The Rush To Be Right

seattlegal said:
The rush for me to type "Bumpity bump bump" and push the "reply" button is a function of my belief. {I just love pushing buttons. :D }
Click to expand...
Question is, now that buttons have been pushed..."what's gonna happen?":eek:
 
Tao_Equus said:
So Cyberpi, do you go in for all that old kabbalistic ritual magic thing...or you just in it for the money?
Click to expand...
I told you: I joined it to learn more about the beliefs. Don't count me as just a Freemason... count me as a free-Freemason. Like any organization or doctrine of beliefs I saw evil in it, and a little bit of good.
 
I just love stirring the pot and bringing up classic threads like this one.
seattlegal-albums-emoticons-picture107-stirthepot.gif
 
What is wrong with being right? Is it really that good for a chess player to justify wrong moves? Isn't it better to learn how to find the right move?

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
Click to expand...
Without concern for the objective good as "right" you may end up with a lot of woe.

Perhaps the real question is how to deal with the "wrong."

At times like this I'm happy that I believe as a whole we are in Plato's cave and all "wrong" by objective standards concerning human meaning and purpose. It takes away the need to emotionally defend "right" and the woes associated with it by coming to to see what Socrates did - that we know nothing.
 
Nick_A said:
What is wrong with being right? Is it really that good for a chess player to justify wrong moves? Isn't it better to learn how to find the right move?



Without concern for the objective good as "right" you may end up with a lot of woe.

Perhaps the real question is how to deal with the "wrong."
Click to expand...

Right write rite.

Already covered by others in this thread, but at least you are pointed in the general direction... ;)
 
citizenzen said:
Because it is an illusion?

In all my posts, though I advocate strongly for my opinion, I don't believe that I am "right".

It's just my point of view.
Click to expand...


Because you know you are not that. I get caught up in the idea that I am the role I'm playing sometimes. What a relief it is to remember I am not my ideas, nor even this whole "mark" thing.
I remember once being so caught up in ego that anger was happening at everyone and everything, then right in the grocery store I had that 'salt doll in the ocean" feeling come upon me. The relief was so profound tears came to my eyes.
 
greymare said:
lol, that happens alot in the supermarket, Pal. lol
Click to expand...

Well, it's comforting to know I'm not special :p

So far I have found that those little moment of insight or what might be termed satori are quite common and seemingly ordinary for many people. Unfortunately some tend to deconstruct and thereby pass over one of lifes more interesting features.
Then there are those who show open hostility if you even inquire about these things.
I guess Maslow was right, there are not peakers and non- peakers (persons who have peak experiences and those who do not) but generally those who do and those who eschew the experiences.
Maybe I'm a geek (maybe?) but I find that facinating.
 
Hi Paladin.:)


This quote seems appropriate…

“To seek Buddhahood apart from living beings is like seeking echoes by silencing sounds. So we know that illusion and enlightenment are one road. Ignorance and knowledge are not separate. We make names for what has no name. Because we go by the names, judgments of right and wrong arise. We make rationalisations for what has no reason . Because we rely on rationalisations, arguments and discussions arise. Illusion is not real: who is right, who is wrong? The unreal is not actual: what is empty, what exists? Thus I realise that attainment gains nothing, and loss loses nothing.”
- Layman Hsiang.​
s.
 
Snoopy said:
Hi Paladin.:)


This quote seems appropriate…

“To seek Buddhahood apart from living beings is like seeking echoes by silencing sounds. So we know that illusion and enlightenment are one road. Ignorance and knowledge are not separate. We make names for what has no name. Because we go by the names, judgments of right and wrong arise. We make rationalisations for what has no reason . Because we rely on rationalisations, arguments and discussions arise. Illusion is not real: who is right, who is wrong? The unreal is not actual: what is empty, what exists? Thus I realise that attainment gains nothing, and loss loses nothing.”
- Layman Hsiang.​
s.
Click to expand...
Nice to see you again Snoppy.

The only problem I see with the sentiment is that it sidesteps the importance of evidence in inquiry and ignores the possibility for closure on at least those assertions that are subject to hypothesis testing and cross-validation. In other words, some things ARE knoweable and there may be no practical reason to hide behind a smokescreen of ambiguity or avoid taking a few steps to find evidence that might not settle the issue, but will shed some light on it.

The problem may not be entirely epistemic. It might have more to do with the fact that we have to take the dog for a walk and laundry to do. We're spread too thin to get to the bottom of the questions that concern us and so we just kinda make do with a few convenient "answers."
 
Snoopy said:
Hi Paladin.:)


This quote seems appropriate…

“To seek Buddhahood apart from living beings is like seeking echoes by silencing sounds. So we know that illusion and enlightenment are one road. Ignorance and knowledge are not separate. We make names for what has no name. Because we go by the names, judgments of right and wrong arise. We make rationalisations for what has no reason . Because we rely on rationalisations, arguments and discussions arise. Illusion is not real: who is right, who is wrong? The unreal is not actual: what is empty, what exists? Thus I realise that attainment gains nothing, and loss loses nothing.”
- Layman Hsiang.​
s.
Click to expand...

I missed you snoopy :)
 
Netti-Netti said:
Nice to see you again Snoppy.

The only problem I see with the sentiment is that it sidesteps the importance of evidence in inquiry and ignores the possibility for closure on at least those assertions that are subject to hypothesis testing and cross-validation. In other words, some things ARE knoweable and there may be no practical reason to hide behind a smokescreen of ambiguity or avoid taking a few steps to find evidence that might not settle the issue, but will shed some light on it.

The problem may not be entirely epistemic. It might have more to do with the fact that we have to take the dog for a walk and laundry to do. We're spread too thin to get to the bottom of the questions that concern us and so we just kinda make do with a few convenient "answers."
Click to expand...


Netti, as an aside, do you subscribe to the MBTI as a valid model? If not I'll shut up, but I was wondering if you might not be an ISTJ.
 
Paladin said:
Netti, as an aside, do you subscribe to the MBTI as a valid model? If not I'll shut up, but I was wondering if you might not be an ISTJ.
Click to expand...
Good of you to respond to my post, Paladin. :D:D:D

I ribbed you once and it seems you're still fighting back. I suppose we could be wasting our time in other ways. :)

All in good faith.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Good of you to respond to my post, Paladin. :D:D:D

I ribbed you once and it seems you're still fighting back. I suppose we could be wasting our time in other ways. :)

All in good faith.
Click to expand...

Darn, I just lost five bucks! I bet someone you would just tell me to bugger off:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top