The Dudeism Forum

within the city limits..

Quote from: greatspiritmonk on November 26, 2009, 01:25:54 AM
You should be right though, 7 sins should be Old Testament thing, the book written to allow slaying everyone who didn't agree. But there should be a list of deadly behaviours:
pederasts,
polluters,
vivisectionists,
fur farmers-traders-furriers,
those fucking fundamentalists who think that religion is a good reason to kill others,
.....

Charity sponges... definitely a form of behaviour I do not condone!

----------------

I think the thing about the human condition is that we all suffer from these sins in small amounts, it's natural.  Find me a man who's not felt envious, or lustful, or angry...  I'm not a greedy person, but I have suffered pangs of avarice.  It's the way of the human.  We just need to know how to keep aggression checked, and our gluttony suppressed at most times.

We're all born sinners in the eyes of the pure, but those Dudes are few and far between and are all about puring their own humanity in the opposite extreme to the corrupt.  A human is equal measures of purity and corruption, we're flawed, therefor we are.

That's why there are some truly beloved characters in fiction who are all fundamentally flawed.  We love the Dude because of his flaws and his merits combined.  It's the unique mix of virtue and sin that makes a person special.

And hey, you know what... I take real pride in that, Dudes

It's impossible to comprehend virtue, without some understanding of vice.  In fact, I'd argue it's impossible for virtue to exist without vice.  Our mortal world cannot exist without a balancing opposite.  Life goes on man, but not forever.  You cannot take it easy without knowing when the stress is talking.  There can be no passivism without aggression. The bums always lose because the achievers always win.  Money cannot be recovered unless it has been lost.  And so on and so on.

I made reference to this sort of thing in another thread on here, but basically, the whole entertaining story could not have unfolded without his lust for of possession, which is a sin,  regardless of how well that possession tied the room together.   But his virtues in the end overcame his sins and he remained in harmonious balance, thereby returned him to the state of abiding.

In summary, I believe the story shows that without a polar opposite, one has no frame of reference; one would be like a child who wonders into the middle of a movie and wants to know?

Fucking A, man.

Quote from: Bartender on March 30, 2010, 11:06:19 AM
...but basically, the whole entertaining story could not have unfolded without his lust for of possession, which is a sin,  regardless of how well that possession tied the room together. ...

Sorry have to disagree entirely, there are well placed actions and badly placed actions. An action is only "good" or "Bad" as analysed after the fact.

History is written by the winners which is why everyone was brought up to regard the Romans as the pinnacle of civilization, because they told the world they were. The Nazis on the other hand are held up as the most evil beings to have walked the earth this last millennium.

Even though both groups did exactly the same  thing, both tried to conquer the whole of Europe (the Nazi, or more specifically the Fascists, based themselves on the glory of the Roman empire).

Both had a policy of elitist racial purity (if you were not pure roman it was very hard to hold any position of power in the empire).

Both ran vast slave cultures.

In fact the Romans probably killed a higher percentage of the world population at their time than the Nazis ever did. There being more people around by the time the Nazis tried the same.

The Nazis only gassed people, the Romans stole you, your family, and anyone else, then had you put to death in public for their enjoyment.

The major difference is that the Nazis lost their war, and the romans won thiers.

Why am I making this point?

Because the Romans did far worse things to the non-roman population than the Nazis ever did but did not SIN.

SIN is a Christian concept created to beat the population down and control them. Sin is a control on what you really want to be doing.

Yes certain agreements have to be reached to be able to live together and prosper as a society.

Theft is not a good thing in a reward based (capitalist) society. But theft does not exist in a society that does not recognise property (yes I know thats communism).

I go back to the Taoist idiom of "The more laws you have, the more criminals you have". As indicated by Hollands recent need to reduce the number of prisons they have because they don't have enough criminals to fill them.

It is a sin to kill someone.

Except in a war.

Except when they are trying to kill you.

Except if they are attacking your child.

Except if they have killed another and you are a properly appointed executioner.

Except if they have been born into a country whose politicians disagree with your politicians so your politicians have said they must die.

Except when they have the wrong religion and the leaders of your religion say they have to die because they have the wrong religion.

It is a sin to steal.

Except if its to take food to feed the staving.

Except when it's only that one pen that you need to use at home.

Except when it's that paper the company will never miss that your kid would love to draw on and the company byes so much of it it wont be missed.

There is no such thing as sin. It is a completely fabricated control.

The misplaced action of Bunny accepting money from Jackie Treehorn,  then not paying it back, drives the film not the Dude taking the carpet.

Usury is a sin.

Except when your a multinational incorporated bank that shags world economies.

Sin is entirly subjective and just there to make you feel bad about the things you just may enjoy.

Finally.

If you live with a group of people and steal from them or rape their women, they will be less inclined to let you continue to stay with them.

If you happen to be living with a Viking Hoard on the other hand they will be more than happy for you to join them raping and pillaging other people.

I am a Pagan.

And as such I have no sins. I enjoy my life and indulge myself.

But I accept responsibility for my actions (all of them).

A sin is something to blame for your own lack of self control. (Vatican+Priests+Abuse of minors) "Forgive me father for I have sinned".

This is of course just all my opinion.

(Put the soapbox down and step away with your hands behind your head).

Not wishing to dissect all of the last point down (because sloth is taking over), I'll try for some uncharacteristic brevity.

I completely agree with Meekon's above points.  Sin is completely subjective, and the idea of right and wrong is an entirely human concept.

Nature is 100% neutral.  Life is supposed to do what it does to function along with all other life.  Animals kill because they're hungry, or threatened, those are all instincts of preservation that transcend the human moralistic concepts.

As evolved forms of life we have managed to create countless concepts that are entirely new and outside of nature.  With evolution comes the capacity to create and with creation comes all that we have over the rest of our animal brothers.

I think all these new human concepts have become not only ingrained into society, but also into the human mind, becoming racially instinctual.  So, as I said, "sinning" is part of being human.  We have the capacity to be what most animals are not, because of the limited scope of their purpose in nature.

I for one am very aware that fascism started in Rome.  Today the Italian mindset is still quite fascist in a lot of ways, because of the "glory of Rome".  Look at Mussolini, all too often forgotten when we talk about WWII, something that is still recent to us all, and as such is a real sticking point.  In Italy today they still have marches and parades dedicated to some of the fascist elements of the Roman Empire, where man dressed as legionaries walk the streets holding symbols of oppression, and so many people don't understand.

No expansionist empire can be considered "good" by our standards today, because the "glory" comes from defeating the enemy, and the enemy in the case of these empires are the locals whose land is good and defences are weak.  I'm only glad the British Empire is all but defunct now, as I think it's a shameful blotch on our heritage.  Largest empire in the world, and yet, where was the comeback?  The fact is, Hitler did a lot of good for Germany, but alas he admired ideals of others, such as Fascism from the Italians, Arianism from the British and euthanasia which had been practiced worldwide for a long time, and most recently at the time in US mental institutions (leaving mental patients to die of simple untreated head colds).

Hitler is undoubtedly a true villain, but no more so that countless others that came before him, all building an empire, doing good for their own people, and crushing others underfoot in their wake.  It's something that scares me about any large nation who's big on patriotism and expansionism (The US, Russia and China to name but three).  The German film, The Wave, is a great example of how a mindset can be easily instilled and suddenly morals and ethics can we upturned, and the concept of good an evil can go out the window, I'd thoroughly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the subject.

All nations, and all people are guilty of sin, because, as I said, sin is only quantified in the eyes of the pure.  I mean, we all recognise what we consider wrong in others, most people agree on what is right, based on what benefits people (ie, not being stab or robbed, etc).

I guess, as Dudeists, we have to abide the sinners and carry on as best we can, trying to look out for our own interests and the interests of others as we see fit.  That might be a selfish way to look at it, and most religions would teach a far greater moral responsibility, but when you get down to it, Dudeism is about helping yourself and those that matter to you, and hoping we can set a good example for everyone else to do that same.  Sometimes the best person to help you IS yourself, and sometimes you need a help from others, and some people are beyond help.  If we all do the best by ourselves to begin with, without trying to scam anyone, or screw anyone else over, that's not really selfish, it's just natural.

I do hope to expand look more concisely issue in a future Dudespaper article I have on the cards "What is Karma?  Your friend, Dude", where I look at the social meme of good will and being excellent to each other.

Hmm... guess my brevity gland failed me again... ho-hum.

Ah, and quickly slipping into the Lebowskian issue...

The catalyst for the film is a questionable one.

Basically, we all know the plot is essentially an empty story, built on lies, deceptions and misconceptions, and that's what makes it so genius.  No one should have had to have gone through any of that, the entire underlying premise was a lie!

Bunny's irresponsible and selfish hedonism, the Nihilist's greed (despite believing in nothing, they sure seemed to believe in the almighty dollar enough), the Big Lebowski's greed, Jackie Treehorn's deepseeded amoral way of life, the Treehorn goons' laziness and Walter's sense of righteous indignation.  All key elements into getting the Dude into all this mess.

If Bunny hadn't have run away from home without a thought for her parents, and if Jackie Treehorn hadn't have pimped her out as a hollywood bimbo and lavished her with money, and if she hadn't have left on a bender once again without letting anyone know, and if the Nihilists hadn't have lusted after ransom money, and if bitter old Lebowski wasn't so greedy and callous about his own trophy wife, and if the goons had bothered to check which Lebowski they were after, and if Walter had not insisted the Dude was owed a rug by Lebowski, and if the Dude had just said "oh fuck it, let's carry on bowling".... maybe Donny would still be rolling perfect games all the way to the finals.

But hey, that would be a boring movie!

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 07:58:32 AM
Ah, and quickly slipping into the Lebowskian issue...

If Bunny hadn't have run away from home without a thought for her parents, and if Jackie Treehorn hadn't have pimped her out as a hollywood bimbo and lavished her with money, and if she hadn't have left on a bender once again without letting anyone know, and if the Nihilists hadn't have lusted after ransom money, and if bitter old Lebowski wasn't so greedy and callous about his own trophy wife, and if the goons had bothered to check which Lebowski they were after, and if Walter had not insisted the Dude was owed a rug by Lebowski, and if the Dude had just said "oh fuck it, let's carry on bowling".... maybe Donny would still be rolling perfect games all the way to the finals.
...

Oh that's what the movies about then! 

Quote from: meekon5 on March 31, 2010, 08:36:15 AM
Oh that's what the movies about then! 

Well... it's the sins of all these people that sets the thing into gear, and who suffers the most?  Donny, possibly the most innocent character in the whole film (above even Smokey and his toe-slipping and even Marty, with his crimes against dance).

The sins of the many weigh heavily on not only themselves, but the one innocent child who wanders in and out during the middle of the movie.  Rest easy, sweet prince, in the bosom of Dude's ever-abiding beard.

"There is no greater curse than the lack of contentment;
  No greater sin than the desire for possession."
                                - Lao Tse

Above quote is to what I was referring to the sin of possession.  The Dude wanted his rug back (that's all he ever wanted).  He wanted his possession.  He coveted that rug.  Was the Rug worth Donny dying for?  I doubt it. 

I find it difficult to abide that a person can abide, while wanting a lousy rug back (it may indeed have tied the room together, but it doesn't take much to tie a crappy room together).

In any case, there's no story without the Dude wanting the rug back.  He could've just gone out an bought a new rug, which is what I would have done.  But I have a job, sir, and the Dude did not.  So he basically stole a rug off of someone that really did not owe him a rug.  It was Woo that peed on his rug.

The Dude lied on a number of occassions... "The old man said take any rug in the house", "We dropped off the money".

He also lusted for money "What's in it for the Dude?" to Jackie Treehorn. 

I'm not prepared at this time to get into a philisophical discussion on this, but my point is... Oh, it's my roll.

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 09:41:11 AM
...
The sins of the many weigh heavily on not only themselves, but the one innocent child who wanders in and out during the middle of the movie.  Rest easy, sweet prince, in the bosom of Dude's ever-abiding beard...

See there we go again. Not their sins but their actions. The actions of the many. I still refuse to accept Sins in a Dudeist philosophy.

And Donny only seems pure and blameless because he actually doesn't do that much, therefore has few actions.

Yes suffering is needed to understand joy. pain to understand pleasure. This is Yin and Yang.

But none of them are "sinners" until you apply an arbitrary frame work of what is good and evil, bound by a concept of Sin.

Action (or non-action) creates Karma that has effect on an individual, there is no judgment in karma. There is no moral imposition.

Life is like a clear calm pool. you throw one stone in , an action, and the waves move outward. You throw many stones in and they all create waves that effect and interact with each other. Many people acting and interacting with each other. the wave does not judge it just is.

You go into an empty pub (the clear calm pool). you are in a bad mood (action, a stone thrown into the pool). You order a pint and are rude to the barman (another action). The bar man gets pissed off and is rude to other customers as they come in. Your action has been transmitted through the bar man to the other patrons of the bar. The many stones have all produced waves that interact with each other. the wave is not judgmental but just is.

Quote from: Bartender on March 31, 2010, 10:20:34 AM
...
The Dude wanted his rug back (that's all he ever wanted).  He wanted his possession.  He coveted that rug.  Was the Rug worth Donny dying for?  I doubt it.  
...

No it was not worth Donny dying, but who could have said at the beginning of the story that wanting his rug back would lead to his (Donny's) death?

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful skill but who can see what any action will result in as and when we begin to act.

But as Rev Ed said if the Dude had just gone out and bought another rug it would have been a lot shorter film.

Quote from: meekon5 on March 31, 2010, 10:22:36 AM
See there we go again. Not their sins but their actions. The actions of the many. I still refuse to accept Sins in a Dudeist philosophy.

And Donny only seems pure and blameless because he actually doesn't do that much, therefore has few actions.

Well, I agree with you, Meek, but I got kind of fed up with using "s around the word "sin".  I agree with my other half there is no such thing as good and evil, but, the words still exist and have certain connotations.  When I say "sin" I mean what people recognise as a negative action via a disfavoured ethic, the same with evil.  Like I said above, these are human inventions and own to interpretation, depending on which side of the gun you are, and who's your lawyer.

So, sorry for the confusion, but I like my words, false in their philosophy or not  

I consider Donny innocent because he doesn't get involved, like you say.  He takes no part, he is an observer.  He's not in it to fuck anybody up, nor in it at all to accidentally fuck someone up.

Quote from: meekon5 on March 31, 2010, 10:22:36 AM
Action (or non-action) creates Karma that has effect on an individual, there is no judgment in karma. There is no moral imposition.

Life is like a clear calm pool. you throw one stone in , an action, and the waves move outward. You throw many stones in and they all create waves that effect and interact with each other. Many people acting and interacting with each other. the wave does not judge it just is.

You go into an empty pub (the clear calm pool). you are in a bad mood (action, a stone thrown into the pool). You order a pint and are rude to the barman (another action). The bar man gets pissed off and is rude to other customers as they come in. Your action has been transmitted through the bar man to the other patrons of the bar. The many stones have all produced waves that interact with each other. the wave is not judgmental but just is.

And, and you're pretty much along my lines of thinking again here!  My forthcoming article, as mentioned above, was going to tackle my idea of a social meme being true karma, as opposed to a any supernatural universal force.  Treating people in one way will prompt a reaction and so sparks the chaos theory into action.  I've always firmly believed in the chaos theory of life, of action and reaction, how the smallest of actions can alter action and thought across the world.  That's why I like the Discordian ideals you yourself ascribe to, they really fit in with my idea of cosmic balance.

I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the article once it's published in a few months.  Had it planned and on the back burner since before Christmas  

But I really like what you said about the ripples and the calm.  I might paraphrase you when I write it, if that's ok.  Does help bring my concept even further into the Dudeist ethos, trying to make as few ripples as you can in life so as not to upset the tranquility  

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...but I got kind of fed up with using "s around the word "sin"....

Yes sorry I come from a fairly technical philosophical debating background where one has to be specific with their  terminology (add the immense weight of pedantry from my job and the dyslexia) which tends to make me very unforgiving about the use of language.

But I do believe that one should be careful the way one phrases an argument. A clearly defined and articulated argument causes less offense than a knee jerk off the cuff response.

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...I agree with my other half there is no such thing as good and evil, but, the words still exist and have certain connotations...

A very taoist point of view. I see karma as an aspect of chi, the interaction of yin and yang. Chi, and karma as an effect, are like the noise a car engine makes when it's turned on. Not necessary to the process of running the car but there as a side effect of the engine running.

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...When I say "sin" I mean what people recognise as a negative action via a disfavoured ethic, the same with evil.  Like I said above, these are human inventions and own to interpretation, depending on which side of the gun you are, and who's your lawyer...

I agree but argue semantics again. Using the term "sin" carrys all the cultural baggage that is implied by the christian guilt trip. The same way I continue to argue the use of the word "evangelism". these are and have been very particular phrases, and if this discusion were to be observed by someone else I would want to be very particular about what I am arguing.

Again I am very concerned about a movement towards "christianising" Dudeism to make it more palatable for the US bible belt (no insult to our US Dudes).

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AMSo, sorry for the confusion, but I like my words, false in their philosophy or not  ...

I refer to above language is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands.

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
..That's why I like the Discordian ideals you yourself ascribe to, they really fit in with my idea of cosmic balance...

All is chaos, hail eris, all hail discordia, and hope the goddess doesn't notice you and apply some extra favour.

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the article once it's published in a few months.  Had it planned and on the back burner since before Christmas  ..

No problems.

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
..But I really like what you said about the ripples and the calm.  I might paraphrase you when I write it, if that's ok.  Does help bring my concept even further into the Dudeist ethos, trying to make as few ripples as you can in life so as not to upset the tranquility  

It's the way I've seen things for a long time now.

Only the true (Dudeist) Ninja can enter and leave the water causing no ripples.

Quote from: meekon5 on March 31, 2010, 12:14:16 PM

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...but I got kind of fed up with using "s around the word "sin"....

Yes sorry I come from a fairly technical philosophical debating background where one has to be specific with their  terminology (add the immense weight of pedantry from my job and the dyslexia) which tends to make me very unforgiving about the use of language.

But I do believe that one should be careful the way one phrases an argument. A clearly defined and articulated argument causes less offense than a knee jerk off the cuff response.

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...I agree with my other half there is no such thing as good and evil, but, the words still exist and have certain connotations...

A very taoist point of view. I see karma as an aspect of chi, the interaction of yin and yang. Chi, and karma as an effect, are like the noise a car engine makes when it's turned on. Not necessary to the process of running the car but there as a side effect of the engine running.

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...When I say "sin" I mean what people recognise as a negative action via a disfavoured ethic, the same with evil.  Like I said above, these are human inventions and own to interpretation, depending on which side of the gun you are, and who's your lawyer...

I agree but argue semantics again. Using the term "sin" carrys all the cultural baggage that is implied by the christian guilt trip. The same way I continue to argue the use of the word "evangelism". these are and have been very particular phrases, and if this discusion were to be observed by someone else I would want to be very particular about what I am arguing.

Again I am very concerned about a movement towards "christianising" Dudeism to make it more palatable for the US bible belt (no insult to our US Dudes).

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AMSo, sorry for the confusion, but I like my words, false in their philosophy or not  ...

I refer to above language is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands.

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
..That's why I like the Discordian ideals you yourself ascribe to, they really fit in with my idea of cosmic balance...

All is chaos, hail eris, all hail discordia, and hope the goddess doesn't notice you and apply some extra favour.

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the article once it's published in a few months.  Had it planned and on the back burner since before Christmas  ..

No problems.

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
..But I really like what you said about the ripples and the calm.  I might paraphrase you when I write it, if that's ok.  Does help bring my concept even further into the Dudeist ethos, trying to make as few ripples as you can in life so as not to upset the tranquility  

It's the way I've seen things for a long time now.

Only the true (Dudeist) Ninja can enter and leave the water causing no ripples.

Whoa.  

What does the US bible belt have to with anything.  There isn't a literal connection.  There isn't any connection.

I'm cool with your basic premise, but that line just strikes me as a bit mean spirited when it's coming with no frame of reference.

Mind you, I'm not from the US Bible belt and have absolutely no use for the culture there (obviously, I'm here), but still, they're entitled to their views.  No one needs your approval on any of this.

I was talking about his rug.