Criteria of usefulness.

[yrreg]

Lupus has contributed an insightful, though obvious to people accustomed to seek insights, observation to my hobby of research in critical Buddhology.

[.....]

It appears that the major issue yrreg has with the teachings of Buddha is his inability to find any usefulness (or purpose) in the “Buddhist” way of thinking – that from a rather particular point of view it seems. Well, not to despair; a “critical” look at why there must to be a particular purpose for anything might be a good issue to ponder on. Perhaps taking a "critical" look at general semantics could be a starting point.


I like to have a dialogue with you, Lupus.

Tell me what is the usefulness of an orgasm effected by self-stimulation?


Shall we first classify all usefulness into usefulness within oneself and to oneself exclusively, on one side, and on the other usefulness to oneself and to one's neighbors including the rest of life in nature?


I am now studying evidence based medicine, and the first impression I have come upon so far is that this discipline is strictly concerned with usefulness of a medical substance or procedure that is more than just its usefulness to one patient alone in any respect of how the patient reports its usefulness, but the medicinal substance or procedure has no usefulness to others, so that it is medically useless outside and away from that particular patient who reports a usefulness for himself in any way he understands usefulness.


Earlier I introduced a thread each in a science forum and in a philosophy forum where I ask the question what is the usefulness of a mystical experience; so far the participants there have not reacted to my latest message making a distinction between, as I have mentioned above, usefulness exclusive to the subject person and usefulness both to the subject person and also to neighbors and life in nature.


So, if you will be interested in the topic of the present thread, tell me what you think about my division of usefulness into usefulness exclusive to the subject, for example an orgasm effected by self-stimulation, and usefulness to others outside oneself.


Yrreg

[fuelair]

What does usefulness have to do with any religion/religious belief (other than keeping you alive in certain parts of the world and helping you fleece suckers in those and others)?

[Solus]

Why don't you post this in the flame war section, or send him a PM? :confused:

[fuelair]

Why don't you post this in the flame war section, or send him a PM? :confused:
No intent of flaming, asking a legitimate (to me, anyway) question - and unless I have written it in an unintended way, I am missing how it could be interpreted that way.

If it is correct that he is specifically asking/saying that he has a problem with Buddhism because its' way of thinking (the way of thinking of its' followers specifically) has no usefulness, then I believe it is reasonable to ask (as I did) why the application to Buddhism only since the same applies to all religions.

If you are referring to the addenda, they were in the nature of pointing out my (at a minimum) belief that the only usefulness of "following" the belief system of any religion is : Survival (in many areas of the world, it is extremely useful to at least appear to follow the beliefs of the local religion if you do not want to be cast out, beaten, killed or other such) and Economics(you are more likely to be able to sell to -or swindle- believers if you appear to be one of them and you survive while doing it).

[Marquis de Carabas]

What does usefulness have to do with any religion/religious belief (other than keeping you alive in certain parts of the world and helping you fleece suckers in those and others)?
There is always utility in conformity, even when the price of rebellion is not so high as death.

(And I think Solus may have been replying to the OP, with lupus being the antecedent of him)

[Solus]

There is always utility in conformity, even when the price of rebellion is not so high as death.

(And I think Solus may have been replying to the OP, with lupus being the antecedent of him)

I was, the post was meant for yrreg.

[Dancing David]

This is old hat Yrreg, and it goes back to your namesake Pachomius. In your early threads you stated the same notion. And again and again and again.

You have repeatedly said that you find that buddhism is a philospohy without use , and that it is empty etc., etc., etc.. The techniques of buddhism are similar to those of cognitive behavioral therapy, which is shown to be the most effect6ive therapy. Note that is the techniques as in the eightfold path. (have you studied them yet?)(Have you shown that anywhere they were discussed before the alleged historical buddha?)

So you have a new spin on old yarn for you.

If you find no use in buddhism that is great, don't follow the eightfold path, and that was said to you in the beggining as well.

In response, the eightfold path is very similar to the proven therapy of CBT which has proven most useful to most people in the studies that have been done.

There is no soul and that bothers you, there is no god and that bothers you.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Sure, but why not include everyone interested in the dialogue? First of all, I believe my point was intended in the subjective sense (you). So, you didn’t find any usefulness in the teachings of Buddha – nothing therein resonated with you – with the implication of concluding that Buddhist thinking being useless also in the objective sense (i.e. for everyone else). I’m not a Buddhist, but I find it hard to draw the same conclusion nonetheless.

The point of departure for your “critical” examination seems to be that of a “neutral” observer: I guess you’re trying to look at sheep from the perspective of the whole herd. But it’s not the whole herd you represent; you represent the perspective of how you imagine the whole herd as an entity would perceive the issue – hence the illusion of the objective and the consequence of asserting objective conclusions that actually are subjective in its origin.

Now, what is useful in masturbation? Objectively, I don’t know, except that it seems to be a widely used phenomenon. Subjectively it might have to do with releasing sexual tension, sexual self discovery, amusement in the form a fantasy etc… basically it feels good, unless you have the rare condition of painful orgasms. In that case, I suppose such people tend to masturbate rather infrequently (perhaps just to check if it’s still painful, if doing it at all). I’m inclined to think the subjective experience might have objective consequences, even though I cannot exactly pinpoint them.

Furthermore, some cultures seem to find sexual pleasure (orgasm) useless or even dirty, thus they remove the clitoris from females. This is rather oddly often in reference to religious beliefs, which I find odd since the basic tenet seems to be that “God” created man and woman, yet men seem to correct the female creation by removing “unnecessary” parts. Personally, I find this practise contradictory and appalling. On the other hand, one could retort to this by saying we also remove cancers from our body, thus saying; who are we to decide that a cancer should be removed (it’s part of “God’s” creation too), hence eventually drawing the issue out from a purely religious context towards that of the social. Basically it’s not a particular part of the body that appears to be in the centre of the controversy; it’s the experience produced by that organ/cancer that seems to be under scrutiny from both the personal and the social perspective. Some things we should experience – we are telling or are told – and some not. Ironically, God (whatever that is or isn’t) seem to be neural in this respect.

Hence we’re left with a question of value: Is the social evaluation more correct than the personal? But this is yet again a fallacy because there’s no social entity; the social consists of persons after all – we are left with personal interpretations of the social. However, we have social forces affecting personal value judgements nonetheless (by socialization and by social construction of reality), thus affecting subjective judgements, which yet again change the social forces to some degree.

In this regard, I find some of Buddha’s teachings as rather beautiful; trying to make us stop for little while and realize the absurdity of automata. Or like Nietzsche said: “Understanding stops action”. Resuming into the play of life again after such a profound realization or experience might have positive consequences for the player/(s) and the actual game itself.

The crude categorization between personal and social usefulness might be useful as simple analytical tool, but whether they’re useful on their own remains open. Perhaps we can look at the categories more closely henceforth, and maybe contemplate on mystical experiences too? And... sorry for the long but incomplete post.

[yrreg]

I said that I like to have a dialogue with Lupus, that doesn't mean that others are excluded from this thread. Conventional logic tells us that a sentence can be understood as in the excluding sense or in the including sense or neither one nor the other, but it is an open sentence.

So, if anyone feels that he is excluded from this thread for not being Lupus, that is up to him; if anyone thinks that he is not excluded for not being Lupus, that is also up to him.

Best is to study the reason why the author says that he likes to have a dialogue with Lupus, search the reason why in message #1, the initiating post of this topic.

If you are acquainted with the reason then you will contribute some positive materials for the audience of this forum in re this topic of the division between usefulness for oneself exclusively and usefulness for others as well.

And you will not distract the audience's attention with namecalling, labeling, assigning of motives, etc., which are of no contribution whatsoever to the disquisition of a question, for attaining some piece of useful knowledge for mankind -- except for a model to the audience how to not behave in a discussion among gentlemen opinion makers.


====================

About orgasm from self-stimulation, it is useful only for the self; and everyone who resorts to this usefulness is justified and not blamable to himself for being a free agent in a society that is zealous of personal freedom. I will just add one caveat: whatever you do that is exclusively useful to yourself only, make sure it does not impose any burden to others who might have to undertake any labor in regard to your pursuit of some activity purely exclusively useful to yourself and not to others.

For example, some people find suicide useful to themselves, and that is their right, and no law can stop them from suicide unless the law unjustly infringes into their liberty to act in regard to themselves.

But I would suggest to them that they do their free act of suicide away from public distraction, and not to mess up the public environment. Please arrange with your favorite undertaker where to look up your remains and how to arrange a most private burial, and deliver notice to people who you know to be interested for whatever reasons to possess information of your demise.


Now, I like to ask Lupus whether, you, Lupus agree with me that my division of usefulness to oneself and usefulness to others as well, that division of usefulness is useful to everyone who has any concern with the discerning of what is useful and what is not useful to oneself and also to others as well; for example if you are running a family and home or operating some kind of business or undertaking an activity where you have to determine usefulness of people in your responsibility?


Yrreg

[Kopji]

So, if anyone feels that he is excluded from this thread for not being Lupus, that is up to him; if anyone thinks that he is not excluded for not being Lupus, that is also up to him. - yrreg


I am not Lupus, but I am enjoying Lupus's posts anyway. If I were actually Lupus, I'm not sure I would be enjoying them quite as much.

[lupus_in_fabula]

So, if anyone feels that he is excluded from this thread for not being Lupus, that is up to him; if anyone thinks that he is not excluded for not being Lupus, that is also up to him.

I believe you have just presented one analogy for how the division between individual and social usefulness could be perceived. Surely the context for such an individual decision here is social in regards to the outcome of the thread, is it not? But how are we to decide if it’s more useful – yes, I’m jumping the gun here and directly take the assistance of degrees – for the thread if only we have a dialogue or if many are involved?

About orgasm from self-stimulation, it is useful only for the self; and everyone who resorts to this usefulness is justified and not blamable to himself for being a free agent in a society that is zealous of personal freedom. I will just add one caveat: whatever you do that is exclusively useful to yourself only, make sure it does not impose any burden to others who might have to undertake any labor in regard to your pursuit of some activity purely exclusively useful to yourself and not to others.


Yet again, we often don’t know the outcome; hence we cannot always say that an action is exclusively useful for the individual (or the social).

Let’s imagine the following scenario: Twenty males in their prime are put in a small mansion for one year (or longer) not allowed to leave. The heterosexual males are everyday given a shot of testosterone but they are forbidden to masturbate or to have sex. Now at least I could imagine the situation eventually escalate to such an extent that the observers of the experiment, concerned with keeping the situation in the mansion peaceful, being forced to rethink the rules and allowing them to masturbate at least once in a while. So, what at first is perceived as an entirely private enterprise in terms of usefulness might have social consequences; almost to the degree of being socially desirable because not-performing this exclusively private act might end up in violence.

If the rules are kept no matter what, then another resolution could be the “king of the hill” resolution. Yet another resolution could be that they eventually turn into “enlightened Buddhas”… We just don’t know!

For example, some people find suicide useful to themselves, and that is their right, and no law can stop them from suicide unless the law unjustly infringes into their liberty to act in regard to themselves.

But I would suggest to them that they do their free act of suicide away from public distraction, and not to mess up the public environment. Please arrange with your favorite undertaker where to look up your remains and how to arrange a most private burial, and deliver notice to people who you know to be interested for whatever reasons to possess information of your demise.

I believe the Eskimos used to have an order where suicide played perhaps a pivotal social function. Since resources were so scarce it was considered functional for old people unable to participate in a meaningful way anymore to go out and die. Again, it’s hard to judge where individual and social usefulness intersect.

Now, I like to ask Lupus whether, you, Lupus agree with me that my division of usefulness to oneself and usefulness to others as well, that division of usefulness is useful to everyone who has any concern with the discerning of what is useful and what is not useful to oneself and also to others as well; for example if you are running a family and home or operating some kind of business or undertaking an activity where you have to determine usefulness of people in your responsibility?


I don’t believe we know enough about the world in order to only operate with such exclusive categories; a life where only ‘yeas’ or ‘no’ dictates future action (although it’s good enough for the computer). We must talk ‘degrees’ and leave room for ‘maybe’ all the way. In other words: There must be room for experimentation.

I would like to think that we eventually could reach a point where “what’s good for me is good for society”. Therefore, Aleister Crowley’s (often misunderstood statement) “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” resonates with me. I think it’s best to start with what you know best… that being yourself. If you find the bliss – what you deeply desire to do – I think it will directly influence the surrounding positively too (here’s a fully exposed hole just waiting to filled with objections and examples to the contrary). There have also been some experiments of grandeur where the basic tenet has been “what’s good for society is good for the individual” but they didn’t really work either. Perhaps none of the extremes will ever work?

But I’m also pragmatic so I have to confess that I don't directly disregard the categories you presented. I believe no one does! So here we are… stuck in between, mostly dealing with degrees and uncertain outcomes!

[Dancing David]

Suicide=masturbation?

If you follow the eightfold path then your actions will tend to not be harmful to others except in the regard that you don't tell them to follow baby jesus and so they will all go to hell. So excluding the trip to Rock Candy Mountain the followers of the eightfold path will have utility because they will have a positive impact upon society.

[yrreg]

I bring up the examples of masturbation and suicide for a better possibly better understanding of my division of usefulness to oneself exclusively and to others as well; these are real everyday events. I am of the mind that where everyday real events are available, there should be no need to bring up hypothetical situations which at best can only be realized by artificial role playing as on the stage.

However, I do accept hypothetical situations which can happen and do happen without artificial staging of the event hypothesized. For example one can imagine oneself afloat on a life raft lost in the vastness of the seas, that is a hypothetical situation that can happen and has happened to people. In which case one can make a study what one would do in terms of masturbation and suicide: to pass time one could and would and might as well masturbate, and then to depart quickly as to depart is inevitable willy-nilly, commit suicide.


So, if I may? shall we just limit ourselves to the kind of hypothetical situations that have happened and will happen to people everyday, and abstain from this discussion hypothetical situations which are possible only on artificial scripting as on the stage, specially where the probability of such a script occurring in the real everyday world of life is most remote as to be on the basis of normal contingency of everyday's human affairs and vicissitudes impossible of occurrence.


Yrreg

[Dancing David]

The followers of the eightfold path will limit thier negative impact upon others and maximise thier positive benefit to others.

[lupus_in_fabula]

I bring up the examples of masturbation and suicide for a better possibly better understanding of my division of usefulness to oneself exclusively and to others as well; these are real everyday events. I am of the mind that where everyday real events are available, there should be no need to bring up hypothetical situations which at best can only be realized by artificial role playing as on the stage.

However, I do accept hypothetical situations which can happen and do happen without artificial staging of the event hypothesized. For example one can imagine oneself afloat on a life raft lost in the vastness of the seas, that is a hypothetical situation that can happen and has happened to people. In which case one can make a study what one would do in terms of masturbation and suicide: to pass time one could and would and might as well masturbate, and then to depart quickly as to depart is inevitable willy-nilly, commit suicide.


So, if I may? shall we just limit ourselves to the kind of hypothetical situations that have happened and will happen to people everyday, and abstain from this discussion hypothetical situations which are possible only on artificial scripting as on the stage, specially where the probability of such a script occurring in the real everyday world of life is most remote as to be on the basis of normal contingency of everyday's human affairs and vicissitudes impossible of occurrence.


Yrreg

If you limit yourself to those exclusive categories, and judge every action from that either-or premise without looking at the context, then, they will become a self fulfilling prophecy for you, and they will appear to you as “true” in every situation. It only takes a different context for perception to change that “truth”; a different “reality tunnel” (as Timothy Leary would have said).

My biggest problem with your reasoning is that you judge and action as useful or useless exclusively by the categories you have presented… without explaining the particular context wherein you evaluate the usefulness through those categories. The same seems to apply to your “critical buddhology”.

You simply assert that masturbation is useless from a social standpoint! What you should say is something like: Masturbation seems to be useless from this particular social standpoint (and then you present the particular context you think it applies to and how usefulness therein is a tool for measurement). ‘Social’ means everything (thus nothing) before you frame it in some way. A person shouting obscenities at the market square could be considered insane, whereas the same person shouting the same obscenities at a stage, in a theatre, as part of a play, could be considered a true artist – both situations are social! Now change the ‘shouting of obscenities’ to that of ‘masturbation’ and you get the picture.

The ironic thing is that you seem to criticize Buddhism for its vagueness, yet embrace your categories through a similar vagueness. This is somewhat perplexing to me!

[yrreg]

If I may call you friend, Lupus, okay? because we do talk to each other whatever our respective minds and hearts, and this is a community where a sense of shared concerns prevail among the members -- normally, even among people who are otherwise on ideas at loggerheads.

Good friend, Lupus, I said very recently that I am about to postgraduate from critical Buddhology, of course I admit my own kind of critical Buddhology where no sacred cows are revered. So I took, was it three days off from this forum? and did some posting in a science forum and in a philosophy forum, where I introduced threads about the usefulness of mystical experience as practically the main interest from my part.

Those two threads have come to a standstill with my last post four days ago, respectively in each post where I brought up the division of usefulness in the world of mankind.


I should thank you for that insight you expressed in my preceding thread, with your post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2417419#post2417419) about my real preoccupation in criticizing Buddhism being my search for its usefulness. You hit the nail on its head, bull's eye, and no bull either.

So, that is the raison d'etre of this present thread, to go above Buddhism by ascending to the higher and broader topic of what is useful to mankind and how to judge usefulness. I like to invite you as I mentioned in the initiating post of this thread to collaborate with me for arriving at the criteria of usefulness, which criteria can then be applied to anything and everything that man does while he still breathes.

====================

I make the distinction between usefulness to oneself exclusively and usefulness to others as well, and bring up two examples of usefulness of the first kind, masturbation and suicide.

Would you care to expand on your idea that masturbation is useful not only to oneself exclusively but also to others, then also suicide? But first, let us keep to the possible usefulness of masturbation to others, which I seem to understand that you have an insight of.


Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Well masturbating others does have a low risk of HIV transmission.

;)

[Mojo]

I am now studying evidence based medicine, and the first impression I have come upon so far is that this discipline is strictly concerned with usefulness of a medical substance or procedure that is more than just its usefulness to one patient alone in any respect of how the patient reports its usefulness, but the medicinal substance or procedure has no usefulness to others, so that it is medically useless outside and away from that particular patient who reports a usefulness for himself in any way he understands usefulness.Evidence based medicine simply involves the use of treatments for which there is an adequate evidence base.

The reason that N=1 anecdotes are useless as evidence for whether or not a treatment works was repeatedly explained to you in your thread about acupuncture. Go back and read it again.

[lupus_in_fabula]

I make the distinction between usefulness to oneself exclusively and usefulness to others as well, and bring up two examples of usefulness of the first kind, masturbation and suicide.

Can you provide an example of the latter kind; something that’s exclusively useful for the social but not for the individual!?

Would you care to expand on your idea that masturbation is useful not only to oneself exclusively but also to others, then also suicide? But first, let us keep to the possible usefulness of masturbation to others, which I seem to understand that you have an insight of.

I though I would have made my opinion clear by know – and make no mistake: it’s an opinion not a claim of fact. I have been trying to illuminate that simply applying the categories to the world will not always keep all possibilities of a future outcome within the boundaries of that particular category. Don’t you see it’s hardly a matter of universalism, but rather a case of choosing perspectives?

Why exactly are you in such haste for categorical closure anyway? Could it be more useful to leave some doors open, just in case something unfolds that differs from what you previously though were all that it was? The usefulness herein is not being overly confused every time such an unfold takes place.

A simple example/opinion: If masturbation makes someone happy or relieved (at least for a while), he/she might be then be less grumpy among friends, thus contributing positively to the atmosphere. Not to make masturbation into a prerogative, but nevertheless a possible contributing factor!

Haven’t you ever wondered why satisfying relationships still often finds room for masturbation and private fantasies? Do you think eliminating those wouldn’t have an effect on the relationship in the long run? Now if they find room for masturbation, what about unsatisfying sexual relationships then (let's say the partner is unable to engage in "normal" sex; like being in a 'coma' or something less dramatic)? Could masturbation be a better option for the able one; better than leaving the relationship in order to find sexually able partners? Love could still be there you see!

[Ryokan]

Can you provide an example of the latter kind; something that’s exclusively useful for the social but not for the individual!?

Taxes? :p

[yrreg]

First of all, I am not making any categorical claim here and mostly in my messages anywhere in web forums. What I say in web forums are all almost all provisional, tentative, not final.




Posted by yrreg
I make the distinction between usefulness to oneself exclusively and usefulness to others as well, and bring up two examples of usefulness of the first kind, masturbation and suicide.


Can you provide an example of the latter kind; something that’s exclusively useful for the social but not for the individual!?

Yes, I can think right away of death sentence.

Posted by yrreg
Would you care to expand on your idea that masturbation is useful not only to oneself exclusively but also to others, then also suicide? But first, let us keep to the possible usefulness of masturbation to others, which I seem to understand that you have an insight of.

[......]

Why exactly are you in such haste for categorical closure anyway? Could it be more useful to leave some doors open, just in case something unfolds that differs from what you previously though were all that it was? The usefulness herein is not being overly confused every time such an unfold takes place.

I really, truly, honestly, and habitually don't have any hurry to put closure on anything I write in message boards.

A simple example/opinion: If masturbation makes someone happy or relieved (at least for a while), he/she might be then be less grumpy among friends, thus contributing positively to the atmosphere. Not to make masturbation into a prerogative, but nevertheless a possible contributing factor!


I agree with you.

Haven’t you ever wondered why satisfying relationships still often finds room for masturbation and private fantasies? Do you think eliminating those wouldn’t have an effect on the relationship in the long run? [......]

I am not eliminating anything from anyone but just discussing, because everything or almost everything I write in message boards are provisional, tentative, not final.


So, if I get you correctly: something can be directly useful exclusively to oneself but in an indirect way useful also to others; like masturbation is directly useful to oneself but indirectly useful to others, because the subject can thereby be less grumpy to others, and in this way his masturbation is useful to others. I agree.


Writing messages here for me is useful directly to myself because I derive some pleasure from it; however to many people who interact with me in the course of everyday's life they are not useful, like to the janitor in the office; yet it can be said and it is useful in an indirect way to them in that while I am occupied with this pleasure of writing web forum messages they are not in any possibility of my physically getting in their way, thereby they are more free to go about their business, errands, or their own kind of pleasure, or useful purposes.


That is one useful distinction about usefulness to oneself: directly useful exclusively to oneself and indirectly also useful to others at least in a negative way -- not a hindrance in any way to others to go about their own kind of usefulness.

That goes for masturbation, and it certainly goes for suicide as well. So that as I see on the desks of some guys here in office the signage with the inscription: "If you have nothing to do, don't do it here," we can substitute for the word 'nothing' the phrase 'anything directly useful to yourself exclusively,' and we have the more useful notice, thus:

If you have anything directly useful to yourself exclusively to do, don't do it here.


I am glad that I have introduced this thread on the criteria of usefulness, for now I can tell and I will tell the guys in office how to put up a better or less puzzling notice on their desks, namely, instead of

this:
If you have nothing to do, don't do it here.

this:
If you have anything directly useful to yourself exclusively to do, don't do it here.


In the neighborhood there are assigned policemen who do the beat, and whenever they see any guy just occupying space in the neighborhood but with no particular purpose like waiting for someone, instead of telling him:

If you have nothing to do, don't do it here;


I will propose to them to tell the guy this line:


If you have anything directly useful to yourself exclusively to do, don't do it here.


Yes!? Will you agree with me that my discovering of this distinction between what is directly useful exclusively to oneself and what is also but indirectly only useful to others, that is a useful distinction? For then no one can just categorically rule that someone doing something is just engaged in doing something that is useful to himself exclusively only, but not to others also.


Yrreg

[lupus_in_fabula]

Yes, I can think right away of death sentence.

Fair enough, fortunately many societies have decided not to have such punishments; almost as if such a punishment is considered useless in those particular social realms.

Yes!? Will you agree with me that my discovering of this distinction between what is directly useful exclusively to oneself and what is also but indirectly only useful to others, that is a useful distinction? For then no one can just categorically rule that someone doing something is just engaged in doing something that is useful to himself exclusively only, but not to others also.

Sure, if it pleases you. However, I guess you could reformulate it to fit the idea if uncertainty… that is: what you perceive to be directly or indirectly useful; the distinction is perhaps relative to the perception.

So: If you perceive you have anything directly useful to yourself exclusively to do, don’t do it here. :D

[Loss Leader]

Lupus, I wanted to take the opportunity to welcome you to the forum. Your posts in this thread have been excellent - well-reasoned and carefully explained. I'm sorry to say that you may be disappointed by your debating partner.

[yrreg]

So: If you perceive you have anything directly useful to yourself exclusively to do, don’t do it here. -- Lupus

That seems to be a sensible concession to the benefit of the doubt to someone who is otherwise perceived by the policeman to be occupying space in the street but doing nothing he the policeman perceives to be useful to others and the neighborhood, but the person perceives to be useful only to himself exclusively as this person perceives of himself in his actual status quo.

Tell me, is the policeman doing his job in telling the man not to do what he perceives to be directly useful only to himself but not to others, to not do what he perceives in his presently occupied space, but to move on?

======================

Can we now agree that:

1. there are acts a person does which are only useful to himself exclusively but not to others, according to his perception of usefulness to himself, like masturbation and suicide?

2. but just the same you can argue that indirectly by some way in some respect his acts otherwise useless to others can be useful to others nonetheless, for example:

(a) in the case of masturbation, the person thereby could be less grumpy in the presence of other people,

(b) in the case of suicide, the person is thus no longer in the possible situation of getting in the way of other people who have their own useful purposes to pursue.

==========================

Posted by lupus_in_fabula (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2417419#post2417419):
[.....]

It appears that the major issue yrreg has with the teachings of Buddha is his inability to find any usefulness (or purpose) in the “Buddhist” way of thinking – that from a rather particular point of view it seems. Well, not to despair; a “critical” look at why there must to be a particular purpose for anything might be a good issue to ponder on. Perhaps taking a "critical" look at general semantics could be a starting point.


Lupus, good friend, With your qualifications and reservations of usefulness to oneself exclusively but not to others, are you in a position to mention some acts in an individual Buddhist that are useful exclusively to the individual Buddhist but not to others, in his own perception of usefulness to himself only?


Yrreg

[lupus_in_fabula]

Lupus, I wanted to take the opportunity to welcome you to the forum. Your posts in this thread have been excellent - well-reasoned and carefully explained. I'm sorry to say that you may be disappointed by your debating partner.

Thank you, I feel welcomed :)

[lupus_in_fabula]

Tell me, is the policeman doing his job in telling the man not to do what he perceives to be directly useful only to himself but not to others, to not do what he perceives in his presently occupied space, but to move on?

Well, he might perceive he’s doing something useful in regards to his job as a policeman. He might also personally be annoyed with the man and use his authority for a personal purpose. We don’t always know. Fortunately, where I live, policemen seldom have any business telling me to move on only because I happen to show signs of possible idleness.


Can we now agree that:
1. there are acts a person does which are only useful to himself exclusively but not to others, according to his perception of usefulness to himself, like masturbation and suicide?

2. but just the same you can argue that indirectly by some way in some respect his acts otherwise useless to others can be useful to others nonetheless.

Those are possible scenarios, but not the only ones. For example:
3. There are individual acts that a person perceives to be directly useful, not only for himself but for society too. Like directly helping people, where the helper a) feels good doing; b) the receiver feels good receiving (but might end up becoming dependant on the helper, thus possibly becomes more helpless on his own).

Are you trying to close the options again? :D

Lupus, good friend, With your qualifications and reservations of usefulness to oneself exclusively but not to others, are you in a position to mention some acts in an individual Buddhist that are useful exclusively to the individual Buddhist but not to others, in his own perception of usefulness to himself only?

I don’t know! I don’t know how another person perceives him- “self”. Thus I don’t know if he perceives to be doing a personal act, a social act, or just an act in itself? I don’t think the value of meditation necessarily has to be measured by a scale of “usefulness” at all. It seems to be one of those beautiful acts we can do without a purpose.

Here’s a scenario: A person is “meditating” for the sole purpose of becoming a better functioning person in society (for the benefit of society). However, according to Alan Watts and many others, meditation with a purpose is not true meditation. Thus, he might drop his altruistic purpose altogether but still gain the same result by continuing meditation. Now how useful has ‘usefulness’ here been? Do we really have only one possible answer?

[yrreg]

Good friend Lupus, you mention an act someone does for which he himself feels good and others feel good, as another kind of usefulness. I can agree with you but it is already included in my division of usefulness to oneself exclusively and usefulness to oneself and usefulness to others as well. You give a particular instance of the latter usefulness but not a new kind of usefulness.

We are talking about usefulness to oneself alone and usefulness to others as well; what you have been doing is trying to bring in instances of usefulness that apply to both the subject doing an act and also to others who derive also usefulness, like the example you give that of the do-gooder feeling good and also the beneficiary feeling good, and everyone else normally feeling good. That is not another division of usefulness distinct from usefulness to oneself alone and usefulness also to others as well.

To make things simple, so that we can proceed more directly and quickly to the objective of this thread, let us agree that by usefulness we mean any action a person does that is useful in any way he explains and reports usefulness; that is what I said as much already at the start of this thread in post #1 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2429583&postcount=1), pay attention to the lines in bold.

I am now studying evidence based medicine, and the first impression I have come upon so far is that this discipline is strictly concerned with usefulness of a medical substance or procedure that is more than just its usefulness to one patient alone in any respect of how the patient reports its usefulness, but the medicinal substance or procedure has no usefulness to others, so that it is medically useless outside and away from that particular patient who reports a usefulness for himself in any way he understands usefulness.


I like to make it very clear that I am not trying to prove that Buddhism is useless except to Buddhists exclusively and not to others not Buddhists. So there is no need to bring up instances of usefulness in particular cases of how people perceive or feel or etc. an act to be useful to people.

At this point, again, I want to give you the credit for your insight into my concern in Criticism of Buddhism, as in fact a quest for the usefulness in Buddhism.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2417419&postcount=50

Interesting how my mind is inclined to make the distinction between ‘criticism’ and ‘critical examination’ here. So far, much of the “critical buddhology” seems to have fallen under former category.

It appears that the major issue yrreg has with the teachings of Buddha is his inability to find any usefulness (or purpose) in the “Buddhist” way of thinking – that from a rather particular point of view it seems. Well, not to despair; a “critical” look at why there must to be a particular purpose for anything might be a good issue to ponder on. Perhaps taking a "critical" look at general semantics could be a starting point.


As you bring up Buddhist meditation, let us now include Buddhist meditation in our exchange about usefulness to oneself exclusively and to others as well, i.e., in any way a subject perceives and reports and explains, etc., usefulness.

But first can we now agree about masturbation and suicide that

1. Masturbation is useful to a Buddhist who does it -- according to Kopji it is almost a sacrament with Buddhists but I don’t believe it being any sacrament with Buddhists, in his the Buddhist's perception, feeling, etc., and also useful to others because the Buddhist would then not be grumpy in their presence or anyway to himself when alone.

2. Suicide is useful to Buddhists as when some Buddhists burned themselves in public to protest the American military intervention against North Vietnam during the US-Vietnam war.

Are we agreeable on those two examples of usefulness?


Now let us go to the example of Buddhist meditation which you present here as an example of a useful act in Buddhism.


[Please proceed to next post.]


Yrreg

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
Lupus, good friend, With your qualifications and reservations of usefulness to oneself exclusively but not to others, are you in a position to mention some acts in an individual Buddhist that are useful exclusively to the individual Buddhist but not to others, in his own perception of usefulness to himself only?

[Bolding supplied by Yrreg]
I don’t know! I don’t know how another person perceives him- “self”. Thus I don’t know if he perceives to be doing a personal act, a social act, or just an act in itself? I don’t think the value of meditation necessarily has to be measured by a scale of “usefulness” at all. It seems to be one of those beautiful acts we can do without a purpose.

Here’s a scenario: A person is “meditating” for the sole purpose of becoming a better functioning person in society (for the benefit of society). However, according to Alan Watts and many others, meditation with a purpose is not true meditation. Thus, he might drop his altruistic purpose altogether but still gain the same result by continuing meditation. Now how useful has ‘usefulness’ here been? Do we really have only one possible answer?

Let us first consider Buddhist meditation to be useful in our understanding of usefulness as you have explained in terms of perception, feeling, etc. Is that all right?

Now we will try to explain how Buddhist meditation is useful as per our understanding of usefulness which you were at pains to elaborate, namely, on the basis of perception, feeling, etc. every any respect by which anyone can understand and report usefulness -- even without regard to the principle of parsimony.

Can we say then that Buddhist meditation is useful? because as you put it, "It seems to be one of those beautiful acts we can do without a purpose".

Can anyone argue against its usefulness to the Buddhist doing Buddhist meditation? when it is "one of those beautiful acts we can do without a purpose? when we consider usefulness in terms of perception, feeling, etc.. etc., etc.

But even without resorting to all manners of qualifications and reservations, I will say with all sincerity that as far as I am concerned and anyone else with a good head in my estimation, meditation is useful, period, no need to bring in perception, feeling, etc., or beauty without a purpose.


Good friend Lupus, allow me to request from you now another example of an act in Buddhism that is useful, and we will examine it how it is useful, and whether to oneself exclusively or to others as well.


Yrreg

[Complexity]

Yrreg - Do you actually believe that you are learning anything, teaching anything, persuading anyone, accomplishing anything, or, in any way, being useful in your postings on Buddhism?

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, Yrreg, I have been giving different examples in terms of scenarios all along. In my last post I just gave an example of how an act can be perceived, in the eyes of the individual, as useful both for the individual and the social at the same time – albeit redundantly. Yet the difference was that of ‘direct’ vs. ‘indirect’. I think the interesting part was that the act could be directly ‘useful’ from one perspective, but indirectly ‘useless’ from another perspective, or somewhere in between. But even here, it’s not totally useless since the person receiving the charity might realize his dependence and decides to do something about it. Yet again we have a new perspective and another value-judgement!

It seems to me, Yrreg, that ‘usefulness’ and ‘uselessness’ is in a constant flux! All it takes is a change in point of view.

This comes back to my initial point, and what you so happily thank me for: ‘you’ were the context, thus I said ‘you’ didn’t find ‘usefullness’. Usefullness/uselessness was a result of my interpretation of the context. It doesn’t mean we should henceforth always look at things through that categorical lens.

Somehow I feel the following surreal scenario is applicable to this discussion:

Entity A: Do you like garbage?
Entity B: Sounds like rubbish!

Entity A: Oh, you mean the band, you know; “I think I’m Paranoid”!
Entity B: Now you’re talking Garbage.

Entity A: Are you telling me I’m talking rubbish?
Entity B: No, don’t be paranoid!

Entity A: This is garbage and you’re full of rubbish!
Entity B: I know!

… and the rats, covered by rubbish, happily continued digging in the garbage can trying to find something to eat.

Do you think any new scenario will stop the flux? Nevertheless, Joseph Campbell would have said that the doctrine is not Buddhism, it’s the way to Buddhism, and hence any act during the way towards the goal might be considered useful at least from that perspective.

[Dancing David]

Good friend Lupus, you mention an act someone does for which he himself feels good and others feel good, as another kind of usefulness. I can agree with you but it is already included in my division of usefulness to oneself exclusively and usefulness to oneself and usefulness to others as well. You give a particular instance of the latter usefulness but not a new kind of usefulness.

We are talking about usefulness to oneself alone and usefulness to others as well; what you have been doing is trying to bring in instances of usefulness that apply to both the subject doing an act and also to others who derive also usefulness, like the example you give that of the do-gooder feeling good and also the beneficiary feeling good, and everyone else normally feeling good. That is not another division of usefulness distinct from usefulness to oneself alone and usefulness also to others as well.

To make things simple, so that we can proceed more directly and quickly to the objective of this thread, let us agree that by usefulness we mean any action a person does that is useful in any way he explains and reports usefulness; that is what I said as much already at the start of this thread in post #1 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2429583&postcount=1), pay attention to the lines in bold.




I like to make it very clear that I am not trying to prove that Buddhism is useless except to Buddhists exclusively and not to others not Buddhists. So there is no need to bring up instances of usefulness in particular cases of how people perceive or feel or etc. an act to be useful to people.

At this point, again, I want to give you the credit for your insight into my concern in Criticism of Buddhism, as in fact a quest for the usefulness in Buddhism.




As you bring up Buddhist meditation, let us now include Buddhist meditation in our exchange about usefulness to oneself exclusively and to others as well, i.e., in any way a subject perceives and reports and explains, etc., usefulness.

But first can we now agree about masturbation and suicide that

1. Masturbation is useful to a Buddhist who does it -- according to Kopji it is almost a sacrament with Buddhists but I don’t believe it being any sacrament with Buddhists, in his the Buddhist's perception, feeling, etc., and also useful to others because the Buddhist would then not be grumpy in their presence or anyway to himself when alone.

2. Suicide is useful to Buddhists as when some Buddhists burned themselves in public to protest the American military intervention against North Vietnam during the US-Vietnam war.

Are we agreeable on those two examples of usefulness?


Now let us go to the example of Buddhist meditation which you present here as an example of a useful act in Buddhism.


[Please proceed to next post.]


Yrreg


What no story by Pes Oir Amsus?

I am diasappoined, the readers of your newletter and the participants in your sunday school will appreciate this fable as well, but the POA stuff is better fiction.

You set the parameters, you ask the questions, you self reference yourself.

You talk only to yourself. I think you are a troll, if an endearing one, because just like Coberst, you are only here to say what you have to say. There is no dialouge.

There is no soul and that bothers you.

[Loss Leader]

But first can we now agree about masturbation and suicide that

1. Masturbation is useful to a Buddhist who does it -- according to Kopji it is almost a sacrament with Buddhists but I don’t believe it being any sacrament with Buddhists, in his the Buddhist's perception, feeling, etc., and also useful to others because the Buddhist would then not be grumpy in their presence or anyway to himself when alone.

2. Suicide is useful to Buddhists as when some Buddhists burned themselves in public to protest the American military intervention against North Vietnam during the US-Vietnam war.

Are we agreeable on those two examples of usefulness?


How have the examples of masturbation and suicide picked up the word Buddhist? They were initially being discussed in only the most general terms with no special relationship to Buddhism. Now, suddenly, we are talking about ow Buddhists perceive these acts.

Good friend Lupus, allow me to request from you now another example of an act in Buddhism that is useful, and we will examine it how it is useful, and whether to oneself exclusively or to others as well.


How have we moved on to this? It doesn't appear that you and Lupus fully agree on the concepts of personal/social usefulness or have resolved your disagreements about the subjective nature of the inquiry.

If Lupus does not agree that an activity can be measured in terms of "usefulness," how can he move on with you to rate the activities of Buddhists in terms of usefulness.



In the end, I fear you have not understood a single word that Lupus has said.

[yrreg]

[...]

Do you think any new scenario will stop the flux? Nevertheless, Joseph Campbell would have said that the doctrine is not Buddhism, it’s the way to Buddhism, and hence any act during the way towards the goal might be considered useful at least from that perspective.


You have also brought in Alan Watts and maybe others whom you take for authorities which I am not aware on what grounds they are authorities.

Honestly, just use their thoughts as you read them in their writings, if you think their thoughts have any critically intrinsic worth, but you still know that these thoughts are the common heirloom of mankind since the dawn of consciousness, intelligence, and learning.

No need to bring in their names: unless indeed they have worked out thoughts which are what we might consider strictly to be discoveries and inventions, like the people who discovered evolution and the one or ones who invented the microwave oven, there should be no need to mention their names in any discussion; because there are readers who do not ascribe to authorities except as I say as much who are discoverers and inventors capalbe of explaining why their discoveries and inventions make sense and are useful.

[...]
Somehow I feel the following surreal scenario is applicable to this discussion:

Entity A: Do you like garbage?
Entity B: Sounds like rubbish!

Entity A: Oh, you mean the band, you know; “I think I’m Paranoid”!
Entity B: Now you’re talking Garbage.

Entity A: Are you telling me I’m talking rubbish?
Entity B: No, don’t be paranoid!

Entity A: This is garbage and you’re full of rubbish!
Entity B: I know!

… and the rats, covered by rubbish, happily continued digging in the garbage can trying to find something to eat.

[...]


Dear good friend, Lupus, please, as I have already requested earlier and maybe twice, just bring up a real everyday scenario the kind of which there are innumerable, for the purpose of our discussion here. Masturbation, suicide, Buddhist meditation are all real life everyday scenarios; please, no artificial or surreal scenarios -- for our purpose of discussing what is useful and how to oneself and also to others as well.

Otherwise we would be lapsing into discredit with people who are living real lives, like philosophers who discuss whether anything exists outside ideas, when the man in the street knows that ideas imply brains -- so why discuss at all if anything exists aside from ideas.


I just hope that you get my drift.


So, please just bring up another belief or practice of Buddhists for us to examine its usefulness to an individual Buddhist only or also to other Buddhists or even non-Buddhists.


Yrreg

[lupus_in_fabula]

Yrreg, to be specific, I have also briefly brought in Aleister Crowley and Friedrich Nietzsche. I didn’t know it bothered you so much (actually I still don’t). Providing sources comes rather naturally to me; perhaps it’s the flip side of being entrenched in the scientific way of writing? To me it’s also a form of respect and gratitude to the author for reinforcing or expanding my own understanding. I also feel it’s a form of intellectual honesty. I will also continue to do so since I feel it’s proper to do so. You might as well ignore the names and simply treat the message as my opinion – it’s still part of my opinion even though the particular phrasing is more or less borrowed.

So was there anything in particular you disagree with in the content of my opinion besides naming my source or “not hearing what you wanted to hear”?

I just hope that you get my drift.

Sadly, I think I do. But still, don’t you just feel the irony when you thank me for bringing up the notion of ‘usefulness’ in regards to Buddhism?

So, please just bring up another belief or practice of Buddhists for us to examine its usefulness to an individual Buddhist only or also to other Buddhists or even non-Buddhists.

You see, I don’t find it meaningful trying to pinpoint an exact belief or practice by a Buddhist in terms of ‘uselessness’ without looking at a context where other religions are brought into the picture too. And on a more general note, I find it much easier to look at other areas of life in terms of 'usefulness' and 'uselessness' than religion – as you might have noticed.

When I consider the doctrine not being the goal, but rather a way to the goal, it’s difficult to consider ‘uselessness’ without contemplating if the end goal in it self is meaningful (unless we start speculating on the effectiveness of the steps – for example meditation vs. prayer). So enlightenment, escape from suffering, ending the cycle of reincarnation, salvation from hell, ascending into heaven or any other goal must therefore first be considered meaningful or not meaningful.

I think another categorical pair might be better suited for discussing such matters; perhaps ‘tolerance’ vs. ‘intolerance’. And by this I mean: In terms of different practises and interpretations… yet keeping the followers on their path to their goal.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Seriously Yrreg… What’s the point of discussing usefulness in regards to Buddhist practice anyway? I mean when we start contemplating on the many faces of usefulness we eventually have to take a step out from that doctrinal perspective in order to see them fully.

I mean… I think practising compassion towards all living beings is a noble aspiration (by Buddhists if you like). It’s not hard to imaging it being useful for the practitioner, fellow practitioners and society in general. But that same could be said about Christians, Moslems, Hindus etc doing the same.

On the other hand compassion towards all is not useful when you’re about to defend your country against foreign invaders (as in war). Here usefulness is measured by keeping ones national sovereignty intact. But if usefulness is measured by keeping as many people alive as possible (including the invaders) it becomes less clear again. Etc., etc., etc... ad infinitum.

How much information do these scenarios provide in reference to Buddhism, unless we keep usefulness within the boundaries of the doctrine? But if we keep usefulness within the boundaries of the doctrine I’m afraid we don’t have much to say. Your point of using usefulness doesn’t appear to be very fruitful it seems.



Unless you provide some information to as why you think ‘usefullness’ is useful when discussing Buddhism, I’m afraid we’re stuck here. Why should we continue finding new scenarios when the only limit seems to be our imagination (be it individual, social and their constant interchange)?

[yrreg]

Seriously Yrreg… What’s the point of discussing usefulness in regards to Buddhist practice anyway? I mean when we start contemplating on the many faces of usefulness we eventually have to take a step out from that doctrinal perspective in order to see them fully.

[...]




I think we should first try to understand or arrive at a concurring understanding of what we mean by usefulness, in the most broad sense of usefulness.

For me usefulness in the most broad sense is anything that is welcome to man, i.e., man welcomes that anything.

On that score Buddhism is useful; the simple fact people do take up Buddhism is proof that they welcome Buddhism.

I must add that the welcome can be spontaneous or from any kind of necessity. For example, amputation of one's leg is not welcome spontaneously to man, but it is necessary for keeping oneself alive, when one is faced with either the loss of a leg or the loss of life.

There are all kinds of welcome from spontaneity or from necessity for a good or to avoid an evil.

And there are all degrees and measures of spontaneous and necessary welcome.


Now, as you mention that I am concerned with detecting the usefulness of Buddhism in my criticism of Buddhism, which is correct, you can collaborate or 'welcome' the invitation from me to bring up as many Buddhist doctrines and practices as are proprietary of Buddhism, and examine them on the basis of how I have described usefulness above.

Thereby we can know what proprietary doctrines and practices of Buddhism are of spontaneous welcome or of necessary welcome, and how so, and to what degree of spontaneity or necessity, and to what measure.


We have examined masturbation, suicide, and meditation, which honestly I see to be useful to Buddhists and to non-Buddhists, for they are not proprietary acts of Buddhists.

These acts are useful to doers and also in an arguable way useful also to non-doers, because non-doers are affected favorably, again in an arguable way but possibly and most probably even tangible manner: positively or negatively to non-doers, considering that masturbation can lighten up an otherwise tense atmosphere from someone who should but could not do it, or rid people of the suicide subject thereby lessening unwelcome overpopulation, and people doing meditation can't be up to any mischief in the streets.


Is that a useful exercise? to examine usefulness of Buddhist beliefs and practices? I would submit it is a most welcome exercise for me and for any human; because it is an operation of our mind, the most proprietary one in my view, of man; and in physiological terms, of our brain. Any operation of a faculty of an entity like man endowed with consciousness and intelligence and free choice, that is certainly welcome to the conscious, intelligent, free entity. The opposite is not welcome, like having eyes and not being able to use them for sight.


Should the devout Buddhist welcome such an exercise, the quest for usefulness in Buddhism?


Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

Seriously Yrreg… What’s the point of discussing usefulness in regards to Buddhist practice anyway?
...
Unless you provide some information to as why you think ‘usefullness’ is useful when discussing Buddhism, I’m afraid we’re stuck here. Why should we continue finding new scenarios when the only limit seems to be our imagination (be it individual, social and their constant interchange)?


A fair point. I cannot think of a single thing that one could not consider "useful" with just a little imagination. AIDS? Useful in helping advance human understanding of retroviruses. Pedophilia? Useful for filling time on the nightly news. RC Cola? Useful for helping people appreciate just how good Coke and Pepsi actually are.

And Yrreg ...



.Now, as you mention that I am concerned with detecting the usefulness of Buddhism in my criticism of Buddhism, which is correct, you can collaborate or 'welcome' the invitation from me to bring up as many Buddhist doctrines and practices as are proprietary of Buddhism, and examine them on the basis of how I have described usefulness above.

Thereby we can know what proprietary doctrines and practices of Buddhism are of spontaneous welcome or of necessary welcome, and how so, and to what degree of spontaneity or necessity, and to what measure.



... misses the point entirely.

------

I have very much enjoyed your careful, intelligent and respectful comments here, Lupus. But surely you must now see that Yrreg is incapable of being moved off of his topic or even of being influenced by outside information. It's like a trainwreck where the train jumps the tracks and chases you through the stacks of a library.

[nescafe]

... RC Cola? Useful for helping people appreciate just how good Coke and Pepsi actually are.
Heresy! Coke and Pepsi are but poor substitutes for the One True Cola! Especially when Crown Royal comes into play...

[lupus_in_fabula]

I think we should first try to understand or arrive at a concurring understanding of what we mean by usefulness, in the most broad sense of usefulness.

For me usefulness in the most broad sense is anything that is welcome to man, i.e., man welcomes that anything.

On that score Buddhism is useful; the simple fact people do take up Buddhism is proof that they welcome Buddhism.


That is almost to say: Buddhism is useful because it exists!

This is one pick about ‘usefulness’ that I like:

It’s a perspective of usefulness where usefulness escapes the borders wherein it’s observed – constantly moving away from one layer to another. Thus, when an observer [O] observes an activity [A] that he concludes as useless in any way he thinks about it, it still remains useful in the sense that [O] can now make a statement about [A] being useless. It is a kind of cybernetic way of thinking; where semantics becomes syntax.

Don’t you just love the Buddhist idea of non-attachment ;-)


Now, as you mention that I am concerned with detecting the usefulness of Buddhism in my criticism of Buddhism, which is correct, you can collaborate or 'welcome' the invitation from me to bring up as many Buddhist doctrines and practices as are proprietary of Buddhism, and examine them on the basis of how I have described usefulness above.


It seems to me that you already have detected the usefulness of Buddhism. What you seem to be asking for is: in how many ways can Buddhism be useful? I’m telling you: In so many ways as you’re able to imagine!


Thereby we can know what proprietary doctrines and practices of Buddhism are of spontaneous welcome or of necessary welcome, and how so, and to what degree of spontaneity or necessity, and to what measure.

Sound like you’re trying to create some kind of score card for Buddhism. Thus I would say: What’s the point of only looking at one score card without comparing it to other score cards deduced from other religious practises?


Should the devout Buddhist welcome such an exercise, the quest for usefulness in Buddhism?

It seems to me that Buddhism is already useful for them! In the broadest sense you presented earlier. Furthermore, they seem to find usefulness directly via experience – the academic approach seems to be redundant for them. What you seem to be in such pain to arrive at… is finding the ‘most meaningful’ way of looking at Buddhism without being a Buddhist! Is this correct? If so, here’s my advice: If you consider yourself a Christian, then look at Buddhism from that point of view; if you consider yourself an atheist, then look at Buddhism from that point of view.

Now Yrreg, answering this question “correctly” will perhaps lessen the pain: Who is the maker that makes the grass green?

[lupus_in_fabula]

I have very much enjoyed your careful, intelligent and respectful comments here, Lupus. But surely you must now see that Yrreg is incapable of being moved off of his topic or even of being influenced by outside information. It's like a trainwreck where the train jumps the tracks and chases you through the stacks of a library.

Thank you! Well, it has been interesting in many ways I think. One interesting thing is that I seem to like the Buddhist way of thinking more now. It appears that Yrreg seems to struggle to pinpoint what it is that he dislikes about Buddhism. Bringing his own conviction into light could perhaps solve that problem for him (and us)? But then we would have to talk in terms of ‘tolerance’ and ‘intolerance’. Something is bugging him, that’s rather obvious; I’m interested in what and why.

[Complexity]

Has anyone else noticed that Yrreg is more of a control freak than Martha Stewart? He doesn't even bother trying to be subtle about it.

I'm so glad that he doesn't address me as "My good friend..."

[Jaxe]

Isn't it useless to discuss 'usefullness' of a certain action/thought/religion/(insert-word-here) since the variables of cause and effect can virtually turn out to be infinite, unless you specificly define the usefullness (or lack thereoff) to a certain thing? (Jack jacking off this friday afternoon had no usefull effect on Johns ability to calculate equations during the math test at the exact same time) :confused:

[Dancing David]

There are pages of what is useful in buddhism on the board and most of them are in the threads started by Yrreg.

There are reams of electronic material on the usefullness that he already chosen to ignore. The psychological benefit to the individual is the main one. And it will have consequences to the people the practioner comes into contact with.

Here for example

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50217

Post #13

[RandFan]

Lupus, I'd also like to say that I have enjoyed reading your posts. Very good.

[yrreg]

I like to invite you, Lupus, to keep to the topic of the thread which is inspired from your message in a previous thread of mine, as I mentioned at the start, post #1 (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2429583&postcount=1), of the present thread:

Lupus has contributed an insightful, though obvious to people accustomed to seek insights, observation to my hobby of research in critical Buddhology.

Posted by lupus_in_fabula

[.....]

It appears that the major issue yrreg has with the teachings of Buddha is his inability to find any usefulness (or purpose) in the “Buddhist” way of thinking – that from a rather particular point of view it seems. Well, not to despair; a “critical” look at why there must to be a particular purpose for anything might be a good issue to ponder on. Perhaps taking a "critical" look at general semantics could be a starting point.




I like to have a dialogue with you, Lupus.

[...]




The title of this thread is Criteria of Usefulness, understood in connection with Buddhism.


Good friend Lupus, as of the present juncture of our discussion, I had asked you to bring up some essential teachings and practices of Buddhism, you have brought up meditation, and I agree with you that meditation is useful.

I am now asking you to bring up another essential belief or practice of Buddhism, so far you have declined to do so.

What I am hoping to do, as you had cordially accepted my invitation to exchange views in regard to the criteria of usefulness, referring usefulness to Buddhism, has been to the present, to establish the usefulness of the essential beliefs and practices of Buddhism, with your participation -- since you are the one who see my concern in criticizing Buddhism as a concern with the usefulness of Buddhism.

Forgive me for saying this, but to my impression you appear to be losing interest in the topic, and to be avoiding it by going into diversionary directions instead of focusing on the topic itself.


If you are still interested in my concern as you had accepted my invitation to discuss with me about the topic of this thread, then I will presume you are still looking up some essential beliefs and practices of Buddhism, and it is taking you time to do so, deciding which belief or practice in Buddhism to next propose for our exchange here, may I just suggest that we take up for the next material the Buddhist belief which is essential to Buddhism, that of karma?

So, you being an enthusiast of Buddhism, suppose you tell me how is the belief in karma useful to Buddhists?

Everyone else aside from Lupus is also welcome to express your opinion whether Buddhist or not.


Good friend Lupus, however, you can still bring up your own proposal of a belief or practice of Buddhism which we can pursue together in the examination of usefulness; and we can put karma in abeyance for the time being.


Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

What I am hoping to do, as you had cordially accepted my invitation to exchange views in regard to the criteria of usefulness, referring usefulness to Buddhism, has been to the present, to establish the usefulness of the essential beliefs and practices of Buddhism, with your participation -- since you are the one who see my concern in criticizing Buddhism as a concern with the usefulness of Buddhism.


Actually, Yrreg, he never cordially accepted your invitation to do any such thing. And in the very same message, you quoted him making that exact point. What Lupus said was:

"Well, not to despair; a “critical” look at why there must to be a particular purpose for anything might be a good issue to ponder on. Perhaps taking a "critical" look at general semantics could be a starting point."

Lupus wants to examine whether there is any value in discussing a religion's "usefulness" at all. In fact, Lupus has discussed this quite eloquently. He has settled on the question of whether "usefulness" isn't just a matter of opinion and imagination. And he has questioned whether the entire concept of studying usefulness isn't just a cover for preaching a political point of view.

I can't tell if you really don't understand what he's been saying or if you just are trying by force of will to make him play your particular game. Either choice is pretty sad.

Read Lupus' posts again. They're excellent. And this time try to really concentrate on answering his questions.


N.B. For the sake of this post, Lupus has been presumed to be male. Lupus' actual gender may not be reflected herein.

[lupus_in_fabula]

The title of this thread is Criteria of Usefulness, understood in connection with Buddhism.

And so far it has turned up to be pointless; pointless in the particular sense that we cannot agree on the most important factor when discussing usefulness. That critical factor is: useful in regards to what. You have only come up with some vague usefulness for the individual and the social without pointing out in regards to what. And since you leave that what, thing, reference point, standard (whatever you like to call it) out, we’re stuck with almost infinite possibilities, thus saying practically nothing.

CRITERION (Webster): “a standard on which a judgment or decision may be based”. As long as you’re confined with using usefulness itself as that standard we are stuck with limitless scenarios and point of views – by which it becomes pointless to discuss the matter.

You’re saying this discussion is about the Criteria of Usefulness… well then… at least give us one standard? Moreover, is there such a thing as an “uber-standard” that is most meaningful when discussing usefulness in Buddhism by non-Buddhists (like you and me)? I have a strong feeling we’re not going to find an “objective” one that everyone is going to agree upon. Perhaps Nirvana is such a standard for a Buddhist, although that makes little sense for a non-Buddhist (like you and me).

Good friend Lupus, as of the present juncture of our discussion, I had asked you to bring up some essential teachings and practices of Buddhism, you have brought up meditation, and I agree with you that meditation is useful.

I am now asking you to bring up another essential belief or practice of Buddhism, so far you have declined to do so.

Now, hopefully having made my point clear, it’s not about the difficulties finding some particularities in Buddhist belief that are useful, we can practically take any belief and find it useful in some sense and consequently almost useless in some other sense. So, here I am, knowing very little about Buddhism, yet arguing about Buddhism because almost any point could be considered valid in some sense. Now how silly is this?

In the absence of a standard, here’s one “usefulness”: Life is suffering! This can be useful in the sense that it’s a simple point of departure to understanding life. A way of accepting life for what it is. Once you know where you stand, it becomes easier to navigate towards possibilities. It has turned out to be useful for many… perhaps via the realization of their attachment to things, thus not getting them attached to at least trivial things (that potentially would cause more unnecessary suffering). Who am I to argue with them if they find it useful for them (in some way)?

About your Karma: Well, it could be seen as useful in the sense that it gives meaning to pursuing many particularities of life with good intentions in mind. Thus, on the one hand, it can be considered useful as an ethical principle, useful as in taking individual responsibility for one’s action and useful in reducing possible guilt (when one’s actions are based on good intentions) etc., etc., etc. On the other hand, it’s perhaps not useful as a cosmological principle (as in explaining the world or many causal relationships) etc., etc., etc. Once again, who am I to argue with them if they find it useful for them (in some way)?

What I am hoping to do, as you had cordially accepted my invitation to exchange views in regard to the criteria of usefulness, referring usefulness to Buddhism, has been to the present, to establish the usefulness of the essential beliefs and practices of Buddhism, with your participation -- since you are the one who see my concern in criticizing Buddhism as a concern with the usefulness of Buddhism.

Now, before you start shooting down my arguments in the scenarios I gave – it should be very easy to do so by the way – contemplate on the following: When you use usefulness in such a self referential way as you have, then basically, it’s possible to see usefulness, by definition, as something useful when something is usable, without regarding positive or negative value-judgements at all. I.e. a sharp knife is useful for killing people; it is also useful for slicing tomatoes!

I’m afraid those are my last scenarios. I see no point in imagining new scenarios as of now.

Forgive me for saying this, but to my impression you appear to be losing interest in the topic, and to be avoiding it by going into diversionary directions instead of focusing on the topic itself.

Let’s divert a little bit further once we’re at it: Since you seem to regard the pursuit of criticizing Buddhism as some kind of intellectual and noble way of arriving at the truth, I can make it easier for you: look at the basic religious beliefs by the standards of scientific evidence. Now here’s a standard that many can agree upon, which shouldn’t confine itself to subjective interpretations alone.

You see Yrreg, it has occurred to me that you might be attached to Buddhism. If you break that attachment the pain might go away. If you don’t like the scientific approach, then try the following: If you ascribe to a certain Christian faith tradition, why not look at Buddhism from that perspective and criticize it all you want, as much as you can? Why the pain of trying to be overly intellectual about it, that actually turns out to be semi-intellectual in a way… it has brought you nowhere so far.

I don’t think I have much more to contribute regarding this thread anymore. I mean the whole ‘usefulness’ thing came to me as an ironic observation about your previous pursuits. If Buddhism is not useful for you, don’t you then think continuing the whole pursuit as useless?

[yrreg]

Before I came to this thread I looked up my thread on "Help me to decipher..." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2462622&postcount=32) in the Community Board, and wrote this message, here reproduced below:

The enemy of communication is obfuscation and sabotage-tion.

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

More and more I seem to be realizing that in Buddhism and with Buddhists, when I attempt communication I am met with obfuscation and sabotage-tion.

Why do they resort to this kind of a behavior?

My first impression is that they think that they will put you in awe of what they complacently believe they know but you don't and can't.


And it is a tragedy with many that they fall for that kind of a trick to dumbfound you and make you look up to them as founts of wisdom, and you can end up being a beast of burden to them at the least evil or a sex slave in addition at the worst evil.


Anyway, I think I have my latest hobby of research mapped out for myself, namely, to detect and classify the obfuscation and sabotage-tion stratagems in communication utilized by Buddhists.


Yrreg

Good friend Lupus, I do have the impression that you are engaged in obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication; and I am afraid that you have the same impression of me.


So, shall we go to the beginning again of this thread starting with post #1 from me? continuing to the successive posts from me and from you, and see why I believe that you are engaged in obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication; and you show me how I am engaged in obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication between us.


[See next post.]


Yrreg

[Mojo]

[See next post.]This one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2462706#post2462706)?

[yrreg]

Title of thread: Criteria of usefulness


Lupus has contributed an insightful, though obvious to people accustomed to seek insights, observation to my hobby of research in critical Buddhology.

[...]

It appears that the major issue yrreg has with the teachings of Buddha is his inability to find any usefulness (or purpose) in the “Buddhist” way of thinking – that from a rather particular point of view it seems. Well, not to despair; a “critical” look at why there must to be a particular purpose for anything might be a good issue to ponder on. Perhaps taking a "critical" look at general semantics could be a starting point.



I like to have a dialogue with you, Lupus.

Tell me what is the usefulness of an orgasm effected by self-stimulation?


Shall we first classify all usefulness into usefulness within oneself and to oneself exclusively, on one side, and on the other usefulness to oneself and to one's neighbors including the rest of life in nature?


I am now studying evidence based medicine, and the first impression I have come upon so far is that this discipline is strictly concerned with usefulness of a medical substance or procedure that is more than just its usefulness to one patient alone in any respect of how the patient reports its usefulness, but the medicinal substance or procedure has no usefulness to others, so that it is medically useless outside and away from that particular patient who reports a usefulness for himself in any way he understands usefulness.


Earlier I introduced a thread each in a science forum and in a philosophy forum where I ask the question what is the usefulness of a mystical experience; so far the participants there have not reacted to my latest message making a distinction between, as I have mentioned above, usefulness exclusive to the subject person and usefulness both to the subject person and also to neighbors and life in nature.


So, if you will be interested in the topic of the present thread, tell me what you think about my division of usefulness into usefulness exclusive to the subject, for example an orgasm effected by self-stimulation, and usefulness to others outside oneself.


Yrreg


I will now reproduce your first reaction, post #8, to my initiating post #1.



[Please proceed to next post.]


Yrreg

[Mojo]

It's like deja vu all over again...

[yrreg]

Here is your first reaction to my initiating post #1. Right away I noticed that you were into some obfuscation and sabotage-tion of the topic of the thread, which I thought was clear to anyone with a skill in reading comprehension.



[Lupus' first post reaction to Yrreg's initiating post #1.]

Sure, but why not include everyone interested in the dialogue? First of all, I believe my point was intended in the subjective sense (you). So, you didn’t find any usefulness in the teachings of Buddha – nothing therein resonated with you – with the implication of concluding that Buddhist thinking being useless also in the objective sense (i.e. for everyone else). I’m not a Buddhist, but I find it hard to draw the same conclusion nonetheless.

The point of departure for your “critical” examination seems to be that of a “neutral” observer: I guess you’re trying to look at sheep from the perspective of the whole herd. But it’s not the whole herd you represent; you represent the perspective of how you imagine the whole herd as an entity would perceive the issue – hence the illusion of the objective and the consequence of asserting objective conclusions that actually are subjective in its origin.

Now, what is useful in masturbation? Objectively, I don’t know, except that it seems to be a widely used phenomenon. Subjectively it might have to do with releasing sexual tension, sexual self discovery, amusement in the form a fantasy etc… basically it feels good, unless you have the rare condition of painful orgasms. In that case, I suppose such people tend to masturbate rather infrequently (perhaps just to check if it’s still painful, if doing it at all). I’m inclined to think the subjective experience might have objective consequences, even though I cannot exactly pinpoint them.

Furthermore, some cultures seem to find sexual pleasure (orgasm) useless or even dirty, thus they remove the clitoris from females. This is rather oddly often in reference to religious beliefs, which I find odd since the basic tenet seems to be that “God” created man and woman, yet men seem to correct the female creation by removing “unnecessary” parts. Personally, I find this practise contradictory and appalling. On the other hand, one could retort to this by saying we also remove cancers from our body, thus saying; who are we to decide that a cancer should be removed (it’s part of “God’s” creation too), hence eventually drawing the issue out from a purely religious context towards that of the social. Basically it’s not a particular part of the body that appears to be in the centre of the controversy; it’s the experience produced by that organ/cancer that seems to be under scrutiny from both the personal and the social perspective. Some things we should experience – we are telling or are told – and some not. Ironically, God (whatever that is or isn’t) seem to be neural in this respect.

Hence we’re left with a question of value: Is the social evaluation more correct than the personal? But this is yet again a fallacy because there’s no social entity; the social consists of persons after all – we are left with personal interpretations of the social. However, we have social forces affecting personal value judgements nonetheless (by socialization and by social construction of reality), thus affecting subjective judgements, which yet again change the social forces to some degree.

In this regard, I find some of Buddha’s teachings as rather beautiful; trying to make us stop for little while and realize the absurdity of automata. Or like Nietzsche said: “Understanding stops action”. Resuming into the play of life again after such a profound realization or experience might have positive consequences for the player/(s) and the actual game itself.

The crude categorization between personal and social usefulness might be useful as simple analytical tool, but whether they’re useful on their own remains open. Perhaps we can look at the categories more closely henceforth, and maybe contemplate on mystical experiences too? And... sorry for the long but incomplete post.


You brought in so many things which are not relevant and useful to the disquisition of the criteria of usefulness in regard to Buddhism, as anyone with reading comprehension can and does understand of my topic from a simple reading of post #1.


I will reproduce in the next post following here my reply to your post above, which is a reminder to everyone including me and you to keep to the topic of the thread, to focus on the essential issue.


Yrreg

[Ryokan]

WTF? If I wanted to read the thread again, I'd just scroll back up.

[yrreg]

[Title of post] Focus on the essential issue.


I said that I like to have a dialogue with Lupus, that doesn't mean that others are excluded from this thread. Conventional logic tells us that a sentence can be understood as in the excluding sense or in the including sense or neither one nor the other, but it is an open sentence.

So, if anyone feels that he is excluded from this thread for not being Lupus, that is up to him; if anyone thinks that he is not excluded for not being Lupus, that is also up to him.

Best is to study the reason why the author says that he likes to have a dialogue with Lupus, search the reason why in message #1, the initiating post of this topic.

If you are acquainted with the reason then you will contribute some positive materials for the audience of this forum in re this topic of the division between usefulness for oneself exclusively and usefulness for others as well.

And you will not distract the audience's attention with namecalling, labeling, assigning of motives, etc., which are of no contribution whatsoever to the disquisition of a question, for attaining some piece of useful knowledge for mankind -- except for a model to the audience how to not behave in a discussion among gentlemen opinion makers.


====================

About orgasm from self-stimulation, it is useful only for the self; and everyone who resorts to this usefulness is justified and not blamable to himself for being a free agent in a society that is zealous of personal freedom. I will just add one caveat: whatever you do that is exclusively useful to yourself only, make sure it does not impose any burden to others who might have to undertake any labor in regard to your pursuit of some activity purely exclusively useful to yourself and not to others.

For example, some people find suicide useful to themselves, and that is their right, and no law can stop them from suicide unless the law unjustly infringes into their liberty to act in regard to themselves.

But I would suggest to them that they do their free act of suicide away from public distraction, and not to mess up the public environment. Please arrange with your favorite undertaker where to look up your remains and how to arrange a most private burial, and deliver notice to people who you know to be interested for whatever reasons to possess information of your demise.


Now, I like to ask Lupus whether, you, Lupus agree with me that my division of usefulness to oneself and usefulness to others as well, that division of usefulness is useful to everyone who has any concern with the discerning of what is useful and what is not useful to oneself and also to others as well; for example if you are running a family and home or operating some kind of business or undertaking an activity where you have to determine usefulness of people in your responsibility?


Yrreg


What I have been trying again and again to bring you and to keep you to the essential issue of the topic of this thread; I noticed however that you have the habit of bringing in unnecessary matters or of very little usefulness to the unfolding of the topic; as I said, anyone with a reading comprehension can already put in his views directly and honestly to the development of the topic, without going far and wide all over town.


Now you are asking by what standard of usefulness are we to understand usefulness.

From a simple reading of post #1, I am absolutely sure anyone can who is intelligent and honest right away know by what standard I have in mind and presume he also has in mind, can and does know by what standard I have in mind which he also from a simple reading of post #1 can and does have.


If I ask the janitor in the office what are the criteria of usefulness in re Buddhism, and he is a reading and thinking person and has honest opinions and a habit of honesty in speech, I am absolutely sure he will not be asking me by what standard I have in mind in my idea of usefulness.


That is why I have a message in another thread from me in the Community board, where I invite ex or former Buddhists to contact me for exchange of views, where I suggest some guidelines to productive opinion making and drafting, here reproduced below in the next post.


Yrreg

[Dancing David]

When in doubt demonstrate creativity by quoting yourself.

the usefulness of buddhism has been discussed but only on the subject as Yrreg wants to present it, so his sunday schools class will fawn over him and his newsletter readers will call him sage.

Have you defined yrregianism yet? Of course not that would be responding to a direct question which would be a violation of the Endearin Troll Code of Ethics. (giggle, giggle, giggle.)

[yrreg]

Title of post: How to judge a post for genuine usefulness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I have said time and again that people here should not resort to namecalling, labeling, assigning motives, digging up biases, but just keep to the message on its intrinsic worth, which is usefulness to oneself and also to others, in any way you care to understand usefulness, provided your usefulness is not injurious physically or emotionally or mentally to other people.

Here are my guidelines for judging a post whether it is possessed of intrinsic worth, ask the following questions:

1. Is the poster engaged in namecalling, labeling someone, some people?

2. Is the poster assigning agenda to someone, some people?

3. Is the poster engaged in digging up biases in someone, some people?

4. Is the poster observing critical honest thinking and critical honest and also as important, intelligible speaking?

5. Finally, is the poster saying anything of particular usefulness to yourself alone or better also to others?


If I were asked by anyone here which item above is the most important for an enlightened person to observe all the time and everywhere with all people, I would point out the fourth item:

4. Is the poster observing critical honest thinking and critical honest and also as important, intelligible speaking?


Do this exercise every time you come to a post, examine whether the writer is engaged in critical honest thinking and also in critical honest and as important intelligible speaking.

If he keeps drumming that what he has to share is beyond words, don't bother reading any further.


So, describe every post you read with these letters, C, H, T, I, S, by any permutation or combination, for examples:

CHT, CHIS = critical honest thinking, critical honest intelligible speaking (Perfect post, but judge now the particular usefulness.)

CT, HS = critical thinking (not honest though), honest speaking but not critical and not intelligible (No need to judge particular usefulness in this post because the poster can't or won't speak critically and intelligibly.)

Try other permutation and combination as you survey the posts in any web forum.


The above guidelines are provisional, tentative, and not final, but you can already help yourselves to their employment in order to arrive at the core substance of a post if there is any, and then judge its particular usefulness.


Yrreg



About your asking me by what standard of usefulness, etc., Tell me if you can't see the standard I have in mind in regard to my use of the concept and word, usefulness; let me know and I will try to refer you to my words in my preceding posts here where you can see the standard of usefulness I have in mind, but others with any reading comprehension can and do already have in mind with a simple reading of post #1.



But honestly I do have a usefulness in this thread, the enjoyable study of human behavior. Let's have a smile together, dear good friend Lupus.



Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

So, shall we go to the beginning again of this thread starting with post #1 from me? continuing to the successive posts from me and from you, and see why I believe that you are engaged in obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication; and you show me how I am engaged in obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication between us.


You can if you want, Yrreg, but Lupus has been engaged in no such thing. He has honestly and openly conversed with you about your very topic. He has attempted to get you to define your terms and to recognize the inherent ambiguity that comes if you do not. At each and every opportunity, you have ignored him, refused to answer him and just pretended he said something different that better suited your temperment.

Since you have no desire (or, possibly, ability) to understand Lupus' excellent points, I fail to see the value in returning to the first post to examine them.


sabotage-tion


Sabotage is already a noun. It does not require the suffix "tion."

[Loss Leader]

WTF? If I wanted to read the thread again, I'd just scroll back up.


Nominated.

You owe me a new can of soda and a keyboard.

[Loss Leader]

You brought in so many things which are not relevant and useful to the disquisition of the criteria of usefulness in regard to Buddhism, as anyone with reading comprehension can and does understand of my topic from a simple reading of post #1.


Lupus' posts were probably the most logical, clear, respectful and relevent statements I have ever read on a Yrreg thread, my own included. You began some sort of quest to discover what is useful in Buddhism and set out how you think "usefulness" should be defined. Lupus responded by asking you to rethink your definitions. He made it clear that the manner in which you used the phrase "usefulness" could not lead to valuable insight. He provided examples and offered some counter-proposals for your definition.

There is nothing simple or obvious about the way you are using "usefulness." In fact, it necessarily leads to a tail-chasing game in which imagination is the only limit to whether something is useful. This being the case, you must first correctly and logically define your terms before undertaking to study anything else with them.

It would be as if I showed up with a measuring device graded: Zero, Eleventy billion, Hopscotch, Baby Einstein DVD, Mormonism. And then I proceeded to begin taking the reading of people and things in the room. "He's Hopscotch 21, Baby Einstein DVD -7." When you complain to me that my meter makes no sense and I should first develop a reliable device that everyone understands, should I reply, "You are engaged in obfuscation and sabotage!" "This is my meter and I demand you help me take readings of the Vice-President and all the houseplants!"

If the instrument by which you are measuring things doesn't work, the measurements will be worthless.

In this case, Lupus has attempted to inform you that your "usefulness" criteria do not work and, thus, your end results will be useless.


What I have been trying again and again to bring you and to keep you to the essential issue of the topic of this thread; I noticed however that you have the habit of bringing in unnecessary matters or of very little usefulness to the unfolding of the topic; as I said, anyone with a reading comprehension can already put in his views directly and honestly to the development of the topic, without going far and wide all over town.


You're a mormon.

[yrreg]

Let's just let Lupus do the talking for himself, he is of age and in his right mind and possessed of consciousness -- unless you want to think otherwise of him, but you do already exercise the presumption unjustifiable to speak on his behalf.



That is a glaring example of obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication between two parties by a third party. Please just speak for yourself and your views in this thread and in every thread you come across, unless you imagine yourself to be the self-appointed referee and know-all of everything, but not including yourself, your fears, your antagonisms, your biases, your self pompous grandeur [that term, pompous, has been applied to me by a lady poster in many forums past -- smile here].

Or better, in which case since you aspire so much to be moderator and administrator in emulation of Darat and Lisa, please present yourself for employment here, the JREF is looking for people in need of placement.



[Addressing the powers that be here: If this post is an example of hate speech or even just extreme cruel content to a fellow poster, please, the powers here that be, give me a hint, and I will rewrite it so as to remove the objectionable words, but keeping the substance of the message intact.]


May I just put in a last word? I really must be delighted by the interest of the poster you know whom, for his chronic recurring almost like stalking attention to my person and my thoughts.

What's that? Hatred of his kind is the sincerest admiration? You say it! brother.



Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

That is a glaring example of obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication between two parties by a third party.


Sabotage is already a noun. You don't have to add the "tion."

[CapelDodger]

That is a glaring example of obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication between two parties by a third party.

A whole new excuse to hide the fact that you're completely adrift. Here I am, a fourth party, providing you with another. lupus has communicated directly with you, not through or modulated by Loss Leader.

Please just speak for yourself and your views in this thread and in every thread you come across, unless you imagine yourself to be the self-appointed referee and know-all of everything, but not including yourself, your fears, your antagonisms, your biases, your self pompous grandeur [that term, pompous, has been applied to me by a lady poster in many forums past -- smile here].

if I were you, I would never introduce the word "pompous" to a conversation. I just wouldn't. Pompous describes the creation and repetitive use of the neologistic noun "sobotage-tion" from the perfectly adequate established noun "sabotage" as if somehow it has extra meaning because you dreamt it up.

Or better, in which case since you aspire so much to be moderator and administrator in emulation of Darat and Lisa, please present yourself for employment here, the JREF is looking for people in need of placement.

Sarcasm is a sad thing to witness, and it's what you're reduced to, isn't it? You've got nothing to say, and you're saying it too loud.

But don't let me intrude on your conversation with lupus.

[CapelDodger]

Lupus' posts were probably the most logical, clear, respectful and relevent statements I have ever read on a Yrreg thread, my own included.

I'm pretty new to Yrreg, but I can understand how difficult it must be to keep a cap on it when responding. Whatever their years respectively, lupus has demonstrated a maturity beyond and Yrreg the opposite.

[Mojo]

That is a glaring example of obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication between two parties by a third party. Please just speak for yourself and your views in this thread and in every thread you come across, unless you imagine yourself to be the self-appointed referee and know-all of everything, but not including yourself, your fears, your antagonisms, your biases, your self pompous grandeur [that term, pompous, has been applied to me by a lady poster in many forums past -- smile here]. If you wish to communicate solely with Lupus without interruption from "third parties", do so via PM, not on an open thread.

Or better, in which case since you aspire so much to be moderator and administrator in emulation of Darat and Lisa, please present yourself for employment here, the JREF is looking for people in need of placement.If you wish to restrict people's replies to posts in open threads (and that is precisely what you are trying to do here), perhaps you should apply to become a moderator.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Oh Christ, what happened here? Yrreg! Did you try to force the quote-button to act as the refresh-button? I find it hard to think you had your imaginary janitor replying. ;)

Now for heaven’s sake Yrreg, pull yourself together and stop throwing irrational accusations in random trajectories! Even though I don’t share your sentiment that going around with sticky tags of ‘usefulness’/‘uselessness’ trying to attach them on every Buddhist distinctiveness is a valuable intellectual activity, it doesn’t mean you’re at world’s end.

Nevertheless, in your quote storm it appears a workable commonality for understanding Buddhism might have silently flown by. Perhaps that’s one commonality many here can share?

“But honestly I do have a usefulness in this thread, the enjoyable study of human behavior” (Yrreg: #56).

I put my head in the guillotine and propose your commonality as a valuable insight to Buddhism: The enjoyable study of human behaviour… Through a system where one, via meditation and certain positions towards struggling etc., might understand oneself, one’s intentions and actions, one’s position in the world, by which it becomes more plausible to experience a form of “dissolving” into wholeness with the world. Maybe it’s a step by step preparation towards the ultimate experience?

Perhaps the final step is a way of reducing one’s perception of subjectivity, knowing it to be transitory anyway, for that of possibly gaining a closer phenomenological experience? Thus the view might be clearer and more profound – at least for a while. Or at the very least, it is an addition to the experience of life?

[FenrisWolf]

It would be as if I showed up with a measuring device graded: Zero, Eleventy billion, Hopscotch, Baby Einstein DVD, Mormonism. And then I proceeded to begin taking the reading of people and things in the room. "He's Hopscotch 21, Baby Einstein DVD -7." When you complain to me that my meter makes no sense and I should first develop a reliable device that everyone understands, should I reply, "You are engaged in obfuscation and sabotage!" "This is my meter and I demand you help me take readings of the Vice-President and all the houseplants!"


:D

This is exactly how I felt reading this thread. I'm an infrequent lurker with no experience reading posts by these individuals, and I kept reading because I thought, "Surely someone who is obviously articulate and thoughtful can't just be spouting complete nonsense! I must be missing something that is key to understanding what's going on here."

With no prior context, this thread is extremely surreal, and the part I quoted above sums it up to a T. It's exactly as if I'd wandered into a room where an obviously intelligent individual is using an incomprehensible scale to measure seemingly random things.

Thanks for that!

[Dancing David]

Definite signature material:

"This is my meter and I demand you help me take readings of the Vice-President and all the houseplants!"

[Loss Leader]

Definite signature material:


For the love of Pete, if you like it please nominate it.

[yrreg]

Okay, good friend Lupus, you have already brought up the criterion of perception of the subject as regards usefulness, and you have brought up feeling as a criterion of usefulness, and you have brought up meditation as an example of a practice in Buddhism that is an example of usefulness to Buddhists. All that is communication which is relevant to the topic of criteria of usefulness relatively to Buddhism.

Now you are asking me, or are you asking me for a definition of usefulness,* this late in the day, and you are asking me by what standard of usefulness are we to understand usefulness? Again this late in the day?

Suppose you be the one to give a definition of usefulness, any definition, and I will accept it; then also your standard of usefulness, and I will also accept it. Is that all right with you? So that we can resume our exchange of usefulness in regard to Buddhism.


You will tell me that there are infinite possible definitions of usefulness and infinite number of possible standards of usefulness. In which case just give two of the infinite possible definitions of usefulness whichever you care and also standards of usefulness whichever you care; and I will accept them. Then we will resume our exchange of usefulness in regard to Buddhism, its beliefs and its practices, the essential ones or any which one you care.


Would that be all right now, in order that we can resume our communication on the subject of usefulness in regard to Buddhism, its beliefs and practices?


This communication is between Lupus and Yrreg; however, as I said at the very start, and also repeated just recently here, everyone is welcome, but just communicate in regard to the usefulness of Buddhism.

If you think that the topic is not of any usefulness to anyone, then just say so briefly and why also briefly, but don't bring in things which are not pertinent except to add to obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication on a matter as simple as what is of usefulness in Buddhism.


Maybe this suggestion is useful to people who are saying that they are perplexed about the topic or perplexed in any way, namely: in which case try to work out your perplexity by thinking of yourself as the janitor in your office or the pizza delivery man in the neighborhood who see people doing meditation and learn that they are Buddhists; and they the janitor and the delivery man do some reading about Buddhism in the dictionary and in the encyclopedia which they have access to in the public library, and decide to ask you who might be able to enlighten him further on what they think is a useful question to ask from people who are presumably more knowledgeable than them: What is the usefulness of Buddhism?


Otherwise if you are still in some perplexity, you can start a thread on whatever you find perplexing and invite people here to help you in your perplexity. And I might join in the discussion of the thread to help you resolve your perplexity.

=====================

There is the possibility that you, Lupus, and everyone here in this JREF forum, don't want to communicate about usefulness in regard to Buddhism or don't want to communicate further, in which case there is always the possibility of just not posting any message here.

Or you think it is impossible to communicate with Yrreg in regard to the usefulness of Buddhism, impossible to communicate from your part for whatever reason you feel that makes communication impossible with Yrreg; then just say that you find communication impossible with Yrreg and sign off.


If you care, you can say in just a few words why communication is impossible from your part with Yrreg, and please do so from your own heart and mind, without bringing in names of people whose ideas you have read.

If you think their ideas are useful to you in coming to the realization that it is impossible to communicate with Yrreg, then just bring up these ideas, but don't mention the names of the people whose ideas you read in their writings.

For example, you read somewhere that Plato tells people, the unexamined life is not worth living [I could be wrong here with the attribution], then just say without mentioning Plato, that you find it impossible to communicate with Yrreg because the unexamined life is not worth living.

Why? Because if ideas are good, useful -- they are good, useful; even though any Tom, Dick, or Harry says it, or any German philosopher said it or didn't say it, or any English speaking Buddhist convert said it or didn't say it.


Yrreg

*See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2456671&highlight=concurring#post2456671), above, for my offer of a definition of usefulness.

[Loss Leader]

except to add to obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication

Sabotage is already a noun. There is no need to add "tion." As you, Yrreg, are Philippino, I initially took this to be an honest mistake that came from writing in a foreign language. However, you have been corrected several times yet insist on continuing this error. I am forced to conclude that it is purposeful. Since its effect is to make you even less sympathetic, I just cannot figure out why you are doing it on purpose.


the unexamined life is not worth living


Some examined lives aren't worth living, either.

[lupus_in_fabula]

The only thing I can say is why I seem to like Buddhism; as a form of study of human behaviour. That is to say: a system where one is encouraged to study oneself through a particular set of beliefs (or at least viewpoints) that could be helpful on the path towards a possible ultimate experience. At least as an addition to the experience of life – the only one, I think, each of us will ever have. In particular, I like the ideas regarding suffering and non-attachment. There’s something that resonates with me, albeit I haven’t really completely figured out what and why.

You see Yrreg, I don’t go around measuring usefulness in everything. It’s more like listening to music: I like music without myself taking up playing any instrument. It is possible I could enjoy music even more by playing or joining in. And in a limited way I do that sometimes (by humming along or dancing). But since I don’t aspire to play an instrument or being a musician – to whom music is even more integrated – I see no necessity in explicitly evaluating whether that musician is doing something useful to himself or anyone else.

Usefulness seems to be your current pretext for presenting an underlying dislike of some sort – that’s why you usually fail to be coherent in what you call “critical examination”. I’m simply trying to point out that you should just honestly say what and why you dislike something in Buddhism. Put your cards on the table and gain some coherence in your argumentation as a consequence.

Ok, I’m willing to try one more time, but from a slightly different angle: Just make one clear assertion about why you dislike Buddhism, something that is so important to you that you feel compelled to dislike Buddhism for its inadequacy to address that issue. If it turns out to be a good discussion, then, usefulness might emerge by itself, and maybe illuminate what we both feel as important. Or, your assertion might turn out to be one standard or commonality that prevents us from relapsing into semi-intellectual babble.

[Complexity]

Lupus - Thank you. You've said exactly what I feel (though I won't be giving Yrreg another chance).

I'm going to have to brows through your posts - you're interesting.

[Dancing David]

posted by Yrreg

Maybe this suggestion is useful to people who are saying that they are perplexed about the topic or perplexed in any way, namely: in which case try to work out your perplexity by thinking of yourself as the janitor in your office or the pizza delivery man in the neighborhood who see people doing meditation and learn that they are Buddhists; and they the janitor and the delivery man do some reading about Buddhism in the dictionary and in the encyclopedia which they have access to in the public library, and decide to ask you who might be able to enlighten him further on what they think is a useful question to ask from people who are presumably more knowledgeable than them: What is the usefulness of Buddhism?

It has techniques that can be used to reduce attachment to suffering and decrease the behaviors that contribute to suffering.(Although there are many other ways to do this as well)


And you get a discount on the pizzas!

[Dancing David]

posted by Lupus in Fabula

Just make one clear assertion about why you dislike Buddhism, something that is so important to you that you feel compelled to dislike Buddhism for its inadequacy to address that issue.


Suggestions on the response:

-I am here for the amusement
-buddhism is negative
-buddhism is not contributing to society
-buddhism is empty
-buddhism does not have a soul
-buddhism does not have a god
-other undefined things are better
-buddhism is not confucianist catholocism

LIF you are doing great! Yrreg is a great way to explore the basis of ones belief and thoughts. You have maintained your moderation quite well.

[Tanstaafl]

For the love of Pete, if you like it please nominate it.


I didn't do so for merely liking it, but today I finally succeeded in nominating your post #59. I tried yesterday but the forum, or maybe the network here, wasn't quite feeling up to par then.

[Loss Leader]

I didn't do so for merely liking it, but today I finally succeeded in nominating your post #59. I tried yesterday but the forum, or maybe the network here, wasn't quite feeling up to par then.



Buddha bless you.

[yrreg]

I will separate, dear good friend, your post reproduced below but segment by segment into paragraphs that are useful to the development of the topic of this thread, "Criteria of Usefulness" in regard to Buddhism, and paragraphs that are not useful to the development of the topic but in obfuscation and sabotage-tion of the thread -- giving my comments why useful and why not.

===================

The only thing I can say is why I seem to like Buddhism; as a form of study of human behaviour. That is to say: a system where one is encouraged to study oneself through a particular set of beliefs (or at least viewpoints) that could be helpful on the path towards a possible ultimate experience. At least as an addition to the experience of life – the only one, I think, each of us will ever have. In particular, I like the ideas regarding suffering and non-attachment. There’s something that resonates with me, albeit I haven’t really completely figured out what and why.


The paragraph above is useful to the development of this thread, because you are telling people starting with myself here that you find Buddhism useful for knowing yourself, for it is "a system where one is encouraged to study oneself..."

I agree with you that Buddhism is useful for the examination of oneself. Thanks, Lupus, now we both are explicitly aware of this usefulness in Buddhism, it helps a person to know himself.

Good friend Lupus, thanks for the paragraph above, it is not in obfuscation and sabotage-tion of the thread but certainly in further development of the topic.

=================

At this point I will just bring up my guidelines for judging the usefulness of a message, which I have drafted in another thread of mine; these guidelines are useful to the writing of a useful post. If you and anyone has any questions about the usefulness of these guidelines, then please start a thread for their examination on usefulness, and I will join you there, and everyone also interested can join us there.



How to judge a post for genuine usefulness (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2454985#post2454985)
[already reproduced above in this thread in post #56] (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2463032&postcount=56).

[...]

Here are my guidelines for judging a post whether it is possessed of intrinsic worth, ask the following questions:

1. Is the poster engaged in namecalling, labeling someone, some people?

2. Is the poster assigning agenda to someone, some people?

3. Is the poster engaged in digging up biases in someone, some people?

4. Is the poster observing critical honest thinking and critical honest and also as important, intelligible speaking?

5. Finally, is the poster saying anything of particular usefulness to yourself alone or better also to others?

[...]

The above guidelines are provisional, tentative, and not final, but you can already help yourselves to their employment in order to arrive at the core substance of a post if there is any, and then judge its particular usefulness.




Good friend Lupus, if you care you can also draw up a list of guidelines for judging the usefulness of a post, and display them here in this thread.


Now, let's go back to the determination of the useful or not useful parts of your latest post here,

====================

You see Yrreg, I don’t go around measuring usefulness in everything. It’s more like listening to music: I like music without myself taking up playing any instrument. It is possible I could enjoy music even more by playing or joining in. And in a limited way I do that sometimes (by humming along or dancing). But since I don’t aspire to play an instrument or being a musician – to whom music is even more integrated – I see no necessity in explicitly evaluating whether that musician is doing something useful to himself or anyone else.




The paragraph above is useful in contributing to the idea of usefulness, because Lupus is saying in effect that he has a measure for gauging usefulness -- very good; for example one measure of usefulness in an activity for him is that he enjoys it. He brings up the example of music, why it is useful to him because namely because he enjoys it.

Very good paragraph, very useful, it is not in obfuscation and sabotage-tion of the thread but in elaboration of the topic of the thread.

I agree perfectly with you that the enjoyment of an activity is a very useful measure of usefulness of the activity.

Shall we add enjoyment as another criterion of usefulness; if you don't have any objections, then it is accepted. Now we have these contributions from you on how a thing can be useful:

1. If it is perceived to be useful to the subject person.

2. If it makes a person feel good, and better others also.

3. If it is enjoyable.



Be patient, everyone, this is a tedious process, developing a thread so that everyone will derive some usefulness from it. I am thinking of a thread in the Community Board where I will invite people to help me in the examination of honesty or dishonesty in a poster from his messages, intellectual honesty or dishonesty, not the moral one. That will also be a tedious but most enlightening topic for our education on intellectual honesty to cultivate and dishonesty to abominate.

====================

Usefulness seems to be your current pretext for presenting an underlying dislike of some sort – that’s why you usually fail to be coherent in what you call “critical examination”. I’m simply trying to point out that you should just honestly say what and why you dislike something in Buddhism. Put your cards on the table and gain some coherence in your argumentation as a consequence.


Not a useful paragraph above because it is assigning agenda to a poster instead of adhering to his ideas and judging them on their intrinsic worth; therefore it is not contributive to the elaboration of this thread, but on the contrary in obfuscation and sabotage-tion of the thread.

Good friend Lupus, if you are interested, please start a thread to examine why I dislike as you opine or even claim that I dislike Buddhism and I will join you there.

====================

Ok, I’m willing to try one more time, but from a slightly different angle: Just make one clear assertion about why you dislike Buddhism, something that is so important to you that you feel compelled to dislike Buddhism for its inadequacy to address that issue. If it turns out to be a good discussion, then, usefulness might emerge by itself, and maybe illuminate what we both feel as important. Or, your assertion might turn out to be one standard or commonality that prevents us from relapsing into semi-intellectual babble.


Same reactions from me as above to the paragraph preceding the present one.

It is assigning agenda and motives instead of examining the ideas brought up by the author of the thread; therefore it is not contributive to the development of the topic of the thread but in obfuscation and sabotage-tion of the thread.

Again, please start a thread to develop your thought that I dislike Buddhism. I will join you there; but please here just keep to the topic of this thread by attending faithfully to the ideas than whatever agendas or biases you suspect at least or are certain at most about the author of this thread, yours truly, Yrreg.


=====================


Otherwise, thanks for a contributive post to the topic of this thread, "Criteria of Usefulness" in regard to Buddhism.

Summing up, you have added another criterion to judge usefulness of anything, namely that it is enjoyable, and I agree with you perfectly.

Now applying the three criteria of usefulness you have so far brought up, to Buddhism, I will declare honestly that Buddhism is useful because:

1. It is perceived useful by the subject taking up with Buddhism.

2. It makes the subject person feel good.

3. It is enjoyable to him.


Is that all right with you, good friend Lupus?


Now, can we go to the essential doctrines and practices of Buddhism and determine together their usefulness to a person taking up with Buddhism, and also if possible to others who are not Buddhists? Think of a list of the most essential teachings and observances of Buddhism, and we can proceed already to the main concern of this thread.

This invitation is cordially and sincerely addressed to everyone; although I will usually respond to Lupus, everyone else can already know my possible reactions to his posts here by following closely the messages between us. Of course and certainly I will respond to other posters as usefulness dictates, namely, to the elaboration of this thread.


Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

Lupus says:

You see Yrreg, I don’t go around measuring usefulness in everything. It’s more like listening to music.


And Yrreg hears:

Lupus is saying in effect that he has a measure for gauging usefulness -- very good; for example one measure of usefulness in an activity for him is that he enjoys it. He brings up the example of music, why it is useful to him because namely because he enjoys it.


How far through the looking glass do you have to be?

Yrreg, that is NOT what Lupus said. Lupus said the exact OPPOSITE of that.

I will now recite my criteria for judging a poster's intelectual honesty based entirely on his previous post:

1. Does the poster display the least clue as to what anyone else around him is saying or thinking?

2. Does the poster sometimes refer to himself in the third person for no discernable reason?

3. Is the poster incapable of using the word "sabotage" correctly after instruction?

4. Does the poster absolutely refuse to be moved by the opinions and preferences of those around him except that when he finds that one of his habits is annoying he actually intensifies it?

5. Does the poster never - not once in hundreds and hundreds of posts - ever even one time reference Gaius Baltar, Caprica Six, Cally or any other character on Battlestar Galactica?

I invite every person on this forum but especially ... oh, let's say Dr. Adequate to join me in rating each and every JREF member based on these criteria. Also, I have recently taken a reading with my patented measuring meter and Buddhism is now reading Eleventy-billion +4.3, Mormonism -16. My ficus still is holding steady at Baby Einstein DVD +8.

[Complexity]

Yrreg - It is time that I be blunt.

I've completely had it with you.

I will never engage you in a conversation.

You are not worth interacting with.

(I felt a Dr. Seuss moment coming on, but I'm not up to it, and why waste it?)

There is not a topic on which I would care to hear your opinion.

I don't believe that you are honest in your representations, motivation, purpose, or speech.

I will, as mood and whim dictate, inject my opinions into threads that you taint - I regard it as a form of community service.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Yrreg, if I understand you correctly:

1: If I present something I personally like about Buddhism, then, it is useful for the thread?

2: If I ask you to present something you personally dislike about Buddhism, then, it is not useful for the thread?

So by mapping some perceived positive sides in Buddhism (mainly by me and you), we can say something meaningful about the usefulness in Buddhism? Is that what you are looking for? Kind of like gathering our positive opinions in a few bags, then closing and tagging the bags with a few labels we think suit their characteristics. Now that the bags have been tagged, we can finally say something definite about usefulness in Buddhism. Hmm… critical evaluation!?

[lupus_in_fabula]

I will now recite my criteria for judging a poster's intelectual honesty based entirely on his previous post:1. Does the poster display the least clue as to what anyone else around him is saying or thinking?

2. Does the poster sometimes refer to himself in the third person for no discernable reason?

3. Is the poster incapable of using the word "sabotage" correctly after instruction?

4. Does the poster absolutely refuse to be moved by the opinions and preferences of those around him except that when he finds that one of his habits is annoying he actually intensifies it?

5. Does the poster never - not once in hundreds and hundreds of posts - ever even one time reference Gaius Baltar, Caprica Six, Cally or any other character on Battlestar Galactica?
Here are three observations one should also contemplate on (tongue-in-cheek):

A. Is the poster engaging in intellectual masochism?

B. Is the poster engaged in intellectually militant behaviour?

C. Is the poster engaged in sadistic ignorance?

An example of the first kind: When poster X asks poster Y to provide at least some kind of standard or reference point for how both are to examine usefulness in Buddhism (that is, in regards to what), poster Y throws back the onus at poster X with the following reason: Since my imaginary janitor would not ask for such a standard.

An example of the second kind: When poster X is pointing out that poster Y must have some kind of coherence in his argumentation about usefulness, thus meaning: that if no standard exists by which usefulness can be a coherent measurement tool, then, at least it could be a discussion about why poster X and Y like/dislike Buddhism (or parts of Buddhism) where usefulness plays merely a part – mainly because that is the impression poster X has gained from the interaction with poster Y. When poster Y replies, after X has already on numerous occasions revealed his own feelings about Buddhism, that he will not engage in such discussion but rather proclaims that poster X is engaging in obfuscation and sabotage-tion.

An example of the third kind: When poster Y is fully aware of the fact that engaging in evaluation of Buddhism in the manner he is, will simply by following the process anyway, not be able to say anything definite about the usefulness in Buddhism, but, proclaims it to be valid and definite nonetheless…

Here poster X is kindly asking poster Y to revaluate the process by which Y so eagerly would like to proceed with (so that poster Y would not fall for the third temptation). Poster X, however, is not expecting anything else than a reply in the form of A or B.

[Loss Leader]

Here are three observations one should also contemplate on (tongue-in-cheek):

A. Is the poster engaging in intellectual masochism?

B. Is the poster engaged in intellectually militant behaviour?

C. Is the poster engaged in sadistic ignorance?


And the Battlestar Galactica thing.

[Beleth]

Tell me what is the usefulness of an orgasm effected by self-stimulation?
It helps prevent prostate cancer (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3942).

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
Tell me what is the usefulness of an orgasm effected by self-stimulation?

It helps prevent prostate cancer (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3942).


That is very good, Beleth. Now, I remember you at the Skeptics Society Forum where you told me that my suspension in this forum had been completed -- and I thought that I was through with JREF forum as I am with the IIDB forum. Goes to show that the JREF forum is more open-minded and less bigoted than the IIDB forum in regard to critics of Buddhism.

You see, Beleth, this thread is about usefulness not about un-usefulness or uselessness. Notice the title is "Criteria of Usefulness," understood in regard to Buddhism.

So, please, everyone, if you want to talk about un-usefulness or uselessness in regard to Buddhism, please just start a thread on that topic with the title if you care like "Criteria of Uselessness or un-usefulness in regard to Buddhism."



That is why a thread can go on and on and on without any end in view, because people just refuse to keep to the topic of the thread as can be seen in the title adopted by the author of the thread, and also in the initiating post #1 from the author and his immediately subsequent posts.


How to end a thread that goes on and on and on? Ask everyone to focus on the topic and keep to it as a hound keeps to the scent of a fox; then someone really with good Brain cells will eventually come forward to tell everyone that at the point to date there are these concurring positions and those impasses, and that is the end of the thread -- until some new facts and new aspects of the question are presented.


====================

Shall we now concentrate on the topic of this thread, "Criteria of Usefulness" in regard to Buddhism?

On my part I believe we have enough concurring ideas about what is usefulness, now we can apply these ideas of usefulness to the essential doctrines and observances of Buddhism. Just one reminder to everyone, again, we are talking about usefulness, not un-usefulness or uselessness, in regard to Buddhism.



Is anyone willing to put forth a short list of the essential doctrines and observances of Buddhism? What about this list from yours truly:

1. karma
2. rebirth
3. nirvana
4. anatta


About the item #4, that is one idea that I really want Buddhists here to explain to me its usefulness to themselves in the pursuit of nirvana, also ex or former Buddhists are welcome to shed light on its usefulness -- please limit yourself to its usefulness, don't even mention the word here in this thread about un-usefulness or uselessness.

If you cannot keep to usefulness but must bring in uselessness or un-usefulness, then start a thread on the "Uselessness or Un-usefulness of Buddhism"; and I will join you there.

Then we will have two threads, the one from me concerned with usefulness of Buddhism and the one from someone else on the uselessness or un-usefulness of Buddhism.

Is that possible and feasible and productive? Yes, I believe so; because afterward people who want to know what is useful and what not in regard to Buddhism can look up both threads and make their own conclusions.



Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

You see, Beleth, this thread is about usefulness not about un-usefulness or uselessness. Notice the title is "Criteria of Usefulness," understood in regard to Buddhism.

Actually, neither the title of this thread or the first post mentioned usefulness in regards to Buddhism at all. The title is "Criteria of Usefulness." In the first post, you said:

Shall we first classify all usefulness into usefulness within oneself and to oneself exclusively, on one side, and on the other usefulness to oneself and to one's neighbors including the rest of life in nature? ... So, if you will be interested in the topic of the present thread, tell me what you think about my division of usefulness into usefulness exclusive to the subject, for example an orgasm effected by self-stimulation, and usefulness to others outside oneself.


See? No Buddhism. Just some (fairly disturbing) talk about masturbation.


On my part I believe we have enough concurring ideas about what is usefulness, now we can apply these ideas of usefulness to the essential doctrines and observances of Buddhism.


Actually, nobody in this thread has ever concurred about any of your ideas regarding criteria of usefulness. Not only do we not have enough concurring ideas, we have zero concurring ideas.

The person who you seem to think is your greatest friend in this endeavor flatly rejected naming any criteria of usefulness whatsoever. He said:

You see Yrreg, I don’t go around measuring usefulness in everything.



But perhaps we can wring something useful from this thread.

Sabotage-tion


Answer this, Yrreg: How is it not sabotaging a discussion to continue to use a word that does not exist even after being corrected? How does making up your own syntax and applying it even when people tell you it's wrong add to a conversation? How does it help you make your point? How does it not obfuscate matters by burying your point under such poor grammar that no one would want to read it?

I am a Jewish man, Yrreg, and proud of it. I've never given money to a christian charity. I don't even give to the Salvation Army. But I will donate fifty American dollars to your Catholic Diocese in the Philappines (or to any Catholic charity you wish) if you will answer my above questions honestly and without using made-up words. Fifty bucks could feed a lot of Catholic Philippino orphans.

[Beleth]

That is very good, Beleth. Now, I remember you at the Skeptics Society Forum where you told me that my suspension in this forum had been completed -- and I thought that I was through with JREF forum as I am with the IIDB forum. Goes to show that the JREF forum is more open-minded and less bigoted than the IIDB forum in regard to critics of Buddhism.
None of this opening paragraph has the slightest thing to do with either Buddhism or usefulness.

See, yrreg, the biggest derailer of your topics is you.

Shall we now concentrate on the topic of this thread, "Criteria of Usefulness" in regard to Buddhism?"We"?

You and I?

No.
I have said my peace.

Feel free to post in my absence, however.

[yrreg]

First, read the initiating post #1 of this thread which has for its author, your most humble truly, Yrreg.

But don't read this, it's for Lisa Simpson only, else you might suffer some obfuscation and sabotage-tion of the thread and also your communication with me:

Dear Lisa, didn't you have under your name? when I first came here, the following words or similar ones: "You guys should be driving me nuts." Very true, but not me, I am trying my best as author of this thread to convince some people here to keep to the topic, while making it enjoyable to read nonetheless with some invitation to glee, but definitely not in obfuscation and sabotage-tion of the thread.

If you, good Lisa, feel that you have to move this thread to the Community Board, it's okay with me the author, for good ideas can grow and flower even in any forum. The Community Board has the merit of being less tense, more relaxed for an atmosphere of amicable exchange.





Title of thread: Criteria of usefulness. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2429583&postcount=1

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

Lupus has contributed an insightful, though obvious to people accustomed to seek insights, observation to my hobby of research in critical Buddhology.

Posted by lupus_in_fabula http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2417419#post2417419

[.....]

It appears that the major issue yrreg has with the teachings of Buddha is his inability to find any usefulness (or purpose) in the “Buddhist” way of thinking – that from a rather particular point of view it seems. Well, not to despair; a “critical” look at why there must to be a particular purpose for anything might be a good issue to ponder on. Perhaps taking a "critical" look at general semantics could be a starting point.


I like to have a dialogue with you, Lupus.

Tell me what is the usefulness of an orgasm effected by self-stimulation?


Shall we first classify all usefulness into usefulness within oneself and to oneself exclusively, on one side, and on the other usefulness to oneself and to one's neighbors including the rest of life in nature?


I am now studying evidence based medicine, and the first impression I have come upon so far is that this discipline is strictly concerned with usefulness of a medical substance or procedure that is more than just its usefulness to one patient alone in any respect of how the patient reports its usefulness, but the medicinal substance or procedure has no usefulness to others, so that it is medically useless outside and away from that particular patient who reports a usefulness for himself in any way he understands usefulness.


Earlier I introduced a thread each in a science forum and in a philosophy forum where I ask the question what is the usefulness of a mystical experience; so far the participants there have not reacted to my latest message making a distinction between, as I have mentioned above, usefulness exclusive to the subject person and usefulness both to the subject person and also to neighbors and life in nature.


So, if you will be interested in the topic of the present thread, tell me what you think about my division of usefulness into usefulness exclusive to the subject, for example an orgasm effected by self-stimulation, and usefulness to others outside oneself.


Yrreg




Tell me anyone with reading comprehension if the topic of this thread is not about criteria of usefulness relative as its main thrust to Buddhism, when you consider that the excerpt from Lupus where I commend him for his insight is his remark about my critical approach to Buddhism:

It appears that the major issue yrreg has with the teachings of Buddha is his inability to find any usefulness (or purpose) in the “Buddhist” way of thinking – that from a rather particular point of view it seems.


See? Lupus -- and I thank him -- is the inspiration for this thread on "Criteria of Usefulness" definitely in regard to Buddhism.

About his mention of general semantics, etc., let him if he prefers do a thread on general semantics in connection with his interest whatsoever about my critical approach to Buddhism.

My purpose to anyone with basic reading comprehension by examining my post #1 and the immediately succeeding posts from me is exactly about usefulness of Buddhism.



So without much ado, and if people care to join me, I will now suggest my short list of the essential doctrines and observances of Buddhism, now enlarged with the addition of meditation.


Essential doctrines and observances of Buddhism:

1. Karma
2. Rebirth
3. Nirvana
4. Meditation


You will notice that I mention only one observance, meditation, and the reason is because it is the most important one and the one that makes Buddhism distinct even should all the other moral and ascetical observances and practices are not mentioned. If anyone thinks that other doctrines and practices should be included, let him contribute then to this short list.


Okay, here we go:

Karma, the belief that your present rebirth is the consequence of your acts in previous rebirths. That belief is useful because then you will not complain why you are born to poor parents or with some deficiencies of brain and body; you will not feel swell but at least you should be resigned and do something about it, performing acts which will improve your karma so that your next rebirth and further ones will be better than your present one of being born from poor parents and withal loaded with a poor brain and a bad body.

Rebirth, this belief is useful because otherwise karma would not make any sense; and also it gives you hope that you can be better off in future rebirths, so you feel better instead of being bitter without any prospects of better existence in the future.

Nirvana, this belief is useful because it is about the be all and end all, the ultimate final and permanent destiny of mankind, where you are liberated from karma, rebirths, and thus freed from all the unpleasant things in your recurring existence as a entity with consciousness called a sentient being.

Meditation, this practice is useful because it will enable you to come to the certainty or conviction of the three beliefs on karma, rebirths, and nirvana; you will not get to the certainty of these three beliefs unless you meditate.


So, Buddhism is useful to Buddhists because the essential doctrines and that important practice of meditation are each of them individually and together useful for the meaningfulness of each and the attainment of the end destiny of Buddhists and mankind even people outside Buddhism -- but they don't know it, the usefulness of Buddhism.



That is all I am asking people to exchange views with me; and the office janitor and the neighborhood pizza delivery man, they both and everyone else like them and myself see it clearly and understand it perfectly.

And that is why I can't accept that some people here keep on throwing impediments of obfuscation and sabotage-tion of communication in the development of the topic, the thread, on "Criteria of Usefulness" in regard to Buddhism.


Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

Well, Yrreg, you're out fifty bucks. Or, more precisely, the catholics of your diocese are out fifty bucks.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Shall we now concentrate on the topic of this thread, "Criteria of Usefulness" in regard to Buddhism?

On my part I believe we have enough concurring ideas about what is usefulness, now we can apply these ideas of usefulness to the essential doctrines and observances of Buddhism. Just one reminder to everyone, again, we are talking about usefulness, not un-usefulness or uselessness, in regard to Buddhism.

Hold on for a little while longer, if you can! I don't agree with the underlined text! Now you seem to be in a hasty process of torpedoing your own “Criteria of Usefulness”! You see, in the beginning of this thread we already discussed how perception can play tricks on every one of us. For instance here: “About orgasm from self-stimulation, it is useful only for the self” (Yrreg #9).

With perception comes feeling/thought and vice versa. Hence I feel/think I like something in Buddhism, and, low and behold, it turned out to be useful for this thread by your standards. Now, if you are honest, you would have to admit that if there’s something you dislike (or that you perceive something to be bad) in Buddhism, then, in all fairness, I should at least be allowed to examine that and see if I also find it to be non-useful or useless (therefore should be excluded). Don’t you agree? There is always the possibility that it can turn out to be useful after my examination! If there is a dislike, then it should be an important variable. I may add that only if you perceive it as a clear dislike should it be included (not something you feel/think as minute).

You see. I’m in the process of trying to find commonality and coherence before we make our own conclusions about Buddhism (since we didn’t start out with any such things). Thus, if there is like or dislike about some particularity, then it could be valuable for the outcome. This is not an attempt to stall the final enfoldment, but we must be careful and fair before we jump to conclusions. This is my idea if having a more solid “Criteria of Usefulness”. Sometimes we dislike issues that eventually turn out to be useful in the end. It sort of gives a clearer perspective. Part of remaining fairly agnostic is being careful in one’s assessments.


I can only give some preliminary reasons why I seem to like something in the aforementioned doctrines. I do not pretend to know their usefulness in general. I may, however, have to re-evaluate them when I find more time to think about them.

Karma: Well, I already wrote about this in a previous post how it could be considered useful in some way. Personally I like the Buddhist approach to karma (more than some Hindu approaches). I like it as an ethical principle in the way of trying to be aware of one’s own intentions, especially since it indirectly adds to understanding oneself (through examining one’s motives in many situations). I like the empowering responsibility it brings along.

Rebirth: Better than reincarnation I think, especially since there’s no talk about any soul travelling here and there. It’s difficult for me to grasp it coherently however (I may need more time to think about it). It seems to indicate that one’s negative intentions somehow affects rebirth. It’s possible I don’t understand how Buddhists define death, so it’s possible I therefore misunderstand rebirth. In general, of little consequence for me! Work in progress!

Nirvana: I like the notion of nirvana in the sense that it seems attainable during life. Thus, you don’t have to die (in the materialistic sense) and hope for the best, like in many other religions. For me it sounds like a kind of ultimate experience, very profound for the individual for how he continues his “normal” life henceforth (probably in a very positive way). Of course, there is also the possibility of reaching nirvana when one dies (if I understand the Tibetan Book of the Dead correctly). Empowering for taking charge of one’s own destiny!

Meditation: Positive! I like the “cybernetic principle” in it (treat semantics as syntax, i.e. thoughts as just thought = observe and release = fall deeper). Such principle is often good in everyday life too, in the sense of not clinging, or at least being aware of any unnecessary clinging). Probably good for understanding Karma and non-self! Difficult to define meditation, karma and non-self thou!

You see, my knowledge of Buddhism is very limited, so please feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented its general interpretations.

[Dancing David]

Is anyone willing to put forth a short list of the essential doctrines and observances of Buddhism? What about this list from yours truly:

1. karma
2. rebirth
3. nirvana
4. anatta


About the item #4, that is one idea that I really want Buddhists here to explain to me its usefulness to themselves in the pursuit of nirvana, also ex or former Buddhists are welcome to shed light on its usefulness -- please limit yourself to its usefulness, don't even mention the word here in this thread about un-usefulness or uselessness.

Yrreg

First many posteres on this board have repeatedly said they are sceptical of the traditional concepts of these terms as used in common religous buddhism as it has developed, meself and Pyokan included. Which is why I have reffered to the teachings of the alleged historical buddha: which they are often at variance with. Not an appeal to authority but merely a pointing to a path.

1. Karma :consequences of actions.

2. Rebirth: The continuace of poor choices and thier cosequences.

3. Nirvana: a state of free action where an individual no longer acts from past poor choices and does not contribute to poor choices.

4. Annatta: There is no soul or transcendant spirit, soul is a useless concept. A human with a soul is like a fish with a laptop, no particular usefullenss.

YREGG: IN NUMBER FOUR YOU HAVE HOISTED YOURSELF UPON YOUR OWN PETARD!

(Sorry for shouting.)