, but the sense that in the west there is a cultural progress away from some thing called barbarism, a sense inherit in many forms of humanism.

I was not talking about technological progress, but the sense that in the west there is a cultural progress away from some thing called barbarism, a sense inherit in many forms of humanism.

Ah ok. This I can agree with. We always want to think we've progressed and no longer do barbaric things to each other, but all it takes is a look in the newspaper to show otherwise.

When you said you didn't think progress was real, I thought you meant there was no such thing as any progress.

This thread might be appropriate for Humanities, but it got some interesting replies, so here it stays and duly bumped.

This thread might be appropriate for Humanities, but it got some interesting replies, so here it stays and duly bumped.

You bumped a 4 month old thread just to say that?

Yep..