mike...ho ho hum...many act so cos "the bible told em so"..good two shoes..just in case there is a heaven and a hell... ho ho hum...name the ONE who acts out of love and love alone.... very few and far between... mostly it's a hidden agenda... and that is so with the atheist as well as the godly ones,,including the zen folk...merle
Edgar, When a person sacrifices themselves for another, even if no one else is aware of them doing so, they're not acting like the dog in Pavlov's experiment. A tiger can be *trained* not to eat the human, but usually by punitive methods against his will. This is what I mean by "transcend". Humans can act altruistically by choice - not just out of fear or reward. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad ________________________________ From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]>; To: <[email protected]>; Subject: Re: [Zen] rise above Sent: Mon, Jun 24, 2013 1:37:23 AM MIke, That we are able to "transcend base instincts" and animals aren't is an illusion. Animals very often alter their initial instinctual behavior in the presence of good reasons to do so. That's exactly the same mechanism that cause humans to alter their initial instinctual behaviors. The dog doesn't do 'bad' things it would instinctually want to do because of the disapproval of its master. Humans don't do instinctual things they might naturally do because of the consequences they anticipate. Exactly same mechanism that holds throughout the animal kingdom. All animals alter their instinctual behavior in the face of perceived negative consequences of it. Same mechanism humans follow... Edgar On Jun 23, 2013, at 8:02 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Merle,<br/><br/>> you seem to have it in for animals, insects > etc.<br/><br/>Don't put words into my mouth that were never there!<br/><br/>I > was careful to point out in my earlier post that we are *not* superior to > other animals, just unique in our ability to transcend base instincts. > Constantly giving me examples of the terrible things humans do to each other, > other animals and the environment does *not* constitute an argument against > this premise. Human beings have the sense of sight. To keep bringing up > examples of blind people you know doesn't negate the first > point.<br/><br/>Mike<br/><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
