mindyourmind wrote:tobes wrote:
people learning French,
Unacceptable.
Such bad karma !!
Sönam
mindyourmind wrote:tobes wrote:
people learning French,
Unacceptable.
Such bad karma !!
tobes wrote:There is nothing fixed about the law of karma, because in the human world at least, there are at least 7 billion different actions taking place here and now, on a wide ranging spectrum from wholesome to unwholesome. Why assume that there is continuity between them all?
I agree that the Western idea of linear time is something of a theological fantasy. But this does not mean that the Indian idea of cyclical time is correct and in accord with natural observations. Just like....well, Mt Meru is probably not at the centre of the universe.....
Adamantine wrote:Whereas linear time has not observable basis, we live continually in cycles of time which can be observed: a single day and night with it's cycle of sleep and waking, the four seasons making a yearly cycle, larger astrological/astronomical cycles, etc. It is clear that our day-to-day is dependent on larger cycles of the planets and stars, and that this is the way our universe functions.
mr. gordo wrote:No one here holds the optimistic view of Kurzweil's Singularity?![]()


Namdrol wrote:Have you been to China? The place is a disaster. Crowded, polluted, etc. The place is a dump. They ruined their forests centuries ago, their western border is being desertified very quickly. They are busy destroying the enviroment of Tibet, etc.
They can be optimistic, but then people do like to gild shit.
N

Huseng wrote:mr. gordo wrote:No one here holds the optimistic view of Kurzweil's Singularity?![]()
Computers becoming conscious means Skynet.
Astus wrote:Those speaking the rhetoric of decline are "more interested in establishing a particular orthodoxy of “true teaching” than in voicing historical predictions of actual decline, prophetic warnings of moral failings, or existential statements about humankind’s capacity for realization. In fact, the beginnings of the Buddhist tradition of decline are best understood as a rhetoric of orthodoxy that marks the appearance of doctrinal differentiation in the Buddhist community. The elements of this argument can be found throughout the various canons, but always in the sense of an exhortation to adhere to the true teachings lest the predicted decline actually come to pass. It was also in China that we first encounter individuals convinced that the predicted demise had actually arrived, due in part to a preexisting and pervasive indigenous discourse of decline. In an interesting twist, the dominant use in China of the Buddhist polemic of orthodoxy was to legitimize new teachings, of which the Three Levels is one example. An important reason for this was that the decline came to be seen in terms of a decline in human nature, a claim about the corrupt existential condition of living beings rather than a decline of time or doctrine."
(Jamie Hubbard: Absolute delusion, perfect Buddhahood : the rise and fall of a Chinese heresy, p. 35)
Huseng wrote:mr. gordo wrote:No one here holds the optimistic view of Kurzweil's Singularity?![]()
Computers becoming conscious means Skynet.
Adamantine wrote:Astus wrote:Those speaking the rhetoric of decline are "more interested in establishing a particular orthodoxy of “true teaching” than in voicing historical predictions of actual decline, prophetic warnings of moral failings, or existential statements about humankind’s capacity for realization. In fact, the beginnings of the Buddhist tradition of decline are best understood as a rhetoric of orthodoxy that marks the appearance of doctrinal differentiation in the Buddhist community. The elements of this argument can be found throughout the various canons, but always in the sense of an exhortation to adhere to the true teachings lest the predicted decline actually come to pass. It was also in China that we first encounter individuals convinced that the predicted demise had actually arrived, due in part to a preexisting and pervasive indigenous discourse of decline. In an interesting twist, the dominant use in China of the Buddhist polemic of orthodoxy was to legitimize new teachings, of which the Three Levels is one example. An important reason for this was that the decline came to be seen in terms of a decline in human nature, a claim about the corrupt existential condition of living beings rather than a decline of time or doctrine."
(Jamie Hubbard: Absolute delusion, perfect Buddhahood : the rise and fall of a Chinese heresy, p. 35)
academic gibberish. why are you quoting it?
mr. gordo wrote:No one here holds the optimistic view of Kurzweil's Singularity?![]()
mr. gordo wrote:No one here holds the optimistic view of Kurzweil's Singularity?![]()
kirtu wrote:mr. gordo wrote:No one here holds the optimistic view of Kurzweil's Singularity?![]()
Kurzweil does of course. The fact that Bill Joy doesn't should give us pause. Personally I'm in between - our future could be more like Dick predicted.
BTW - the job before I quite working for a Fortune 100 or so major defense contractor was writing expert systems to help diagnose operating system issues. Unfortunately our group was attacked by other groups socially and I was the last to turn out the lights. So now no one uses this really good software. As Bill Joy acknowledges we will be successful at AI from an engineering perspective. However that just lets the monied bosses extend their control over our lives *if they retain the power that artificial intelligence at various levels can provide).
To some extent we have already seen information technology used in mass murder: arguably the Holocaust for example. Probably in Yugoslavia too.
Kirt
tobes wrote:How exactly are you able to determine that previous historical periods have not also been chaotic, immoral, difficult???
We have no vantage point but our own time. No one denies that things are shit now. Question is, how do you know that things weren't shit before?
LastLegend wrote:tobes wrote:How exactly are you able to determine that previous historical periods have not also been chaotic, immoral, difficult???
We have no vantage point but our own time. No one denies that things are shit now. Question is, how do you know that things weren't shit before?
1)There is a decline in human values. More emphasis is put on material things. Materialistic philosophy is the current model of thinking.
2)Let's take a look at the chaotic characteristics of society today. For example, lets talk about family dysfunction.
5 Precepts are no killing, stealing, sexual misconducts, lies, and alcohol (and drugs). Sexual misconducts, cheating for example is one important factor that causes divorce. Alchohol and drugs are one important factor that causes domestic violence. Stealing is to take advantage, for example, refusing to work is stealing.Sitting at home and doing nothing is stealing. So stealing is not contributing or giving but taking. Killing the family. Lies often go with cheating, not being in a relationship. These are the things that contribute to family dysfunction. What happen to children who grow up in these settings? And how will these children affect society? We see all kind of characters and stories in society these days. More so than before? Yes.

tobes wrote:LastLegend wrote:tobes wrote:How exactly are you able to determine that previous historical periods have not also been chaotic, immoral, difficult???
We have no vantage point but our own time. No one denies that things are shit now. Question is, how do you know that things weren't shit before?
1)There is a decline in human values. More emphasis is put on material things. Materialistic philosophy is the current model of thinking.
2)Let's take a look at the chaotic characteristics of society today. For example, lets talk about family dysfunction.
5 Precepts are no killing, stealing, sexual misconducts, lies, and alcohol (and drugs). Sexual misconducts, cheating for example is one important factor that causes divorce. Alchohol and drugs are one important factor that causes domestic violence. Stealing is to take advantage, for example, refusing to work is stealing.Sitting at home and doing nothing is stealing. So stealing is not contributing or giving but taking. Killing the family. Lies often go with cheating, not being in a relationship. These are the things that contribute to family dysfunction. What happen to children who grow up in these settings? And how will these children affect society? We see all kind of characters and stories in society these days. More so than before? Yes.
Well, from what standpoint do you assert that? From the cultural viewpoint of an American? A citizen of the world (who sees all the world)?? Do you think your claims are true in all parts of the world?
"The world is becoming increasingly materialist." How exactly do you know this?
Let's stay within the confines of America: it used to be that white people could have black people as slaves. There was an official policy of segregation.
Do you think it is a declining moral value that this is no longer acceptable?
My point is not to deny that certain things have declined. But simply to point out that certain things have, at the same time, also progressed.
There is no easy narrative here.....
tobes wrote:There is no easy narrative here.....

Adamantine wrote:academic gibberish. why are you quoting it?
Users browsing this forum: Astus and 6 guests