Derail from "Is there a defeater for Buddhism?"

[Elohim]

Lógos,

Yeah, evil scientist conspiration agaist the Truth. How many folks are out there complaining scientists don't cater to their cheirshed beliefs? It's never the case science doesn't agree with me, it's because scientist wish to protect their dogma. Tired old story.

Listen, if you want to believe in your several thousand year old magic to help you sleep at night that's fine, you're in the company of legions. These things won't be settled on web fora anyway. The way science works, if Santa Claus does exist, eventually it will become accepted. Until then it's still wishful thinking and Stevenson will remain an excuse to keep believing in just another item in the catalog of the unlikely unreasonable unseen.

Now you are just mocking me and taking this from the realm of a civil discussion about potential "defeaters" into a personal act against those that hold such beliefs, including myself. I do not understand why such conversations always end up getting personal. While I understand that you do not accept the possibility that consciousness can act as a cause for the arising of a new consciousness, ridiculing others that do does not help you to make you points. I do not think that I come off as unreasonable here, and I wish that you would do more to explain your points than simply dismissing mine as "several thousand year old magic to help [me] sleep at night." I am certainly not adverse to contradictory opinions and/or evidence if they have merit.

I never said that it was an evil conspiracy, I merely states that most scientists do not seem to be willing to conduct such research, let alone entertain the possibility. In the end, the teachings on kamma and rebirth not only make logical sense to me, but I have at least experienced a level of kamma and rebirth in this life by observing my intentions translate into actions, my actions translate into results, my experience of happiness or unhappiness based upon those results and how the being I am now is physically and psychologically different than the being I was in the past. For me, it is not a stretch to think that this process has the potential to continue after death. However, if rebirth is ever disproven, I will simply drop such ideas. End of story.

Jason

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Lógos,

Yeah, evil scientist conspiration agaist the Truth. How many folks are out there complaining scientists don't cater to their cheirshed beliefs? It's never the case science doesn't agree with me, it's because scientist wish to protect their dogma. Tired old story.

Listen, if you want to believe in your several thousand year old magic to help you sleep at night that's fine, you're in the company of legions. These things won't be settled on web fora anyway. The way science works, if Santa Claus does exist, eventually it will become accepted. Until then it's still wishful thinking and Stevenson will remain an excuse to keep believing in just another item in the catalog of the unlikely unreasonable unseen.

Now you are just mocking me and taking this from the realm of a civil discussion about potential "defeaters" into a personal act against those that hold such beliefs, including myself. I do not understand why such conversations always end up getting personal. While I understand that you do not accept the possibility [...]


It's always been personal. "You do not accept the possibility" was the personal implication all along. Even after reading my last post you still believe I don't accept the possibility, but let me rely hopefully on your reading comprehension skills once more and iterate:

"These things won't be settled on web fora anyway. The way science works, if Santa Claus does exist, eventually it will become accepted."

From an empirical standpoint reincarnation, ghosts, hobgoblins and the trinity are always possibilities (what I called "Santa Claus" for short), waiting to be demonstrated. But not there is not there, and for the last three posts I've said it and I'll say it again: "Until then it's still wishful thinking and Stevenson will remain an excuse to keep believing in just another item in the catalog of the unlikely unreasonable unseen." Call it Stevenson or anything else, it's just a metonymy, a stand in for the collection of people on the fringe of science whose ideas have not been accepted as demonstrated.



I never said that it was an evil conspiracy, I merely states that most scientists do not seem to be willing [...]

That belief right there in boldface is what I was talking about: "Scientists don't even want", "there is no support", "there is no financing", the whole moping show just because the rest of humanity does not agree with the half-cooked iron age beliefs you decided to adopt. Why would someone adopt an unempirical and improbable item of faith if it's not because it floats one's boat? I've heard the answer score of times the same buddhist wording "Because I have applied it and it works for me". That's a big truckload. You haven't died yet so you've never needed the idea, except for solace. You don't like "it floats your boat" because it sounds mocking? How about "solace"? It's the same thing. Want me rephrase everything else I've said into whitewashese?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

But why do you impute any "moralizing" to that criticism? I think it's rather obvious that masturbation is an unsocial sexual activity. I brought that point up because wordy had been arguing that as bodily beings we are inherently social creatures, and that it is unnatural to think otherwise. It seems odd to me that he would then be looking for some justification for a clearly asocial activity. I was arguing that the body is not our identity, but only something with which we have an intimate relationship. Masturbation would seem to support this notion, since when we masturbate, we are relating to the body as if it were an other, not ourselves. We manipulate it to achieve temporary pleasure. Buddhism merely points out the futility of this activity, not just in relation to sex, but everything else.

"when we masturbate, we are relating to the body as if it were an other"
> No, I assure you, I don't take my penis out for dinner, tell it sweet nothings and make sure I understand it's wishes, etc. You're just finding excuses to support your moralizing a simple personal issue.


"We manipulate it to achieve temporary pleasure. Buddhism merely points out the futility of this activity"
> No, it's not futile.
http://sexuality.about.com/od/masturbation/p/masturbation_fx.htm
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=faq2&refid=001
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Masturbation?Open

"We manipulate it to achieve temporary pleasure."
> Temprorary pleasure, oh horror! That would mean I'm one of those humans, you know those little animals that have cyclic patterns of activity!

"I think it's rather obvious that masturbation is an unsocial sexual activity. [...] It seems odd to me that he would then be looking for some justification for a clearly asocial activity."
> I don't need a justification. I wank because I'm human. And you know what's asocial? Peeing, eating, wiping my own ass, speaking my mind. I'm not justifying, I don't need too. You're the one with the problem with masturbation. Wordy and I fuck and wank, like billions of other healthy normal individuals who do both with no problem. You're the one "should"ing us not to do it. Doing stuff alone isn't in itself wicked, it's normal, and masturbation is just one of those alone things you can do. Nothing different from blowing your own nose or speaking your own mind.

[abaddon]

It's always been personal. "You do not accept the possibility" was the personal implication all along.
Addressing you or what you’ve stated doesn’t make it personal in the way that you make things personal, with your endless insinuations of dishonesty, immorality, unintelligence against persons who don’t accept as truth your dogmatic assertions... The first is a part of conversations, the second obstructs the conversations.

I think if you want to appeal to empiricism, science and “what’s accepted” as reasons to believe, then you might spell out why that’s necessary, with more than just further assertions. It’s not obvious that what you favor in your philosophy are the last word on all matters.

"These things won't be settled on web fora anyway. The way science works, if Santa Claus does exist, eventually it will become accepted."
IOW, science is eventually going to determine everything that exists. Until science says so, it isn’t so. Says Logos... and not science. The sentiment is scientistic dogma; it’s a statement of blind faith. What's “accepted” and what is truth can easily be two wholly different things.

From an empirical standpoint reincarnation, ghosts, hobgoblins and the trinity are always possibilities (what I called "Santa Claus" for short), waiting to be demonstrated. But not there is not there, and for the last three posts I've said it and I'll say it again: "Until then it's still wishful thinking and Stevenson will remain an excuse to keep believing in just another item in the catalog of the unlikely unreasonable unseen." Call it Stevenson or anything else, it's just a metonymy, a stand in for the collection of people on the fringe of science whose ideas have not been accepted as demonstrated.

“But not there is not there” and “it’s just wishful thinking.” How is that not rejecting the possibility?

Where does new scientific knowledge come from other than the fringe?

There’s no necessary reason to reject a possibility just because it isn’t demonstrated yet by some certain group of persons, and publicly in some select venue. If that’s your choice to trust that over every other source of knowledge, then fine. But presenting that personal choice to us as lessons on truth and science is really obnoxious.

The re-quoting behavior shows only that you’re very certain of your opinions, nothing more, and that self-certainty isn’t what might persuade those of us who (as you sometimes say) “don’t care for the truth” (IOW, people who disagree with you). It’s just not necessary, or remotely helpful to the dialogue.

I never said that it was an evil conspiracy, I merely states that most scientists do not seem to be willing [...]
That belief right there in boldface is what I was talking about: "Scientists don't even want", "there is no support", "there is no financing", the whole moping show just because the rest of humanity does not agree with the half-cooked iron age beliefs you decided to adopt.
He’s the one “moping” about the “rest of humanity’s” disagreement? Actually, much of the “rest of humanity” doesn’t agree with you. Anyway, the half-cooked modern age beliefs that you decided to adopt are in question too.

Why would someone adopt an unempirical and improbable item of faith if it's not because it floats one's boat?
Maybe for similar reasons to why you adopt unempirical items of faith about consciousness, science, et al? That is, "trying to see how things can make more sense” as your profile says you want to do. Or perhaps he has evidence sufficient to trust, by his own standards. Yes, we know you don’t consider it sufficient... We got it, and it won’t need to be repeated here.

I've heard the answer score of times the same buddhist wording "Because I have applied it and it works for me". That's a big truckload.
“Because it works” is the ultimate reason for anything, including science. And on the personal level, decisions about what works in the individual’s life really is the last word (whether it’s science, Buddhism, or -- best of all IMO -- personal experience).

You haven't died yet so you've never needed the idea, except for solace. You don't like "it floats your boat" because it sounds mocking? How about "solace"? It's the same thing. Want me rephrase everything else I've said into whitewashese?
How do you know it’s just for solace? Mind-reading? You won’t need to rephrase the same dogmatic, condescending pronouncements on your “truth” again. “Here’s my view on the topic” works... Or, if you feel that’s not enough, then try citing the scientific research and show how widely it’s accepted (versus other research showing differing results), and justify why all else but that which is “widely accepted” should be relegated to a “Santa Claus” level of unlikely.

[Elohim]

Everyone,

After reading Lógos' response to my last post, I was going to reply, but it seems that abaddon has beaten me to it. Therefore, seeing as how abaddon basically said what I wanted to say, and more thoroughly than I think I would have, I will leave it at that. Not that anybody probably cares, but my half-cooked iron age beliefs and I have to get ready to spend the fourth of July with my girlfriend's family, who is currently visiting from Virginia, and then I must prepare for an almsgiving ceremony for fifteen monks and fifteen novices that are visiting Miao Fa Temple tomorrow. Perhaps I will rejoin the fray in the future, but for now I feel that my participation is no longer productive and that my time is better spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, I hope that everyone has a good weekend, even Lógos and perfectbite. ;)

Sincerely,

Jason

[conradg]

"when we masturbate, we are relating to the body as if it were an other" > No, I assure you, I don't take my penis out for dinner, tell it sweet nothings and make sure I understand it's wishes, etc. You're just finding excuses to support your moralizing a simple personal issue.

You're being deliberately obtuse. "Otherness" doesn't require that we anthropomorphize our penis, only that we relate to it as something we can manipulate to give us pleasure. Although of course many men are known to give their wanker a name, it's not actually necessary. In any case, masturbation is obviously different from sexual relationships with others, in that we relate to our own body as the "other", which has its benefits and drawbacks.

> No, it's not futile.

If you want anything like lasting happiness and fulfilment, it certainly is. The pleasure achieved is temporary and not terribly satisifying, and often leads to a "low" soon thereafter. Of course, even sex with a partner can lead to that as well. WHich is why Buddhism doesn't regard any form of sexuality as being satisfying and anything but a transient pursuit.

http://sexuality.about.com/od/masturbation/p/masturbation_fx.htm
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=faq2&refid=001
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Masturbation?Open

Yes, I'm aware masturbation can have some health benefits. It can also have a downside both physically and psychologically, like anything else, if abused.

> Temprorary pleasure, oh horror! That would mean I'm one of those humans, you know those little animals that have cyclic patterns of activity!

You mistake the Buddhist critique of pleasure-seeking with Christian forms of morality. It has little to do with that, and it finds no moral "horror" in the transitory nature of pleasure and pain. It merely says that we should take this more seriously, and see that living this way is not the right path of human happiness.

> I don't need a justification. I wank because I'm human.

I'm sure you don't need any justification, nor did I ever suggest anyone does. People do all kinds of things "because they are human". If that's all there was behind it, fine. But it seems that most people don't just do these things with no other motive, they do them in an attempt to achieve a state of lasting peace and happiness, and they never achieve it, so they become very upset and unhappy, cantakerous, and complaining - as you are being right now. People tend to use "being human" as an excuse for all kinds of cravings that don't actually satisfy them. Buddhism is a critical address to the human condition. If you don't like it, fine, but you ought to ask yourself why you are so upset by it. Where does that upset actually come from? Buddhism? I don't think so.

And you know what's asocial? Peeing, eating, wiping my own ass, speaking my mind.

Are these things really asocial? You don't live on an island, do you? You are here, talking with us, socializing. So you are not asocial in reality. You piss in a toilet connected to a local sewer system, you buy your food at a store, you wipe your ass with toilet paper made by other people, and you speak you mind on internet forums. All of these are social activities. Even though you masturbate in private, for some reason you feel the need to talk about it in public. You seem addicted to socializing all these things. You are certainly asocial in the sense that you don't get along very well with others here, but you keep trying, which suggests that you are not as asocial as you would like to be, and that you even crave sociability. And yet, what you are actually doing fails to achieve that. This is the kind of dilemma that Buddhism addresses.

I'm not justifying, I don't need too. You're the one with the problem with masturbation. Wordy and I fuck and wank, like billions of other healthy normal individuals who do both with no problem.

I'm not sure why you think I have some unique problem with masturbation. I'm just pointing out that masturbation clearly isn't solving your problems. It isn't making you happy, it isn't making you get along better with others, and it isn't producing some kind of lasting change in you. It seems like it just reinforces a certain kind of anti-social anger and frustration with others. It suggests you're not relating even to your own body as you ought to. Maybe you're just not very good at masturbating. Or maybe it doesn't matter how good you can get at it, it's still never going to be good enough.

You're the one "should"ing us not to do it. Doing stuff alone isn't in itself wicked, it's normal, and masturbation is just one of those alone things you can do. Nothing different from blowing your own nose or speaking your own mind.

This is where you clearly live in a fantasy realm. I never said you shouldn't masturbate. I just said maybe wordy should get a girlfriend, get a little better socialized. Maybe you should to. And by that, I'm just giving a little friendly advice, not trying to impose some kind of moral system that is opposed to masturbation. But you really ought to examine why you live in paranoia that someone might be doing that to you. Sounds like some kind of inner psychological voice you are reacting to. Poor potting training issues, perhaps. Who really knows? In any case, it has nothing to do with me or Buddhism.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

It's always been personal. "You do not accept the possibility" was the personal implication all along.
Addressing you or what you’ve stated doesn’t make it personal in the way that you make things personal, with your endless insinuations of dishonesty, immorality, unintelligence against persons who don’t accept as truth your dogmatic assertions... The first is a part of conversations, the second obstructs the conversations.

Dogmatic -my arse. I question. I see contradictions and absurdities, and I question. Religionsist always take offense when such are pointed out in their unwarranted beliefs.

I take your accusations with great pride. Truth is foremost on my mind when I analyze any ism. The surprisingly very common accusation of dogmatic beliefs reinforces my view that I am before cherished unwarranted beliefs. Ire is the typical reaction towards questioning since the age of Socrates. If you sum to your accusations "You are a corruptor of the youth" my day would be complete.



I think if you want to appeal to empiricism, science and “what’s accepted” as reasons to believe, then you might spell out why that’s necessary, with more than just further assertions. It’s not obvious that what you favor in your philosophy are the last word on all matters.


My interest in truth is an expression of my valuing truth when I intend to examine the truth value of something... it seems rather clear to me. Empirical research into the truth value of arguments of statements (taken as hypotheses) has produced a corpus of knowledge of doubtless trustworthiness. Wouldn't you agree?

I don't know if this answers your question, though.

It’s not obvious that what you favor in your philosophy are the last word on all matters.


I don't believe in "the last word on [...] matters". Continuous examination and re-examination is what one would consider adequate for most if not all matters.



IOW, science is eventually going to determine everything that exists. Until science says so, it isn’t so. Says Logos... and not science. The sentiment is scientistic dogma; it’s a statement of blind faith. What's “accepted” and what is truth can easily be two wholly different things.


I believe I exaplained this before on some response to Elohim (Jason). Statements whose truth value have not been ascertained deserve an attitude of agnosticism, not trust.

I don't have blind faith in, say, appendicectomy or in electricity. I trust them because they have been proven beyond doubt, not only to work, but also as the best answer yet to appendicitis and nocturnal lighting, respectively. So I really don't know where you're coming from with that claim about "blind faith".



What's “accepted” and what is truth can easily be two wholly different things.


Oh yes, definitely. And where you want to get to with that is... ?


Where does new scientific knowledge come from other than the fringe?


http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/laughing010.gif Two millenia and a half years old isn't what I would call new. You might say, "Hey, but this guy is new!" Well, yeah, as long as there are fundies, there will be creationist "science", as long as there are people literally believing in rebirth there will be Brian Weiss's. That doesn't make it new. Know what is new? String theory. And not only new but plausible: Just because you believe in tribbles and there's some baron Munchausen in Liechtenstein who asserts they exist and has a lab doesn't mean there are tribbles. The scientific community doesn't accept such claims for a reason. It's much more complex than Erich von Däniken writing another book saying aliens built the pyramids (I wonder if that's fringe enough for you?).


There’s no necessary reason to reject a possibility just because it isn’t demonstrated yet by some certain group of persons, and publicly in some select venue. If that’s your choice to trust that over every other source of knowledge, then fine. But presenting that personal choice to us as lessons on truth and science is really obnoxious.


Please don't strawman -the discussion has been going fine without them up to now. I've repeated several times, my position is that "unwarranted beliefs deserve an agnostic attitude, etc". Gracias.


The re-quoting behavior shows only that you’re very certain of your opinions, nothing more, and that self-certainty isn’t what might persuade those of us who (as you sometimes say) “don’t care for the truth” (IOW, people who disagree with you). It’s just not necessary, or remotely helpful to the dialogue.


Requoting myself is my way of undoing (1) strawmen and (2) misunderstandings of things I've already exaplained. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. And please do: it really bores me to say the least.



[...] that you’re very certain of your opinions, nothing more,

Are you certain about that? :D



[...] those of us who (as you sometimes say) “don’t care for the truth” (IOW, people who disagree with you).

Not disagree, no. When someone (here I go again) holds on to extremely unlikely, unwarranted beliefs, just because they help them live a certain way, regardless of the truth value of those beliefs and seemingly uninterested in examining their truthvalue, I have thought it quite safe to conclude they're not interested in examining the truth value of those tenets. At least it seems blindingly obvious to me, I don't know you, and if you don't think so, please by all means, enlighten me with your good reasons.


He’s the one “moping” about the “rest of humanity’s” disagreement? Actually, much of the “rest of humanity” doesn’t agree with you.

Yes, here I do confess I am to blame, for not not giving a rat's toosh about the opinions of conjurors, snake oil salesmen and folks that believe from faith rather than empeiria. I confess I rather read papers made by the immense majority of the scientific community, the same community who showed their openness by leaving behind their beloved Newtonian ideas for relativity and quantum physics, and doing so from sober demonmstrations based on evidence both empirical and mathematical. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.


Anyway, the half-cooked modern age beliefs that you decided to adopt are in question too.


Nothing like an unwarranted accusation from a religionist to ashame me of my embracement of the well-supported.



Maybe for similar reasons to why you adopt unempirical items of faith about consciousness, science, et al?


I rolling laugh smiley would be just too much here.


Or perhaps he has evidence sufficient to trust, by his own standards.

"Standards" is precisely what I've been talking all along here.


Yes, we know you don’t consider it sufficient...

Oh goody.


We got it, and it won’t need to be repeated here.

Oh thank you. I really appreciate it.


“Because it works” is the ultimate reason for anything, including science.

We must inform the scientific community urgently of your necessary and sufficient condition for trustworthiness. You really do believe your simplistic statement is good, not to mention it would work like beauty in favor, not only of the beliefs of millions of Buddhists (How can so many, so long, be wrong?) but for anyone who would want to convince anyone of the "because it works" power of the Holy Spirit, the "because it works" moral and salvational truth of Islam, and the "because it works" power of whatever shamanism. I would say your criterion is an eensy weensy bit inadequate.


And on the personal level, decisions about what works in the individual’s life really is the last word (whether it’s science, Buddhism, or -- best of all IMO -- personal experience).


Personally there are people who believe the world is 8000 years old. It works for them. Dang I should've known all this time the world was so young! Hee heee...



You haven't died yet so you've never needed the idea, except for solace. You don't like "it floats your boat" because it sounds mocking? How about "solace"? It's the same thing. Want me rephrase everything else I've said into whitewashese?
How do you know it’s just for solace? Mind-reading?

I'm all ears. What's your take?

the same dogmatic, condescending pronouncements on your “truth” again.

Oo. That hurts...

I've discussed on a discussion board. Wicked me.

I've held to a position and you've held to yours for very long. That makes ME dogmatic. Wicked me again.

You've put the word truth inside quotation marks. That trumps my wicked empiricism. Quotation marks: I didn't see that one coming. :D

“Here’s my view on the topic” works...

I've done that pretty much, although not on every post. I wonder if you use that phrase on every post? --Oh, sorry, I interrupted your moral lesson.

Or, if you feel that’s not enough, then try citing the scientific research

I've don that too. There's one example (three citations in one post) on last page. By the way, I don't recall you doing THAT lately.

and show how widely it’s accepted (versus other research showing differing results),

Oh go kiss a toad. Why should I be doing all the work? What's with you? I've been doing a lot just citing. I don't see you doing anything as remotely laborious, and there is no reason for me to give you something people pay thousands of dollars to get: a damn scientific education. And more than that, an upbringing that instead of giving you the impression that wishful thinking trumps sound research, being open to refutation better assures likely knowlegde than reading suttas and counting your breaths on a mat. Because you can have six years in Oxford or MIT, but without the honest-to-goodness openness to refutation (and the patience to wait decades for the results of sober reflection of tens of thousands of honest, hardworking academics) it will avail you nothing.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Everyone,

After reading Lógos' response to my last post, I was going to reply, but it seems that abaddon has beaten me to it. Therefore, seeing as how abaddon basically said what I wanted to say, and more thoroughly than I think I would have, I will leave it at that. Not that anybody probably cares, but my half-cooked iron age beliefs and I have to get ready to spend the fourth of July with my girlfriend's family, who is currently visiting from Virginia, and then I must prepare for an almsgiving ceremony for fifteen monks and fifteen novices that are visiting Miao Fa Temple tomorrow. Perhaps I will rejoin the fray in the future, but for now I feel that my participation is no longer productive and that my time is better spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, I hope that everyone has a good weekend, even Lógos and perfectbite. ;)

Sincerely,

Jason

"Even" you too. Whatever that's supposed to sound like.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

"when we masturbate, we are relating to the body as if it were an other" > No, I assure you, I don't take my penis out for dinner, tell it sweet nothings and make sure I understand it's wishes, etc. You're just finding excuses to support your moralizing a simple personal issue.

You're being deliberately obtuse. "Otherness" doesn't require that we anthropomorphize our penis, only that we relate to it as something we can manipulate to give us pleasure. Although of course many men are known to give their wanker a name, it's not actually necessary. In any case, masturbation is obviously different from sexual relationships with others, in that we relate to our own body as the "other", which has its benefits and drawbacks.


Basically, let me save you saliva: You're not making a point. The point is that masturbation doesn't hjinder our social life, the same as feeding YOURself, blowing YOUR nose, wiping YOUR toosh, don't either.


If you want anything like lasting happiness and fulfilment, it certainly is.

Everybody likes "lasting". But hardly anything lasts more than 24 hours. Is that so terrible? No, unless someone cut your hand off. Then someone else will have to help you blow your nose etc.

The case is that buddhism awfulizes something that is natural and unavoidable. You're Homo sapiens for the rest of your life. Big deal... face it.

Are you distraught that you have to pee over and over and over and over and over and over again? How bad is that? It's like being unhappy because you don't have superman powers. I would prefer to fly home, but I'd rather accept my humanity!


The pleasure achieved is temporary and not terribly satisifying,

Sex therapy has a high level of effectiveness. Just a suggestion.


and often leads to a "low" soon thereafter.

I'll try to stop peeing too. When the doctors ask me I'll say it hurts like hell but I'm more enlightened than them. (I'm kidding of course). Again, Conrad, get over it and come accept humanity. It really is satisfying.


WHich is why Buddhism doesn't regard any form of sexuality as being satisfying and anything but a transient pursuit.


And this is unacceptable because... ?



Yes, I'm aware masturbation can have some health benefits. It can also have a downside both physically and psychologically, like anything else, if abused.


Enough said. :)
No one here's abusing.


You mistake the Buddhist critique of pleasure-seeking with Christian forms of morality.

Woah woah woah, Ritchie Cunningham. I'm talking about your post. I'm not exactly quoting the Blablablaita Sutta, I'm quoting you.


You mistake the Buddhist critique of pleasure-seeking with Christian forms of morality. It has little to do with that, and it finds no moral "horror" in the transitory nature of pleasure and pain. It merely says that we should take this more seriously, and see that living this way is not the right path of human happiness.


More seriously than what? :huh:

Not the right path to human happiness? Being human is the only way of reaching anything human. Desire-satiation cycles are what makes human life! Self acceptance is the way to happiness, not making normal mammalian facts-of-life an explanation of sufering.

Actually, you're starting to convince me I've overrated the wisdom of Buddha. I think I was very wrong. I'm a-thunkin' Epicurus was, of all them folks in antiquity, right on the ball.


they do them in an attempt to achieve a state of lasting peace and happiness, and they never achieve it,

Says who?
There are droves of unhappy people in the world, but not because they participate in the desire-satiation cycle.



Are these things really asocial? You don't live on an island, do you? You are here, talking with us, socializing. So you are not asocial in reality. You piss in a toilet connected to a local sewer system, you buy your food at a store, you wipe your ass with toilet paper made by other people, and you speak you mind on internet forums.

Oh good, now we're not being asocial.
Oh relief!
Seems like I'm getting through to you after all!



Even though you masturbate in private, for some reason you feel the need to talk about it in public.

Now it looks I'm an exhibitionist for you. ;)



which suggests that you are not as asocial as you would like to be,

I would like to be asocial?

Are you out of your mind?

Wha the fuhhh??


And yet, what you are actually doing fails to achieve that.

Uh, riiiight.....

:rolleyes:



I'm just pointing out that masturbation clearly isn't solving your problems.

According to you I'm using masturbation to solve my problems. No, I masturbate because I want an org--- Ok, go get a sex book.

What green thing are you smoking that makes you think I want to resolve a problem by masturbating? This is really bangheadingly--- Tell you what, I'll give you the chance to go back and seriously think over what you just wrote. Wow.



It suggests you're not relating even to your own body as you ought to.


Oh
My
Golly.

You're really serious about all that, aren't you. It's almost scary, really really.


Maybe you're just not very good at masturbating.

Ok, it's not almost scary. It is scary, deeply scary!




You're the one "should"ing us not to do it. Doing stuff alone isn't in itself wicked, it's normal, and masturbation is just one of those alone things you can do. Nothing different from blowing your own nose or speaking your own mind.

This is where you clearly live in a fantasy realm. I never said you shouldn't masturbate. I just said maybe wordy should get a girlfriend, get a little better socialized. Maybe you should to.

According to what encephalic embolism did you conclude I don't have an adequate social life?

I feel like giving sex education to a group of pre-babyboomer retirees here. There's nothing pathologic about masturbation. Masturbation is not a sign of social, psychological or moral deficiency.


But you really ought to examine why you live in paranoia that someone might be doing that to you. Sounds like some kind of inner psychological voice you are reacting to. Poor potting training issues, perhaps.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/shocked011.gif