I hate to be argumentative, but I think you're wrong when you say that a person's Self and their decisions/behaviors are separate. It leads to the notion that our actions in life unfold around us rather than as a matter of choice, conscious or otherwise
( ... )
I never said that a person does not govern their actions. Quite the contrary. A person's actions do come from the self, but they are not the self. To change your actions is not in fact to change yourself.
Who you are does not come with a discrete set of reactions to stimulus. If I poke you you might squirm, scream, poke back, laugh, or any number of other things. How you respond is your choice, not just a thing that will happen because you are who you are.
This does not shift blame or responsibilty from a person regarding their actions and move it onto circumstances or upbringing or what have you. It does the opposite it says that you, who you are, your core self, are responsible for what you do. But you are not what you do, and therefore you can change it
( ... )
well said, as usual YOU WILL STILL DIEEEEEEEEEE!ensurientchaos_April 6 2006, 11:16:59 UTC
"Accept your immutable core self as a given, and say what you mean: "I will change my undesirable behaviors." I say man cannot change, but he can unfold. He can evolve his outward self into a creature more like his self. " ----Prime
"None shall be cast down or lifted up. Ye shall be as ye are and not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be kings forever. The slaves shall serve." ----Liber Al
Hmm, 1) What self? (Really!) It seems like God-talk. Your self could be replaced with the word God and sound like a generic theological system. So, I mean to say, what evidence do you have of this self? It seems to be reducible to a thought you believe.
2) You don't have to be a fully enlightened Buddhist to understand no-self. No-self may not be what you think. You weren't sniping were you? ;-)
3) I suppose I would disagree with your bolded statement, but that would be easier to see with clarification of #1. Same with most things. You lost me at your first assumption. :-)
The first assumption was based on gut and observation, mostly. We hould talk in person if you want to discuss this, I just got off work and my brain is the fuzz.
And no, I wasn't sniping. You may not have to be a buddhist to understand no-self, but I think you do have to be one to actually believe it, and act the part. Or so says me. Which is what this is all about, no?
You're the sniper. "What nonsense." Mr. Meanie McMean. :P
Comments 11
Reply
Who you are does not come with a discrete set of reactions to stimulus. If I poke you you might squirm, scream, poke back, laugh, or any number of other things. How you respond is your choice, not just a thing that will happen because you are who you are.
This does not shift blame or responsibilty from a person regarding their actions and move it onto circumstances or upbringing or what have you. It does the opposite it says that you, who you are, your core self, are responsible for what you do. But you are not what you do, and therefore you can change it ( ... )
Reply
YOU FOOL!
YOU WILL DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Reply
And preordained for death.
Sigh.
Reply
----Prime
"None shall be cast down or lifted up. Ye shall be as ye are and not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be kings forever. The slaves shall serve."
----Liber Al
Reply
Reply
So you believe this and have built a system around it. Does that mean it's true? I suppose you may not care.
Reply
Reply
1) What self? (Really!) It seems like God-talk. Your self could be replaced with the word God and sound like a generic theological system. So, I mean to say, what evidence do you have of this self? It seems to be reducible to a thought you believe.
2) You don't have to be a fully enlightened Buddhist to understand no-self. No-self may not be what you think. You weren't sniping were you? ;-)
3) I suppose I would disagree with your bolded statement, but that would be easier to see with clarification of #1. Same with most things. You lost me at your first assumption. :-)
Reply
And no, I wasn't sniping. You may not have to be a buddhist to understand no-self, but I think you do have to be one to actually believe it, and act the part. Or so says me. Which is what this is all about, no?
You're the sniper. "What nonsense." Mr. Meanie McMean. :P
Reply
Leave a comment