Hate is good

[RighteousDude]

But seriously, are you suggesting that because we we don't have all the answers, or have imperfect answers, that we can not discern what is a wrong answer?

"We" is where you'll find the friction. People have different ethics, different moral compasses, different hopes and fears, different motives. When you bring together a disparate group, the only consensus you'll find will be one that appeals to the baser natures of all. Regression toward the meanest, ya know?

I've a neighbor who has no problem at all with the US conducting resource wars. His thinking is that if the energy resources are not made available the world economy will go further down the sewer, so killing tens of thousands to take the energy resources will save the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions around the globe who are already on the brink of starvation, by pumping the economy, lowering prices, leaving more resources for aid programs, and so on. Who do ya want dead, he asks, ten thousand terrorists or one hundred thousand peaceful Africans? Someone's got to decide, he says, and doing nothing decides for the worst outcome.

I disagree with the guy. Strongly. You probably do, too. But "we", if we're talking about the society in which we live, includes that guy and lots more just like him. They think my answers are wrong, ill informed unicorn shit.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

I am certainly not promoting blind adherence to what anyone says, be they scientist or Medicine man, you have to do your own research, like the Buddha dude said, test it, burn it and scratch it as the gold smith would.

Science is not perfect, but it has been incredibly successful at improving human life, and is the only option for us if we intend to out live our planet. What you state may be true, that there is massive destruction to our environment from the misapplication of science, but that does not speak to the veracity of the truth of its claims. It speaks to our ability to make wise choices. And I would argue that it is based on another wrong belief, the belief that capital and GDP growth, are the proper metrics to use to determine our energy strategy as a species.

I am taking the position of a constructive empiricist, that we don't need to have the whole truth to know enough to deiscern what is practical truth to our condition. The poison arrow speaks to this, and I dig Thay's interpretation.

"The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same." Another time he said, "Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first." Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth."

? Hanh, Thich; Philip Kapleau (2005). Zen Keys. Three Leaves Press. p. 42.

[Boston Rockbury]

Science is not perfect, but it has been incredibly successful at improving human life,

It is entirely possible that the nett effect of science will be destruction of our environment and human life on a massive scale. The fact that the light bulb of human civilisation glowed more brightly before it exploded probably won't be of much comfort.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

But seriously, are you suggesting that because we we don't have all the answers, or have imperfect answers, that we can not discern what is a wrong answer?

"We" is where you'll find the friction. People have different ethics, different moral compasses, different hopes and fears, different motives. When you bring together a disparate group, the only consensus you'll find will be one that appeals to the baser natures of all. Regression toward the meanest, ya know?

I've a neighbor who has no problem at all with the US conducting resource wars. His thinking is that if the energy resources are not made available the world economy will go further down the sewer, so killing tens of thousands to take the energy resources will save the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions around the globe who are already on the brink of starvation, by pumping the economy, lowering prices, leaving more resources for aid programs, and so on. Who do ya want dead, he asks, ten thousand terrorists or one hundred thousand peaceful Africans? Someone's got to decide, he says, and doing nothing decides for the worst outcome.

I disagree with the guy. Strongly. You probably do, too. But "we", if we're talking about the society in which we live, includes that guy and lots more just like him. They think my answers are wrong, ill informed unicorn shit.

Are his observations correct? Is there no other way than war? Did he account for all the resources that would be lost in a war effort. Is he aware that we could turn the state of Navada into a sun farm and ultimately produce far more energy for less dollars than the cost of war? Have you clued him into ITER, the first commecial scale testbed fussion reactor being built in France? And how that is a better investment. Has he fully calculated the cost of environmental degradation, I bet he hasn't?

Sure, he has an opinion, but does it flesh out in facts, I could prove that it doesn't with out ever sharing my personal opinion.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

Science is not perfect, but it has been incredibly successful at improving human life,

It is entirely possible that the nett effect of science will be destruction of our environment and human life on a massive scale. The fact that the light bulb of human civilisation glowed more brightly before it exploded probably won't be of much comfort.

Again, that has to with our ability to discern the right understanding from the wrong understandings. Not whether or not what science finds to be true or not true.

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. -Dalai Lama

And yes that may be the case, but it may also be the case that in 40 years hence we have passed over the singularity and become true citizens of the universe, able to travel to and know the stars, to be able to alleviate all the suffering that is possible to alleviate. To grant long contented lives of inner and outer exploration to all sentient beings we can.

The 3d printer can produce a gun, or a kidney, how we use it based on our beliefs not on what science can achieve.

[Boston Rockbury]

it may also be the case that in 40 years hence we have passed over the singularity and become true citizens of the universe, able to travel to and know the stars, to be able to alleviate all the suffering that is possible to alleviate. To grant long contented lives of inner and outer exploration to all sentient beings we can.

You've been on the 'Star Trek' re-runs again haven't you dude?

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

it may also be the case that in 40 years hence we have passed over the singularity and become true citizens of the universe, able to travel to and know the stars, to be able to alleviate all the suffering that is possible to alleviate. To grant long contented lives of inner and outer exploration to all sentient beings we can.

You've been on the 'Star Trek' re-runs again haven't you dude?

LOL yup

[RighteousDude]

The Scutellaria we used to buy in England was crap, almost certainly highly adulterated. Best, as always, to wild craft your own, which can produce results very different from bought stuff.

I heard about that contamination thing and that the same sources were exporting it to the US, too. I prefer wildcrafting, will gladly grow, and if need be, buy from reputable sources.

I used to be a big Carlos Castaneda fan, so I was wary of Datura (Devil's weed) but I respond to it minimally.

I've read all of this stuff, but unlike many of my compeers I already knew better than to risk inviting Datura to put her spiked heel through my neck. Could be I'm a pussy.

Sounds like you work in a more intuitive way than me.

Eh, yes and no. I do a lot of reading up front when learning a new plant's ways, but after that I spend time with it. If I can I'll go meet it in the wild, sit with it in the sunshine, all that totally non-scientific stuff. I figure that living things are always more than can be written about them -- can't get to know a woman by studying biology and psychology, ya know? Then I get hold of some, from the stand if I found one that could afford the loss, from a reputable source otherwise, and ingest it, prepared this way and that. Can't know orgasm from reading about it, or watching it on film. 

After all of that, I either feel to some extent comfortable with the plant and use it, or feel too uncomfortable with it and don't. Lobelia, for example, is just shy of intolerable discomfort for me so I rarely use it. Thomson loved the stuff, but I can't find it in me to trust the pukers.

I feel I have to know what it says in the books, sometimes it's useful, but often it gets in the way.

I, too, have to know what's written. And I always go back and look again if I'm looking at something I haven't used recently, just to be sure I'm not falling prey to faulty memory. But I start most times with a bit of meditation to let the subconscious chew on the problem at hand.

My teacher, Chris Hedley, managed to combine the two and had great knowledge without ever losing a feel for what he was doing and a respect for the magic of the plants. Very groovy dude Chris.

He does seem a groovy dude, from what (very) little I know. I like his humours approach, in principle, but I have trouble even nailing myself down. I lean more toward (Michael) Moore's energetics because I find it easier to wrap my head around. As long as it works it doesn't matter which mode of thought you use to get there, eh?

[RighteousDude]

Is he aware that we could turn the state of Navada into a sun farm and ultimately produce far more energy for less dollars than the cost of war?

If I went to my neighbor, who is callous but not ignorant, and said, "But dude, you know, solar energy Nevada desert Wyoming fucking wind farm, man!", he'd never take me seriously again. Nor should he, no matter how eloquently I might present it. The energy we're destroying Afghanistan over is not destined for the Western Hemisphere.

Eh, this discussion is fun and all, but my attention span is short and, uh, nice pad you got here, man. Unspoiled. I'd hate to bleed on it.