Created by vs. Descended from?

[Balerion]

If you look at culture, men invent most of the new, while women help integrate the change; Eve comes from Adam.

Misogynist boilerplate. You didn't even bother to fill in the blanks, such as which cultures we're talking about, what "new" men are inventing, and how (or why) women help "integrate the change."

Why do you think women work so hard to be like the men?

Of course, by "be like the men," you simply mean "be successful and industrious," which you perceive as a male trait mostly thanks to your patriarchal and backwards belief system. To burst your bubble, there is nothing physiologically about women that makes them less capable than men at most jobs. And in jobs that require intelligence and leadership, there is literally no difference between a man and a woman, and the reason there are more men in those positions is simply because there hasn't yet been enough time since women fought their way out from under the thumb of their male oppressors for the scales to balance. Give it a few more decades.

Eve follows in the wake of Adam. The bible symbolism is more consistent with the spirit and not biology, with the spirit more connected to the brain/mind. This is how you infer, instead of assume.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy (and one that is rapidly going out of date): Eve follows Adam because your religion tells men to be masters over their women, and women to be subservient to their men. Now that the west has largely shed the manacles of the patriarchal society, women are increasingly becoming leaders in business and in governance. In other words, Eve is standing beside Adam, and leading him in many cases.

Women create biologically through birth and maternal instinct. The males do not have the same system draw and gain bandwidth. Males create and give birth to ideas and inventions; use the bandwidth.

I don't know what you mean by "bandwidth," but I can tell you that you're using it incorrectly. And men also have an instinctual desire to become a parent. It is a misconception that only females go baby-crazy. Everyone has that desire, and in men it's more than a lust to spread his seed. We also want to have babies and hold them and care for them. It's as natural in men as it is in women.

The classic example used to be when men and women drive the male will try to improvise and the female will want to stop and asks for directions. The male is creating. The female wishes to take what is already created.

Actually, this is an example of an archetype that is not natural, but created in men thanks to the culture your religion helped found in the west. Abrahamic religions promote a patriarchal society, and the male, as the "head of the household," consequently must view himself as always being in control, as not displaying any weakness or vulnerability. Men who view themselves in such a light are the ones who never ask for directions. Females, not being burdened by such ridiculous delusions, sensibly suggest that they stop and ask someone.

In other words, it's only the male who doesn't ask for directions because your religion made it that way. Stubbornness is not an exclusively or even predominantly male trait.

An analogy between created and descended would be Henry Ford, who was a self made man. He created his empire without education and from humble beginning; created from nothing. His children and children's children descended from him, with a silver spoon in their mouth. From this position of opportunity and privilege, many of the descendants added their own mark, helping to move the family creation into the future. Jesus was descended from King David. While Adam was created.

The context of the OP is not the difference between Henry Ford and Adam, but between cultures that view themselves as descendants of the gods, and those that view themselves as being created by the gods.

 

[lightgigantic]

If you knew the slightest whisper of a snippet regarding the MC1R recessive gene variant you'd realize most individuals possessing 2 copies will have both red hair and eumelanin deficiency, producing a fair non-tanning skin often concurrent w/freckles. It's this lack of pigment that allows increased amounts of UV light to pass unhindered into the skin and generate the aforementioned Vitamin D.

so in this case you can take the topic of hair and extrapolate it to broader contextual issues of biological necessity and function in the world

Believe me, when I say the idiocy is all purely yours.

and in this case you can't take the topic of nipples and extrapolate it to broader contextual issues of biological necessity and function in the world

Why the double standard?

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

But that is also true with a hierarchical worldview. The self always comes first in any structure. People help others because that action is pleasurable to them (it feels good to be helpful), or they voluntarily feel humble when something superior is recognized; to achieve true humility is itself exhilarating.

In any structure personal gratification rules everything, even the case of self sacrifice for someone else - that feeling of being selfless is a liberating experience even if short-lived if death is the outcome. For any action the question is always asked, even if subconsciously, what do I get out of this?

For current leading theistic religions actions are governed by personal survival, follow the rules or burn in hell, for example - or be good to others and be rewarded in heaven. Even those who argue against the reward and punishment motive and assert their actions are because it is the right thing to do - the result is pride of such an achievement, i.e. personal gratification.

For non-theistic spiritual constructs the same self centered perspective pervades. Betterment of self for future reward/afterlife/ascension/rebirth/reincarnation or whatever the expected end result.

For any religious/spiritual structure there is no reason to adhere to such regimes unless there is a clear personal gain. True altruism cannot exist within a religious paradigm, since one always expects an ultimate reward - the promise offered by every religion - immortality/survival.

For non religious structures there is also self centered actions. For many it is simple material wealth or fleshly pleasures while they exist, for others many of the same sensations for the religious are also effective - e.g. helping others is gratifying, etc. For the intelligent, rational self interest makes for a compelling moral structure, e.g. it would be in my best interest to support a civilized social structure that creates health services, and a non-violent environment, and where everyone is kind and loving to each other.

If you bring in the notion that self hood is contextualized by a higher value (ie God), suddenly you have a range of activities that are simply not feasible for persons operating without that higher value.

IOW the stakes of existence and selfhood are not relegated to an atmosphere that will shortly cease to exist (no matter what degree of altruism one does or doesn't employ)

 

[Cris]

lg,

If you bring in the notion that self hood is contextualized by a higher value (ie God), suddenly you have a range of activities that are simply not feasible for persons operating without that higher value.

If we assume that self hood also includes free will in such a context then I do not see that such a structure changes the essential individual attitude. Any free will action will always be motivated ultimately by some benefit for the individual. However, if self is redefined as some form of hybrid with a higher being, or perhaps entirely subsumed by that entity, then the discussion will need to change dramatically. I'm working from the presumption of seperate human entities with full free will of action.

IOW the stakes of existence and selfhood are not relegated to an atmosphere that will shortly cease to exist (no matter what degree of altruism one does or doesn't employ)

It makes no difference whether existence is perceived as temporary or infinite, the essential intrinsic property of self will always gravitate to self benefit, otherwise self has no value.

If we were to take a socio-political perspective the differences would be between communism and libertarianism.

But note that survival is a major motivation while we remain earthly bound and very apparently mortal.

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

If we assume that self hood also includes free will in such a context then I do not see that such a structure changes the essential individual attitude.

on the contrary its the nature of all parties involved having free will which enriches the situation.

Any free will action will always be motivated ultimately by some benefit for the individual.

But if you bring in something that simultaneously contextualizes and revolutionizes the said individual, everything is radically different.

IOW, if all individuals are constitutionally eternal and irrevocably bound to god, suddenly worldly pursuits not only lose their value but are entirely meaningless (since practically all of worldly pursuits culminate in trying to postpone the inevitable amongst other similarly competitively minded others in scenarios that can do nothing but ultimately fail ).

IOW given the above scenario, exactly how would you propose that one pursue an existence based on personal gain and benefit?

However, if self is redefined as some form of hybrid with a higher being, or perhaps entirely subsumed by that entity, then the discussion will need to change dramatically. I'm working from the presumption of seperate human entities with full free will of action.

I'm not talking about amalgamation at the expense of one's individuality either

It makes no difference whether existence is perceived as temporary or infinite, the essential intrinsic property of self will always gravitate to self benefit, otherwise self has no value.

So what form do you propose a pursued benefit would take in an atmosphere bereft of any pressing issues from value/quality/opulence ?

If we were to take a socio-political perspective the differences would be between communism and libertarianism.

But note that survival is a major motivation while we remain earthly bound and very apparently mortal.

but obviously not an exclusive one, since all survival models, based on sustaining corporeal existence or even things in relation to the said existence, fail.

 

[wynn]

True altruism cannot exist within a religious paradigm, since one always expects an ultimate reward - the promise offered by every religion - immortality/survival.

How do you evaluate the fact that in Freudian psychology, altruism is listed as an ego defense mechanism?

 

[Balerion]

How do you evaluate the fact that in Freudian psychology, altruism is listed as an ego defense mechanism?

If you had bothered to read his entire post, you would have seen that he is saying there is no such thing as "true" altruism--it's all done for personal gain.

 

[wynn]

If you had bothered to read his entire post, you would have seen that he is saying there is no such thing as "true" altruism--it's all done for personal gain.

Let him clarify that point, according to the question I asked.

 

[Balerion]

Let him clarify that point, according to the question I asked.

I'm not stopping him, I'm just pointing out that you very obviously didn't read his post, because if you had, there would be no need to ask that question. What isn't clear about this:

The self always comes first in any structure. People help others because that action is pleasurable to them (it feels good to be helpful), or they voluntarily feel humble when something superior is recognized; to achieve true humility is itself exhilarating.

In any structure personal gratification rules everything, even the case of self sacrifice for someone else - that feeling of being selfless is a liberating experience even if short-lived if death is the outcome. For any action the question is always asked, even if subconsciously, what do I get out of this?

I mean, seriously.

 

[wynn]

I'm not stopping him, I'm just pointing out that you very obviously didn't read his post, because if you had, there would be no need to ask that question. What isn't clear about this:

It's not clear what he thinks about altruism if it is conceived as an ego defense mechanism.

 

[Cris]

lg,

If we assume that self hood also includes free will in such a context then I do not see that such a structure changes the essential individual attitude.

on the contrary its the nature of all parties involved having free will which enriches the situation.

Any free will action will always be motivated ultimately by some benefit for the individual.

But if you bring in something that simultaneously contextualizes and revolutionizes the said individual, everything is radically different.

IOW, if all individuals are constitutionally eternal and irrevocably bound to god, suddenly worldly pursuits not only lose their value but are entirely meaningless (since practically all of worldly pursuits culminate in trying to postpone the inevitable amongst other similarly competitively minded others in scenarios that can do nothing but ultimately fail ).

IOW given the above scenario, exactly how would you propose that one pursue an existence based on personal gain and benefit?

There remains no essential difference between earthly life pursuits and those of an eternal nature bonded to a deity. As an individual with free will there will always be a desire to do things. What is the motivation to do anything? The pursuit of personal happiness. The absense or presense of a deity or an afterlife of some form makes no difference to the purpose of individual existence.

It makes no difference whether existence is perceived as temporary or infinite, the essential intrinsic property of self will always gravitate to self benefit, otherwise self has no value.

So what form do you propose a pursued benefit would take in an atmosphere bereft of any pressing issues from value/quality/opulence ?

The same as above - the pursuit of personal happiness, there is nothing else.

If one achieves some form of afterlife and life context is indeed revolutionalised in the presence of a deity, then what? If as you have said individuality is intact then that still leaves personal choice. So what does one do in paradise and eternal life? In essence what is the purpose of existence?

It can only be as has always been - the purpose of individual existence is the pursuit of personal happiness. Any action we take in this earthly life and if there is one after, will remain the same purpose, and every action we take now or in an afterlife will continue to gravitate to personal benefit. Can you propose a meaningful alternative?

 

[Cris]

wynn,

It's not clear what he thinks about altruism if it is conceived as an ego defense mechanism.

I am not sure why you think that would conflict with what I said. Ultimately any action would be expected to result in a personal benefit, and that seems to be true in this case.

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,



There remains no essential difference between earthly life pursuits and those of an eternal nature bonded to a deity. As an individual with free will there will always be a desire to do things. What is the motivation to do anything? The pursuit of personal happiness. The absense or presense of a deity or an afterlife of some form makes no difference to the purpose of individual existence.

The same as above - the pursuit of personal happiness, there is nothing else.

If one achieves some form of afterlife and life context is indeed revolutionalised in the presence of a deity, then what? If as you have said individuality is intact then that still leaves personal choice. So what does one do in paradise and eternal life? In essence what is the purpose of existence?

It can only be as has always been - the purpose of individual existence is the pursuit of personal happiness. Any action we take in this earthly life and if there is one after, will remain the same purpose, and every action we take now or in an afterlife will continue to gravitate to personal benefit. Can you propose a meaningful alternative?

Action in the pursuit of happiness in the material world takes the form of acquiring strength, wealth, fame, renunciation, intelligence and/or beauty. So for instance, pious works culminate in fame to be known as such, desperately trying to reverse the aging process is part of beauty and so on with renunciation finally coming in that one can abide by existence even when these plans for acquisition turn to dust. IOW its all about the ebb and flow of material qualities that come into one's field and slip through one's fingers. This is the scope of personal choice in the material world.

Now, if god is present as an undeniable reality, being not only the greatest reservoir but also the source of (ie opulences anywhere else - IOW there is no scope for possessing any of these things outside of god's influence ... ) of these 6 opulences, things become somewhat different ... especially amongst individuals that are similarly established in the undeniable reality of eternal existence (To say it another way, material existence affords having a life where one can work to pursue these opulences, but it is all done in the medium of illusion (aka : death) so no one actually acquires anything anyway) .

IOW if you have individuals who are constitutionally in a position of never falling victim to the notion of material acquisition , then surely they won't be mimicking the model for happiness in the material world (namely the model that places the individual in the center with the desire to acquire a combination of the 6 opulences ... amongst other similarly minded individuals which means that your personal benefit is some one else's loss ... all in the medium of death of course).

Rather, the model is having god in the center.

IOW in the spiritual world not only is there no game to be a "big guy", but there is also no game to deem one's worth on account of their balance of opulences.

This is the manner the two paradigms are radically different. Sure, personal benefit is still there in both, but the currencies they work in are completely opposed to each other.

 

[Cris]

lg,

Action in the pursuit of happiness in the material world takes the form of acquiring strength, wealth, fame, renunciation, intelligence and/or beauty. So for instance, pious works culminate in fame to be known as such, desperately trying to reverse the aging process is part of beauty and so on with renunciation finally coming in that one can abide by existence even when these plans for acquisition turn to dust. IOW its all about the ebb and flow of material qualities that come into one's field and slip through one's fingers. This is the scope of personal choice in the material world.

Now, if god is present as an undeniable reality, being not only the greatest reservoir but also the source of (ie opulences anywhere else - IOW there is no scope for possessing any of these things outside of god's influence ... ) of these 6 opulences, things become somewhat different ... especially amongst individuals that are similarly established in the undeniable reality of eternal existence (To say it another way, material existence affords having a life where one can work to pursue these opulences, but it is all done in the medium of illusion (aka : death) so no one actually acquires anything anyway) .

IOW if you have individuals who are constitutionally in a position of never falling victim to the notion of material acquisition , then surely they won't be mimicking the model for happiness in the material world (namely the model that places the individual in the center with the desire to acquire a combination of the 6 opulences ... amongst other similarly minded individuals which means that your personal benefit is some one else's loss ... all in the medium of death of course).

Rather, the model is having god in the center.

IOW in the spiritual world not only is there no game to be a "big guy", but there is also no game to deem one's worth on account of their balance of opulences.

This is the manner the two paradigms are radically different. Sure, personal benefit is still there in both, but the currencies they work in are completely opposed to each other.

Your final statement is relevant, while the rest misses the point.

You say "personal benefit is still there in both, but the currencies they work in are completely opposed to each other". I was never particularly interested in the currencies, as they were simply a means to an end - personal happiness/benefit. They are much like a journey, where the destination is the intended goal, it is often true that the journey itself, while transitory, is the most enjoyable part of the event. While the oppulencies you list will appeal to many, to others they are superficial, each to his own values I guess. That nothing is permament is appreciated by most thinking people, a major oversight by the Gita authors I believe.

Since you do not list the currency in the immaterial world it is difficult to see how you can defend your assertion that the two are opposites. I can fully appreciate how they would necessarily be different, but they would be transient and temporary and more so if eternity is involved. This must be true if we remain as individuals and can do things.

I stated that the motivation for action is always personal happiness and that is the basis for individual existence, the purpose behind all we do. And that must also be true in an immaterial eternal paradigm. You have done nothing to refute this or offer any alternative. The closest you come is to assert that "..the model is having god in the center..". That is simply unhelpful since it tells us nothing.

Most religions, yours included it would seem, stress throughout that God is the end result and the center, but when pressed for what happens after earthly death there is usually silence.

So again I say, so we have reached paradise and have eternal life - now what do we do? If it is not an endless search for personal happiness then what can you or your god offer?

 

[Balerion]

Action in the pursuit of happiness in the material world takes the form of acquiring strength, wealth, fame, renunciation, intelligence and/or beauty. So for instance, pious works culminate in fame to be known as such, desperately trying to reverse the aging process is part of beauty and so on with renunciation finally coming in that one can abide by existence even when these plans for acquisition turn to dust. IOW its all about the ebb and flow of material qualities that come into one's field and slip through one's fingers. This is the scope of personal choice in the material world.

Now, if god is present as an undeniable reality, being not only the greatest reservoir but also the source of (ie opulences anywhere else - IOW there is no scope for possessing any of these things outside of god's influence ... ) of these 6 opulences, things become somewhat different ... especially amongst individuals that are similarly established in the undeniable reality of eternal existence (To say it another way, material existence affords having a life where one can work to pursue these opulences, but it is all done in the medium of illusion (aka : death) so no one actually acquires anything anyway) .

IOW if you have individuals who are constitutionally in a position of never falling victim to the notion of material acquisition , then surely they won't be mimicking the model for happiness in the material world (namely the model that places the individual in the center with the desire to acquire a combination of the 6 opulences ... amongst other similarly minded individuals which means that your personal benefit is some one else's loss ... all in the medium of death of course).

Rather, the model is having god in the center.

IOW in the spiritual world not only is there no game to be a "big guy", but there is also no game to deem one's worth on account of their balance of opulences.

This is the manner the two paradigms are radically different. Sure, personal benefit is still there in both, but the currencies they work in are completely opposed to each other.

But God is not really at the center of this model. When someone seeks to please god, they do so because it is in their best interest. This is why these god-pleasing faiths almost always offer some kind of risk-reward system. It always comes back to selfishness.

 

[lightgigantic]

But God is not really at the center of this model. When someone seeks to please god, they do so because it is in their best interest. This is why these god-pleasing faiths almost always offer some kind of risk-reward system. It always comes back to selfishness.

I understand what you are saying about risk/reward systems of religion, and I agree that there is that aspect in some forms (forms relegated to worldly reward) ... but I am talking about something slightly different here.

How can selfishness exist in the absence of moving and shaking some form the 6 opulences as previously mentioned?
For instance we can say that all and any examples of a person being selfish (or envious for that matter) can be defined in accordance with strength, beauty, knowledge, fame, wealth or renunciation. In the absence of these 6 things (ie in an atmosphere where the acquisition of these things become meaningless), what language would selfishness be expressed in?

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,



Your final statement is relevant, while the rest misses the point.

You say "personal benefit is still there in both, but the currencies they work in are completely opposed to each other". I was never particularly interested in the currencies, as they were simply a means to an end - personal happiness/benefit. They are much like a journey, where the destination is the intended goal, it is often true that the journey itself, while transitory, is the most enjoyable part of the event.

The problem is that one "currency" is thoroughly relegated to the arena of selfishness, envy etc (due to its competitive nature) and the other, by dint of working outside these 6 acquisitions in an environment of eternality, doesn't.

While the oppulencies you list will appeal to many, to others they are superficial, each to his own values I guess. That nothing is permament is appreciated by most thinking people, a major oversight by the Gita authors I believe.

On the contrary, I think you would be challenged to indicate a sort after value of material existence that doesn't get defined by such things.
An attitude of dealing with the impermanent is part of renunciation (and even then, its simply a consequence of frustrated material existence - for instance we would like to have molars that wouldn't rot, and in fact even spend lots of money at dentists trying to meet this demand, but in the end we manage to abide by a sort of continued existence where we are not so attached to our teeth - life goes on ...... so they say ... at least for a while)

Since you do not list the currency in the immaterial world it is difficult to see how you can defend your assertion that the two are opposites. I can fully appreciate how they would necessarily be different, but they would be transient and temporary and more so if eternity is involved. This must be true if we remain as individuals and can do things.

In the material world you essential have a relationship model with one's self in the middle and various items of acquisition (including other people) branching out ... and all in a turbulent medium that will shortly cease to exist.
In the other, you have a relationship model with god in the middle, with other's similarly positioned with god in the middle. This model doesn't change. IOW the only "currency" is working relationships (IOW the onl

I stated that the motivation for action is always personal happiness and that is the basis for individual existence, the purpose behind all we do. And that must also be true in an immaterial eternal paradigm. You have done nothing to refute this or offer any alternative. The closest you come is to assert that "..the model is having god in the center..". That is simply unhelpful since it tells us nothing.

On the contrary, it indicates many things - one system necessitates getting things from others in a competitive environment and the other involves doing things for others in a non-competitive environment.

Most religions, yours included it would seem, stress throughout that God is the end result and the center, but when pressed for what happens after earthly death there is usually silence.

From my experience it tends to be cautious presentation, since to the degree one is harboring the bodily concept of life (ie the pursuit of happiness based on acquisition) progressing on to even a philosophical understanding of transcendental life is mostly spoiled.

So again I say, so we have reached paradise and have eternal life - now what do we do? If it is not an endless search for personal happiness then what can you or your god offer?

Think about what you would do if you were as material stable as you could ever want to be. You had heaps of money, so much so that even if you went insane adn tried to spend it all you couldn't, and it was secure. Your health was perfectly fine. Your lifestyle was more than adequate in terms of friends and family. You were knowledgeable on a great many things. You were capable of saying the right thing to the right person at the right time. You were benevolently disposed to numerous charities and research projects across the globe. Your lifestyle was of the highest ethical standard to your liking and all others. Other individuals in power were indebted to the contributions you make to the world. You were well liked as an individual who could make clear judgements and otherwise interact with people in a day to day friendly manner despite having literally the wealth of the world at your feet.

IOW if you had an existence where you were so incredibly opulent that the threat of that opulence being challenged was so far from your mind as to be non-existent (IOW the "journey" of material acquisition and loss had been well and truly done and dusted), in what ways would you act for pleasure? What would make you happy?

 

[Balerion]

I understand what you are saying about risk/reward systems of religion, and I agree that there is that aspect in some forms (forms relegated to worldly reward) ... but I am talking about something slightly different here.

It's not simply worldly reward though. It's also spiritual reward.

How can selfishness exist in the absence of moving and shaking some form the 6 opulences as previously mentioned?
For instance we can say that all and any examples of a person being selfish (or envious for that matter) can be defined in accordance with strength, beauty, knowledge, fame, wealth or renunciation. In the absence of these 6 things (ie in an atmosphere where the acquisition of these things become meaningless), what language would selfishness be expressed in?

You're forgetting self-preservation, which is an important omission since it is our strongest motivator. The best a religious model does is consolidate those "worldly" desires into an all-encompassing promise of everlasting life. It's the same pursuit, it's just more focused. Like playing Powerball instead of five different scratchoff games. And that's only the model; I'm not convinced that people are actually capable of not desiring immediate gratification.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's not simply worldly reward though. It's also spiritual reward.

Acting in a manner purely for the sake of reward tends to fall more in line with material reward

You're forgetting self-preservation, which is an important omission since it is our strongest motivator.

That has already been rendered a non-player for one who is already eternal

The best a religious model does is consolidate those "worldly" desires into an all-encompassing promise of everlasting life. It's the same pursuit, it's just more focused. Like playing Powerball instead of five different scratchoff games. And that's only the model; I'm not convinced that people are actually capable of not desiring immediate gratification.

sometimes it is also called "shotgun religion" the idea of being a bit splayed since it hedges your bets on getting a hit.

Generally not advocated however :

BG 2.44 In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination of devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.

 

[wynn]

That nothing is permament is appreciated by most thinking people, a major oversight by the Gita authors I believe.

People generally wish that their health and wealth would be permanent.
Apart from pharma companies and the like, people generally do not appreciate that health is impermanent, for example.

I stated that the motivation for action is always personal happiness and that is the basis for individual existence, the purpose behind all we do.

Sure. And as we pursue personal happiness, our ideas of what constitutes happiness may change over time.

Most religions, yours included it would seem, stress throughout that God is the end result and the center, but when pressed for what happens after earthly death there is usually silence.

What silence are you referring to? The Abrahamists will generally say that after death, a person either goes to heaven or hell and stays there forever, and the Easterners will generally say that one gets reincarnated in one way or another.

So again I say, so we have reached paradise and have eternal life - now what do we do? If it is not an endless search for personal happiness then what can you or your god offer?

Like I said, as we pursue personal happiness, our ideas of what constitutes happiness may change over time; change so much that they aren't comparable to those with which we begun.
And it is with this in mind that your question needs to be considered.