Our true nature

[wil]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Ah now I see the difficulty! Why didn't I see it before? Could it be my brain is a bit foggy? (Imagine that! )

Anyway, I define what we ARE as distinctly different from what we DO. In other words we are not our behavior. But perhaps Wil this is your belief? Like I said, if this were so it would open up another line of inquiry altogether, not so?

We are all actors? Like Mel was just acting the drunk anti-semite? Just another role? Tis not who he IS?

Yes I do think what we DO distinctly defines who we ARE. If the who we SAY we are, or the who we THINK we are differs from the what we DO...than I say we are kidding ourselves....yes, no, maybe so?

Now if we are discussing our 'nature' I realize that....but still seems to me...

[flowperson]

I view this discussion as relating to the old argument of nature vs. nurture. Further, I now see it in terms of an "inside-outside" dance of understanding.

When we are born we are composed of natural potentials which were endowed to us by our parents at conception, 50% from each. This endowment codes us for what we may become and do in the future, but the vast amounts of what we come to "do" in the future is evoked by the environments that we experience over time.

If we have the genetic tendency bred into us towards violent reactions, then continued abuse, even low level abuse if it is consistently applied, will likely result in our doing "bad" things to ourselves and others in the future. If we are conditioned by our environmental surroundings to respond to music, color, artful forms, smiling faces, then likely as not our genetic predispositions will tend to direct our futures towards "good" works and behaviors.

This is a simplistic description of what lots of psychological and genetic research has shown over the past five decades or so. And you're right wil, passive consumption of negative media images is decidedly not good for us in the long run. Violence begets violence, and goodness begets goodness. We're all hard wired for that form of learning I'm afraid. So we can be both good and evil at the same time as Cav said, but both must be evoked environmentally over time through the "inside-outside" dance of what we experience around us.

flow....

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by wil

We are all actors? Like Mel was just acting the drunk anti-semite? Just another role? Tis not who he IS?

Yes I do think what we DO distinctly defines who we ARE. If the who we SAY we are, or the who we THINK we are differs from the what we DO...than I say we are kidding ourselves....yes, no, maybe so?

Now if we are discussing our 'nature' I realize that....but still seems to me...

Yes, what we are discussing is our core nature, what it was that was created/came to be and what our essence truly is. If you subscribe to the idea that we were created by God, then what you are saying is that we have the power to change that which God created. Furthermore we have the power to change it several times a day. I know that in my lifetime I have done things, and said things I'm not proud of. On the other hand some of the things I have done would qualify me as a "good person" so, on I go back and forth changing what I inherently am?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by flowperson

I view this discussion as relating to the old argument of nature vs. nurture. Further, I now see it in terms of an "inside-outside" dance of understanding.

When we are born we are composed of natural potentials which were endowed to us by our parents at conception, 50% from each. This endowment codes us for what we may become and do in the future, but the vast amounts of what we come to "do" in the future is evoked by the environments that we experience over time.

If we have the genetic tendency bred into us towards violent reactions, then continued abuse, even low level abuse if it is consistently applied, will likely result in our doing "bad" things to ourselves and others in the future. If we are conditioned by our environmental surroundings to respond to music, color, artful forms, smiling faces, then likely as not our genetic predispositions will tend to direct our futures towards "good" works and behaviors.

This is a simplistic description of what lots of psychological and genetic research has shown over the past five decades or so. And you're right wil, passive consumption of negative media images is decidedly not good for us in the long run. Violence begets violence, and goodness begets goodness. We're all hard wired for that form of learning I'm afraid. So we can be both good and evil at the same time as Cav said, but both must be evoked environmentally over time through the "inside-outside" dance of what we experience around us.

flow....

Okay, so we are born a blank slate then? Tabula Rasa?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Yes, what we are discussing is our core nature, what it was that was created/came to be and what our essence truly is. If you subscribe to the idea that we were created by God, then what you are saying is that we have the power to change that which God created. Furthermore we have the power to change it several times a day. I know that in my lifetime I have done things, and said things I'm not proud of. On the other hand some of the things I have done would qualify me as a "good person" so, on I go back and forth changing what I inherently am?

Created and Creator...yes. And I think it all averages out, like sea level....got to take the median of the waves... Nice contemplation though....what is the essence if we continue to output differing things...and this is based on our perception of our actions...can we also entertain that our perception of our actions varies over time as well?

[flowperson]

Paladin:

No not a blank slate, but a slate full of the genetic predispositions that we inherit from our ancestors. We all differ in what potentialities that we are born with through that inheritance, but for them to become real, one way or the other, they must be evoked through our interactions with our environments.

flow....

[Paladin]

Someone once asked a Zen master that, "if there is no self, then what is it that reincarnates?" Without skipping a beat the master replied "Your neuroses"

Okay, so far then I understand that Wil takes a "we are a baseline average of the all the actions we perform" kind of approach, that our behavior defines us when looked at from the whole. But does this really reach our essence, are we a spark of the Divine so to speak or just a bunch of neural pathways with synapses firing away depending on what our genetic make up interacting with an outer environment?
I would like to explore further Flow, what is it that makes these choices in responding to the evironment? Or, is it purely mechanical?
I suppose we we would then venture into the nature of Mind itself, and argue that we are mind, never mind the dualism of good, bad, and not good and not bad. This is where things start getting Zen like
My original purpose was to show that our spiritual predisposition, what paths we are attracted to are largely based on what we believe we and the rest of humanity is in its essence.

For example if JBF believes that man is basically "Wicked in his heart" he might be attracted to a fundamental type of Christianity that believes that a literal interpretation of scripture and strict adherence to an outer moral code would bring about hapiness, peace, well being and a closer walk with God. (Just and example here please do not send cards and letters, the opinions of one nutcase are not the opinions of this station or its affiliates)

Now if say, Lunamoth (for example) believes that people are basically good,a nd created in the image of God, She might be attracted to a religion that supports inner growth, or a return to that essentially divine nature as means of enlightenment, again the Gold coin covered with mud analogy I used earlier.

However, we have uncovered some very interesting ideas here, that would be worth following up on! Thanks Wil, Flow and JBF!

[Quahom1]

Deceit, that is man's nature. We both smile and say it's alright, but it isn't. We act cordially to enemies we'd rather put down, but we maintain. We gossip about our neighbors and call it "chatting". We keep up with the Jone's until we are bankrupt, then blame them in our hearts. We go the otherway when we see someone in trouble on the street. We want nothing to do with our neighbors' woes if it will inconvenience us in any way. We distrust the lone walker on a highway, because he may bring us to harm. We keep going after passing an accident because it isn't our business and we aren't medical personnel, trained to handle trauma...all excuses for the fact that we are decieptfull and selfish, and selfcentered naturally.

But, if you've gone this far into my post...

WE FIGHT this nature of ours. We FORCE oursleves to get involved. WE deal with our enemies despite our misgivings. We choose to hold our tongue rather that add to a story. We DECIDE, we don't need what the Jone's got, we help those even though it might get us really involved. We take chances with the lone highway walker, we stop at accidents and give whatever we have that might help, all things that make no sense, and do not contribute to our personal survival, and for a moment...we don't care about ourselves.

Therein is our hope, for us. We are capable of the next step.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Paladin]

Thanks for weighing in Q, I always enjoy your input.
So, if I have this straight then, we start out being pretty hedonistic, petty, negative and so on, but within us is the potential to rise above all this and move toward an altruistic intent. Okay as far as it goes but where does this inspiriation come from? I mean if one is a believer in God and that we were created basically bad but with a spark of potential for goodness?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Thanks for weighing in Q, I always enjoy your input.
So, if I have this straight then, we start out being pretty hedonistic, petty, negative and so on, but within us is the potential to rise above all this and move toward an altruistic intent. Okay as far as it goes but where does this inspiriation come from? I mean if one is a believer in God and that we were created basically bad but with a spark of potential for goodness?

Consider an infant child...then watch him grow and learn. With the learning comes values, that carry with us the rest of our lives. Even if the child had a pitiful upbringing, a human will seek out good in some form or fashion, whether it be a kindly old woman who puts hot food in a pot in a dark alley for a kid she spotted eating from a garbage can, or a baby kitten that a convict befriends, who in turn loves on and is faithful to him.

I submit the laws are written in man's heart, and all it takes is something as small as a smile to open those laws to a man, and cause him to change.

You know there is an awful lot written in scripture about the hardening of man's heart...ever wonder why?

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by Paladin

So, if I have this straight then, we start out being pretty hedonistic, petty, negative and so on, but within us is the potential to rise above all this and move toward an altruistic intent. Okay as far as it goes but where does this inspiriation come from? I mean if one is a believer in God and that we were created basically bad but with a spark of potential for goodness?

Regarding the negative aspects of human nature, the first thing that comes to mind is the existential dilemma: Life in my eyes becomes the rat race, the hamster on the spinning wheel, basically meaningless.
However, I think that fighting or taming our nature is futile, imo it is rather about getting in touch with the divine, or perhaps that inner spark you mention.

Alvaro

[earl]

What is our true nature? I seem to find more open-ended quasi-answers offered by prose and poetry writers, responses more verdant questions than true answers (Rilke did so famously encourage one to "love the questions" more than the answers), that are meant to open up awareness in a koan-like manner, speak to me. For instance, some responses from Aldous Huxley:

"If I only knew who in fact I am, I should cease to behave as what I think I am; and if I stopped behaving as what I think I am, I should know who I am...What in fact I am...is the reconciliation of yes and no, lived out in total acceptance and the blessed experience of not-two.... Knowing who in fact we are results in Good Being, and Good Being results in the most appropriate kind of good doing."

The Greek term for sin was hamartia, translated as to "miss the mark," as an archer whose aim is off. That's all "sin" is-to miss the mark of the appropriate answer to Huxley's question. I do believe in "original sin-"that it is incumbent within the human condition to so easily miss that mark. Happy hunting, earl

[arthra]

Paladin wrote:

we (Buddhists) are the "Gold coin covered in mud"

We Baha'is have a similar saying...

The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 287)

[arthra]

I'll do this again...Please ignore my previous post.

Paladin wrote:

The Buddhist idea is that we are the "Gold coin covered in mud" and that by dropping the layers of negativity we can recover our true Buddha nature.

And I wanted to share a somewhat similar saying from the Baha'i Writings:

The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 287)

[David_IV]

Paladin: It seems that within most religious models there are basically two ways of seeing into the nature of human beings. One is that humans are basically evil (or amoral at best) and need something outside themselves to offer discipline and structure lest they fall back into their base nature, the path to their own demise.

David: The word evil comes from the ancient Hebrew ra which means, in a basic sense, justice through calamitous events. Being grounded by your parents, for example, would be evil.

Amoral? Please. That is what we strive for, is it not? Without a moral guideline?

You are trying to come to some understanding through what? Nothing.
Paladin: The other is that people are still as they were created, ( or came to be) pure, innocent but covered over with layers of wrong thinking, false beliefs, and therefore crude, irreverent, even evil behaviors at times. It is to this belief that people can become self correcting if lead by proper teachings and sound practice until the discipline comes from within and looking outside the self becomes an incorrect practice.
David: Excrement. If man invented his own demise then he is only satisfying his own desires. If he is following the design of a grand creator he is only falling short of that itself. Either way you missed the point, though you seemed at first to be clever in doing so, you are not.
Paladin: What do you think, is it one or the other or is there a third (or beyond) possibility?
David: If you want to see "the nature" of humanity why don't you open your eyes and stop trying to see things in some politically correct way which tries in some way to appease the intellect or the emotion of the hand that feeds you?
Look at what the Bible says of sin. Don't be afraid, it isn't much more daunting than natural selection it only requires a little more thought and a great deal less verbatim.