A Short Mouse Tail, er, Tale
I once knew a man who every Saturday morning made himself a kite, flew it, and then destroyed it. He went through the process almost as if it were a ritual. He started almost always at the same time, built the kite to the same specifications, attached the tail of a certain length, and heisted the kite using the same technique, perching the kite on a fence post -- the same one -- letting out a little slack in the line, then running off as fast as he could to give the kite a sudden launching. The kite always took right off into a perfect flight. After a few minutes, the man reeled in the kite, and completed the ritual. He destroyed only the kite, keeping the string and the tail intact for next Saturday's action.
After witnessing the procedure for several Saturdays I asked the man why he was doing it. He replied without hesitation, "I believe that every day we ought to do something we don't want to do. I hate flying kites."
Well, that was about 50 years ago, and as I have grown older and retired from the money chase, it seems that anything I feel I must do is something I don't want to do. And being a quintessentially lazy man, I have transformed the kite-flying man's watchword into one that suits me much better than his would. Even though I agree that our character can be improved by doing something distasteful everyday, I find it distasteful to do what I am supposed to do. So every day, I give in to the urge to do nothing, fully convinced that I really do not wish to spend my life doing nothing.
Thanks, kite-flying man. I could never have reached this life-saving commitment without your fine example to guide me.
After witnessing the procedure for several Saturdays I asked the man why he was doing it. He replied without hesitation, "I believe that every day we ought to do something we don't want to do. I hate flying kites."
Well, that was about 50 years ago, and as I have grown older and retired from the money chase, it seems that anything I feel I must do is something I don't want to do. And being a quintessentially lazy man, I have transformed the kite-flying man's watchword into one that suits me much better than his would. Even though I agree that our character can be improved by doing something distasteful everyday, I find it distasteful to do what I am supposed to do. So every day, I give in to the urge to do nothing, fully convinced that I really do not wish to spend my life doing nothing.
Thanks, kite-flying man. I could never have reached this life-saving commitment without your fine example to guide me.
posted by Benedict S. at 6:11 AM
14 Comments:
I personally like to fly kites,I like to put those long furry tails on mine,they don't weigh much so it doesn't put much payload on the actual kite.Mine goes a long way up into the sky and that furry tail flaps wildly about in the wind.I also like different shapes and sizes with my kites but I always keep the same tail.
There are other things in my life I don't like doing but not kite flying.
I really don't see how doing something you don't like as a form of self- discipline would be character building.Perhaps the old man was trying to avoid something he found even more distasteful since flying a kite when one finds it distasteful seems a waste of time, especially since kite flying is normally done purely for entertainment.
Life is much more fullfilling when we do the things we have to do, get them out of the way and then pursue the things we love. Somehow I think the mouse lives this way, despite his mendacious tendencies toward the absurd.
Robin: Each to his or her own dislikes.
CE: I think the idea was that by doing things we'd rather not do we train our mind to be obedient to "us" and not simply to itself. To explain that completely would be more of a chore than I feel up to this fine morning (click on "Spinoza's Ethics for the full view), but said simply, it goes something like this . . .
Much of the mental activity that drives our behavior occurs unconsciously. But only by consciousness can we identify ourselves as an ego. Like all real-world functions, the data-management work of the brain would be much easier (for it) if it were free of the necessity to serve the conscious needs of the ego. Consequently, the needs of the ego and of the brain (as a mechanism) are in conflict. And while the ego has been much maligned as the "source of all evil," it is also the source of all aesthetic experience. We would not be human in any sense -- good or evil -- without the ego. So-o-o-o, if we are to maintain control over our bodies -- of which the brain is a part -- we must train ourselves to mastery. Hence, we must do some things our brains would find ways to not do.
BTW. The "old man" -- as you call him -- was a self-made millionaire and, so far as I know, a man of moral goodness. I won't say that he got that way from flying kites against the will of his body, but in a more general sense, I will say that we obtain our ethical view of God's reality not by simply acquiescing to the demands of unconscious drives, but rather by the kind of "seeing" that consciousness makes possible.
First some house cleaning- I did not mean to disparage the kite flyer, I had the impression that he was an old man somehow from what I read- by no means do I mean the term to be derogatory, if I gave that impression I am sorry.I appreciate the wisdom and the experience of old men, I often respectfully bow to thier broader view understanding that thier longer lives have afforded them an understanding that I have not yet obtained. In short, I cherish the wisdom of my elders.
Second, I believe that in order for this premise to operate as you have described its function the discipline would have to serve a greater purpose that would, out of necessity, be found outside ourselves. By training our mind to obey "us" we are only training it to do what it does naturally. While I agree that much of our brain activity occurs on the subconcious level , I believe that even subconcious behavior is driven by outside stimuli that has been internally processed. We do, indeed, obtain communion with God through a concious denial of our selves, but that denial must have as its aim a concious goal of obtaining a closer relationship with God.
To take the premise you have described out to its most extreme conclusion, I suppose that you would have to see value in hair shirts and self- flagellation; honestly, I see no value in either of these practices.
Be blessed! Respectfully, Carl
The brain is part of the physical body just like the ego is and yes for sure both could care less about you. That which comes and goes, rises and sets, is born and dies is the ego. That which always abides, never changes and is devoid of quantities is the Self. I suppose one has to sublimate the ego - self
The ego self does not exist at all.
The fact is that none of the things we have an instinctive reaction to, either the pleasurable ones we chase around or the awful ones we try to avoid at all cost, have anything to do with what 'good and evil' means. We just think so highly of ourselves and our instincts that we call oranges apples and that goes
with our instincts as well so we let it by.
Then why does it give so much trouble?
To whom is the trouble? The trouble also is imagined. Pain
and pleasure are to the ego, which is itself imagined. When the ego
disappears through constant enquiry into its nature, the illusion of
pleasure and pain also disappears, and the Self, their source, alone
remains. There is neither ego nor ignorance reality.
Origins of evil would be more along the lines of a conversation about social animals recognizing each other and differentiating each other from the enemy outside for which there are no punishments for killing or whatever. As a dog
shows signs of having done wrong when punished so this is the origin of evil, a conception of social order emerging out of natural selection.
John. Well said. The ego is indeed an imagination. After writing my reply to CE I thought perhaps I should have referred more directly to the emotions. They are, after all, illustrative of the double-edge of the brain/mind's activity. They have a conscious side and a physical side. Some of our emotions are "good," as when we experience the deep and abiding love of God. Some are not so good. The aim of the "training" I referred to is to somehow condition our physical/mental selves so that we become more and more conscious of the difference between operating on automatic pilot and on consciously directed life.
I'll read your reply several more times and perhaps -- if the spirit moves me -- make it the subject of tomorrow's blog. (Skipped today. Nothing to say, not even an absurdity.)
CE: If I took my theory to its extreme I would certainly have to understand why it is that some people take self-flagellation seriously. They are, after all, human beings, one brain per body. Their brains just appear to have been wired in what seems a harmful manner. In any case, they're programmed differently. Can't escape having to live with difference.
Self-flagellation,that's a good question.From Matthew 5:
11 Blessed are you when people insult you[1], persecute you and falsely[2]
say all kinds of evil things against you because of me[3].
12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for
in the same way they persecuted the prophets[4] who were before you..
After all, what do we use self-flagellation for? To
punish the flesh and by that means control it. To expiate our sins with pain.
Ah,emotions- emotions are geographical logical locations
in the mind. Emotions impress the images like impressing an image
in clay. The more emotion the deeper the imprint.From theologian John Haught:"Faith is the sense of being grasped by this higher dimension, or more
comprehensive, or deeper reality," says Haught. "If we could come up with clear proof or an absolutely mathematically lucid proof or verification of deity, then that would not be deity — it would be something smaller than
us.…"
First, self-flagellation is a useless exercise as a means to "expiate" sins with pain. Just so I am clear, I see no meaningful use for self-flagellation.
Second, the quote from Matthew % has nothing to do with self-flagellation. It is an exhortation to followers of Christ who ARE persecuted for expressing thier faith. Persecution is not the end Christians seek when they express thier faith, but it is a real by-product of faith in Christ.
Third, the self exists and has purpose- if reality is only imagined we may as well all stay home on our couch and make believe.If John were right about this there would be no need to fly kites or to write blogs.
Ce says-Third, the self exists and has purpose- if reality is only imagined we may as well all stay home on our couch and make believe.If John were right about this there would be no need to fly kites or to write blogs.
If we take things to it's tenth degree surely all is the creator because there is nothing else to create from? How can one know with certainty that they were created by one? Where is the outside that allows me to know the inside? are not in the end both the same? Perception being the only
division. If there is only one creator and if it were to have gender it would be mother for it gave birth to us. Father was a title given to it by men when they were the dominate gender, times have change and perhaps it is
time to remove gender from the creator perhaps even that it is humanoid in form, another creation by man. Every word that has been written down owes it's existence to mankind. Every belief to be followed was created by mankind. The validity of any belief is judged by mankind, we are the rule makers and breakers.
And how can we know that there is a creator? It is an assumption
projected into the world based on our faulty perception of what we
really are.
God is neither male nor female- God is Spirit. We know that God exists because the Spirit of God bears witness to our souls, if you choose not to believe the Spirit of God you have acted out your own free-will. We are not God nor are we gods, God exists within and without the space-time continum, God is not creation, God is the creator.
Your confusion can not be masked by your many words, the more you write the more your confusion is revealed, JK .
Ce The only proof around here is proof of your lack of ability to write a
coherent post and your even greater lack of ability to understand one.I am not confused,my eyes are not dimmed by religious dogma nor my mind thick with old mens tales,thank you.
Define Will first --> then define Free Will.
If present free will decisions depend on previous free will decisions,when did one freely choose his original starting point?
And if present free will depends on previous free will, isn't that
free will determined by it's antecedents anyway, just like determinism?
According to your view,it does not make sense for God to come and save us from the sins we had no other choice but commiting. What a "strange" act by God that would be!
But, if the world is non-deterministic, that means an Omniscient God cannot exist since if He knows everything He must also know the future, therefore the future exists and there is determinism. But if God is not Omniscient, He is not God.
Therefore, if God exists, then there is no free will.
This does not mean that if God does not exist there is free will.
According to your view,it does not make sense for God to come and save us from the sins we had no other choice but commiting. What a "strange" act by God that would be! John
" Your assignment of what my view is is incorrect- I don't agree that we have no choice but to commit sins, we have a choice and that choice, that individual choice time and time again is the definition of free will." CE
But, if the world is non-deterministic, that means an Omniscient God cannot exist since if He knows everything He must also know the future, therefore the future exists and there is determinism. But if God is not Omniscient, He is not God.John
" The fact that God knows the future does not eliminate anyone's free- will, anymore than the fact that I knew you would come back with this sort of confused personal attacking post removed your free-will. God knows what we will choose in the future, He hasn't determined that we make those choices- your argument on this part is canned and groundless."CE
Therefore, if God exists, then there is no free will. John
" Nonsense!" CE
This does not mean that if God does not exist there is free will. John
"So you are stacking the argument on both sides-but that is ok because I know you are wrong on both counts." CE
"The evidence that God exists is all around you John, open your eyes and you will see the truth."
never-the-less, maranatha
Of course since you are a Christian fundementalist you can't accept that someone else may not agree with your beliefs. I personally don't care,Now what you say that makes no since to me is the the aspect that we are
"controlled" by God. We are too a point because He is omnipotent and
He can bring about things in us in various ways yet I did reread romans
and the things you talk about don't add up. You deliberately misunderstand what I said because you read the bible and that twists your brain.
Your example was not the best because we have differing views, I think God would want us to tell the truth just as I think if the same thing happened to Jesus he would tell the truth, yet the truth might not be what we think it is. Why do you create these examples that you yourself know to be irrelevant. Your knowledge is probabilistic.
Absolute knowledge can only be absolute if there is no possibility for variation.
If the final outcome is the only possible outcome, then there
was never any free will. Free will says that there are choices
to be made and that a choice could go one way or another. It
there is only one possible outcome, then there is only one
possible choice at every point to that outcome. And if there
is only one choice, then that is no choice at all and there is
no free will. This is the truth and all none relious people agree with me.
Of course since you are a Christian fundementalist you can't accept that someone else may not agree with your beliefs. John
First, I am not a fundamentalist but you will insist that I am. Second, I can accept that you disagree with me, but you enaged me in this conversation John, and I refuse to let your distortions go unanswered.CE
I personally don't care,Now what you say that makes no since to me is the the aspect that we are
"controlled" by God.John
Where did I say we are "controlled" by God? I said that God has given us freewill. You are the one who said, or at least implied that we don't have freewill.CE
We are too a point because He is omnipotent and
He can bring about things in us in various ways John
So you believe in an omnipotent God? Hmmm. CE
yet I did reread romans
and the things you talk about don't add up. John
Really? Where did I quote or refer to Romans and how does my understanding not add up to what is said in Romans? Please explain this to me, I am eager to learn!
You deliberately misunderstand what I said because you read the bible and that twists your brain. John
First it's Bible- a proper noun should always be capitalized John!
Second I think if we were having a twisted mind contest you would win.CE
Your example was not the best because we have differing views, John
My personal example, an example of scripture I posted? What are you talking about? CE
I think God would want us to tell the truth just as I think if the same thing happened to Jesus he would tell the truth, yet the truth might not be what we think it is. John
I agree. I believe that the truth is not what you think it is! CE
Why do you create these examples that you yourself know to be irrelevant. Your knowledge is probabilistic.John
I disagree- you have said you are a gnostic and I believe that Christianity is more probable than gnosticism. CE
Absolute knowledge can only be absolute if there is no possibility for variation. John
But faith is the proof of what we have not seen. CE
If the final outcome is the only possible outcome, then there
was never any free will. Free will says that there are choices
to be made and that a choice could go one way or another.John
True but as I explaine rather clearly, foreknowledge does not equal a lack of freedom. CE
If there is only one possible outcome, then there is only one
possible choice at every point to that outcome. And if there
is only one choice, then that is no choice at all and there is
no free will.John
But there are multiple choices and our disagreement proves that. CE
This is the truth and all none relious people agree with me. John
It is truth you say,is it also absolute knowledge? CE
Post a Comment
<< Home