Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> I am talking in general. In the human affairs, all general statements
>>> admit many exception. Don't take me too much seriously.
>>> Just saying that in the fundamental inquiry, dogma are problematic.
>>> In science (when working well) there is no dogma, nor any ontological
>>> commitment. There are only ontological requirements in hypothetical
>>> theories.
>> Honestly, I begin to question that. We can be dogmatic on goodness,
> Not sure about that. It is the error of many "religion". It is the  
> error of the prohibitionists. It is the error of those who pretend to  
> know what is good for you. Some doctors in some region of the world  
> does that error almost systematically too.
It is difficult. I am definitely not endorsing people who say what is good
for you. With dogmatic on goodness I didn't mean dogmatic about what
goodness is, just that it is.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I think.
>> Just because we have the need to believe in it,
> Either you are lucky enough to meet some "good" thing, and you believe  
> in goodness.
> Or you are so unlucky you never meet something good (which might be  
> logically impossible, but let us forget this here), in which case I  
> doubt any dogma can help.
Yes, you are right here.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> otherwise science makes no
>> sense. Why do science if the world is screwed anyway?
> You know the koan of the zen master who, for escaping bandits, fall  
> from a cliff, but remains hanged two seconds, and see a blueberry,  
> and ... eat it, and enjoy it, just before falling and dying.
> We can do science for many reason, for the personal fun, but also to  
> provide some help to unscrew the world a little bit.
Yeah... One might argue that even believing in the possibility of fun or
unscrewing the world needs some dogma of goodness, if it consists only in
the possibility of anything good. If we question the possibility of anything
good... Well, is this even truly possible?

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> That can happen too, but does not contradict what you were saying.
>>>>> It is important to keep this in mind in real life. I have seen  
>>>>> people
>>>>> dying form disease, mainly because their friends made them guilty  
>>>>> of
>>>>> it. They think : "If you are sick, you must have done something
>>>>> wrong". But this is a wishful thinking to appease their own fear of
>>>>> the disease. This is a rare thing which I don't follow in some
>>>>> buddhist school: that if something bad happen to you, it is due  
>>>>> to an
>>>>> error you have made in some preview life. But this eliminate too  
>>>>> much
>>>>> contingencies a priori. They may be right, or they may be wrong.  
>>>>> I am
>>>>> just very *agnostic* on this. With comp, we cannot avoid a part of
>>>>> contingency, like the WM duplication already illustrates.
>>>> OK. I am not at all saying that we suffer for doing wrong. Sometimes
>>>> we do,
>>>> but more often than not, we don't, and the worst suffering usually
>>>> occurs
>>>> when you did nothing wrong. I am more saying that we might suffer
>>>> for a
>>>> purpose, and in a way to help us develop, not due to contingencies.
>>> Even with 'biology', 1-suffering has a 3-purpose: the maintenance of
>>> life and survival.
>>> Just that I take the idea that suffering have some grand purpose,  
>>> like
>>> in some religion, a bit dangerous, because it "justifies" the
>>> existence of suffering, and it leads to a critic of happiness. This
>>> generates unnecessary guiltiness.
>> But it has some obvious grand purpose. Suffering wants to get  
>> better. The
>> only way to most quickly ever increasing bliss (let's just postulate  
>> this is
>> the goal) is to maximally desperately want to get better.
> That might be a path, but I don't see why it is the only one. With the  
> right mindset, anything can be a path.
I wanted to refer something more fundamental. Maybe consciousness has to
experience suffering for even knowing what it means to want to get better
most powerfully. No doubt personal paths need not incorporate that.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Guilt is okay. It motivates us to do more effort.
> When the guilt comes from genuine self-reference, and not from dogma,  
> or moral manipulation.
OK... It really depends on where guilt comes from, and in which
circumstances it arises, how we perceive it,...

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>> Somehow they really don't want them to
>>>>>> exist.
>>>>> Which is of course still a form of wishful thinking. To take desire
>>>>> for reality.
>>>> Yes. True spirituality means a lot of responsibility. It means you
>>>> will
>>>> never be able to escape the inner demons... Even if you happen to  
>>>> die
>>>> without suffering much during your life.
>>> And you say you are optimistic ?
>> Yes. If you merge with the inner demons (as opposed to escaping  
>> them), they
>> become a great joy, because they motivate (force) you to want to get  
>> better.
>> This seems just problematic as long as we have not enough strength  
>> to easily
>> incoporate them.
> People have to understand this by themselves. About what I could say  
> both the plant and the LUMs suggest cautiousness.
> With the LUMs, I could just say that we enter in the open problems land.
What I said was just a vague possibility. If was expressing myself to
strongly there. Basically, I could better say that we may stop escaping
inner demons, if we realize there is no forced escape. You are completely
right, what it means to face or even incorporate inner demons, and if this
makes sense, is very subjective. Some persons might take it to mean they
have to force themselves to feel bad or live out their evil desires, which
of course is not a good suggestion at all. So we should be really careful
how to interpret those statements.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> But really it is both, the heart cannot confront all the pain at
>>>> once, so it needs to hide painful truth sometimes, until we can face
>>>> it.
>>> OK.
>>> The problem relies only when the hiding will just make the pain  
>>> higher
>>> later, as it is often the case in deny and delusion with respect to
>>> our more probable history.
>> Yeah, no way around the pain, ultimately. It will come to you,  
>> whether you
>> want it or not.
> How do you know that?
> Could that be meaningful addressed to people recovering or handling  
> pains?
> I am not sure I follow you. It is not just non-communicable (non  
> provable) but it might even be false.
Oh you missunderstood me. I mean that ultimately the pain comes when it
comes, whether we hide from it not, mainly because in its worst forms tends
to come unexpected. Whether you try to hide physically by not doing
dangerous activities (you may just get a heart attack), or emotionally (the
deepest emotions come when you are desperate enough to be unable to hide
anything). I was not referring to people already in pain. For those it may
be wise indeed to try to hide, or rather comfort their pain.


View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to