Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by timesurfer, Jan 16, 2012.
This thread is open to interpretation.
IMHO We all win and those who insist on it are a discordant tone in the symphony of life
People are not bad, Its the condition which makes them bad (Nice line, huh?)
lol...And who creates conditions on earth, well the dolphins aren't doing it ...lol
Hard to tell the difference between good heart people and those who just want to win.
It is because it assumes that there are two of it. The one who recognizes the 'good heart' / the one who wants 'to win'.... and the other.
'To tell' also assumes to use words.
To recognize a good heart you need to know what a good heart actually is. Also what 'to win' actually means.
There are attributes which are of a good heart. Also words (only). To win assumes one is lacking of something he thinks he needs or he never has had.
I think the entire religions are about it.
What else can I say?.....I'd have to differentiate when I go on with my reply...and it would be my definition...endlessly discussible.
A good heart is the source of 'everybody'. Love is its nature. Communication beyond words. People who recognize each others good heart are like brothers and sisters. Actually we are all....brothers and sisters.
To rely on the source means to be of a good heart.
Sorry for the poor reply.
I was watching the last episode of californication and the father was speaking to the daughter hinting that the guy she was dating was a player and that he knew cause he had been a player and he was just saying that she should consider who loved her and who just wanted her...
I never have watched californication. So it's hard to comment that scene
Father / daughter relationship is hardly affected by desire or even sex....at datings both matters for sure....so the father can argue with love...he also has had when he had been a player
The father wants to protect her by hinting, but some things need to be experienced to get it.....the father thinks to be a player is something bad, but he had been a player though.
The word ' good' and 'bad' are human construct, no one is inherently good or bad in my opinion.
This is absolutely right.
But beyond these there is something, their source. This 'something' is recognizable as a 'good heart'.
I don't know but I think you know people you can say they have a 'good heart', but it's not in the aspect of dualism (good / bad).
It's simply not explanable, but noticeable...they are of love, altruistic and never cause somebody suffering....
I know it is not necessary for me to say this but to me it is important.
I see that your heart is true to it's source and meeting you in this way is an honor. Peace
I agree with you mam' I refer my post to Kido . I think all events are neutral in nature in the sense that the gainers call it good and loosers call it bad. Also what is good for an individual today may turn out to be bad for him tomorrow . So I think good and bad are observer dependent or time dependent or as I said earlier is purely human construct. Mam' is there any love that is altruistic ?
To be of love has the natural consequence of of being altruistic as a virtue.
I know you mean no disrespect but the Mam that you speak of is an assumption on your part. You must be certain before you use that address. Right?
Every relationship or act has selfishness at it's core. Altruism is ultimately self serving. Everything we do is to satisfy the self 'us' one cannot deny that. Even a selfless deed, a selfless gesture has some sort of gratification in itself to us..so there can not be a relationship that is selfless.
Even if a mother takes care of a baby to the most ultimate limits, it is ultimately to satisfy her'self'. If she did not take care of the baby, her 'self' would not be satisfied. Obviously that is not selfless is it ?
The word altruistic is to describe someone outside of ones perception of self.
The holy relationship is born from selflessness. To be of love is to experience nothing outside of ones self.
I mean no disrespect to anyone or their point of view.
One of the more valuable things I have learned in my lifetime is to watch and see the dynamics of our men's council.
When a young man is allowed into the circle it is the most difficult time for some for this reason. The dynamics go like this. The eldest speak first and progresses downward to the youngest. This serves many purposes but the one of importance here is that by the time the youngest speaks anything that he thought was important in the beginning has been washed away by those who spoke before him if they are listening. To be present and not listen when someone is speaking causes only embarrassment to ones self. The elders know this all to well because they were young once too.
Inner affinity surfaces when one relies on the source. You honor and meet actually the Self. Peace.
No words to add.
I have never been called mam', but this is funny. My avatar is female, but I like the avatar in the aspect of art and nice looking. I am male.
Is there anything else real but 'this' love?
Since I am male I never will have the chance to be a mother. Anyway I try to answer, even though I might be misunderstood.
Well as you have posted by yourself, it is you that perceives the 'mother' determining that her act is not selfless.
The general question is: Is there any action that can be altruistic at all as long as you think you are your body, as long there is an ego?
You need to figure this by yourself. In that aspect I don't like the word selfless it leads to confusion egoless would be better, altruism actually means without intent, to intend is the nature of the ego.
There must be 'somebody' that can have an intent. This somebody is illusionary, it's an image created by your ego. 'the mother and the idea of yourself'. As long these are parted images there can be no altruism.
To Mr Acrsn and Redroad,
All definitions of altruism, so far I have come across, is a little variant of : altruism is "selfless", and most people tend to think of it as such. We are taught from a very early age to put the needs of others ahead of our own, and our elders describe it as selfless act; we are also taught that selfishness is not a good thing, or being selfish is bad. In this way, we tend to dichotomies actions, whether some particular action performed by Mr. X is unselfish or not. And if ever we come across statements like "there is nothing such as unselfish act", we reject it out rightly, probably without giving it some "serious" thought, thanks to our prejudices.
But I have to put this question specifically : is there really any such thing as an unselfish act? I think, no. When a person performs some action which we usually consider "unselfish" act, say charity, does he not get anything in return? ANYTHING in ANY sense? Obviously, in order to act, one has to be moved by some personal motive; one has to "want" something, in some sense, to perform the action; there is always some self-interest of the person who performs the action.
For example, most parents "value" and "love" their children; therefore the children are "an extension" to their self-interest. At first, it seems that parents' taking care of their children is an example of an unselfish concern, because they take care of their children, without expecting anything in return. But that is not true.
Taking care of the children is parents' need. Without satisfying those needs, parents cannot become happy. There are also parents who do not take care of their children, but are still enjoying their life. Why? Because, children of such parents are not "an extension" of their "need". Both kind of parents are selfish; the only difference between them is, in the former case parents' need includes children also, whereas the need of parents of the latter kind excludes children. I'm not saying that the parents of the former kind, are bad, since their taking care of their children are being driven by their selfishness, as one might think. No, they are not bad; goodness or badness of a 'deliberate' or 'consciously performed' action is to be determined by "how" it affects others, not by "why" it is performed.
I therefore think selfishness is not always bad. The prime reason why people don't consider parents (of the former kind) selfish, is because they regard selfishness as vice, not virtue; that is why they have invented words like altruism or altruistic concern, though it never happens. The mere fact that this word 'altruism' exists, does not mean that people behave altruistically.
If you say, as a husband, you want the best things for your wife, and you'll do everything to take care of her, then I would probably think of you as "very caring", and "loving" husband; that makes you a "good" husband, I would say. Of course, you're. But then, loving and caring her is "your" need.
The expression "I love you", essentially means, "I value you". This expression is just an admission of the fact that "I" have expanded my "self" to include the person who "I" value, care, and love. These values of "I" are by no stretch of the imagination selfless but rather selfish because they are what "I" value in life and I will do everything necessary to take care of them. The person who I value, is just an extension of my being. She is no more "other". The "other" have simply vanished.
In a nut shell...what I mean, this term "altruism" should not exist in the first place.. because, there is absolutely nothing that this term describes... every action can be described as selfish...altruism as such does not exist ! Can you give any example (even hypothetical) that you perform an act and you do not receive anything or nothing is anticipated, be it happiness (abstract) or economic (material) or the likes?
please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm extremely sorry for misjudging the avatar (we tend to show what we're not and hide what we are) and I don't mean to disrespect you in any way sir . Again sorry.
How stupid am I to miss such an important statement ? I apologies for my ignorance. Thanks for your concern.
No problem, you don't have to be sorry, it was funny. It's nice to have you here contributing, I enjoy. To talk to different people from different countries / cultures makes up one's mind. I hadn't the chance yet to visit your fascinating country, culture to be a live part of it, at least a few weeks.
Last year I have been on Sri Lanka, though.
You are not wrong with your post. I would not say hide, but we have an ideal, busy with hunting for it, an imagination also.
I do not say I like to be a woman, lol, but I am also affected with hunting an idea.
It's like you imagine who you want to be, or even more what you need to be the one. Then you try to realize / reach it, when realized your imagination has changed already, the hunt never ends. So one can waste the entire life.
If the hunt becomes a major part in your life, your 'good heart' becomes buried.
When once buried deep it cannot take effect and the actions become more and more Self-alienated, lol. History showed us such persons, dictators. Their own intention is to spread suffer, they are full of hate.
The warmth of the good heart has become cold.
Hence I find it important (especially it will be quite natural when you are older) to have cultivated a calm anchor..where you can rely on the source to feel the warmth that ever is.
Everybody has to find its own.
When still young this all sounds odd.