God and Humans

(Clashing Perspectives on Culture and Humans)

Zymetric

It's religion, not a UN summit.. er.. bad comparison.

John Dishwasher

Is it religion? I think the ideas in the essay hold up without religion. On the other hand you can apply them in a religious way if you want. That's part of the point. Maybe we could call the idea a-religious.

Zymetric

I see you don't like bad jokes..

Joking aside, If we are 'seeking peace of mind', how is it our mind is capable of conceiving information that directly threatens our sources of peaceful mindedness? How do turbulent thoughts even enter the equation?

John Dishwasher

We are seeking peace of mind BECAUSE of that capability of our mind. Without that capability we wouldn't need to seek it, we would be at peace, more like the wild animals, untroubled, worrying about meals and territory, maybe, but not office politics and speed traps. We are all born with peace of mind. As children we enjoy it to its fullest. The turbulent thougts come later as we try to fit ourselves into the culture we exist in. That's when we start having to take concerted measures to find peace. That's when it becomes one of our primary motivators.

And bad jokes are cool, man. Bring 'em on. :)

Zymetric

Speed traps are the new hidden predators .. Not sure I'd agree that children have it easier, nor that other animals are somehow 'less troubled' than us. Your concept that 'We are all born with peace of mind' is a fairly important foundation in your essay, but also very illusory, considering the fact that a baby born with an untroubled demeanor wouldn't be considered 'peaceful' at all.

I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around why we would even attempt to 'fit ourselves into the culture we exist' if it directly violates our peace of mind.

How could we cross that line if we weren't actively seeking something other than peace? If we seek peace, in spite of these other things we sought, i.e. cultural acceptance, how can it be claimed that we are ultimately seeking peace of mind?

John Dishwasher

Maybe 'troubled' is the wrong word. I think it is possible to be in conflict with your world and still have peace of mind. The peace of mind that the wild animals experience, I think, is not without conflict, it is just without all the worrying and hesitation and debating and politics and conscience that accompany our conflict and distort our understanding of it.

We only attempt to 'fit into the culture in which we exist' because we are trained to do so. From the outset our parents begin shaping us to get along in the world. We are taught to behave in a certain way before we have a choice in the matter. Before we understand our situation well enough to decide how to interact with it for ourselves, we have been taught to interact with it in a certain way. These lessons go very deep and take root when we are still pre-verbal, I think.

On the other hand, we 'remember' that peace in a way. Or, we are reminded from time to time that that peace exists when we feel it fleetingly. This reminder and memory is what urges us to seek it. And, unfortunately, to seek it inevitably brings us into conflict with how we have been trained to think. It's hard to 'wrap one's mind around' this because it is a paradox. But it is a paradox of our cultural training, not of our natural state.

Finally, you are right to recognize the primacy of 'an innate peace of mind' in the essay. That is insightful. I don't really state that explicitly though that is definitely where I am coming from.

Our cultural training is the ultimate speed trap!

Zymetric

I'm not questioning that peace of mind can be an objective, just that it is The primary objective.

You admit that we are 'taught' to deceive our own peaceful mindedness, and do things that run contrary to our peace of mind, but 'taught' implies a seperation from some 'original intention' in our mind, as though we never play a hand in it.

Your saying the pursuit of peace is our own nature, yet any pursuit that contradicts our peace of mind is somehow alien. This is the nut of our disagreement

John Dishwasher

Yeah, you and I have been coming at this from different places, really. I think really our disagreement is couched here: (And I'm very open to a correction, because in a way I'm trying to speak for both of us):

We're talking about what motivates humans. And yet I think we have a different feeling for what humans are. It seems to me that for you it is the mind of the human being and how he or she sees the world and reacts to it that defines him, more or less. While my sense for what defines the human (ultimately) is kind of 'pre_mind.' I'm thinking of a kind of 'original self' that has not yet been shaped by anything. This 'unshaped being' is where I start all my arguments, and your 'shaped being' is where you start yours. I think that's why you keep shaking your head at me. You understand what I'm saying with the words. But you don't really identify with my starting place. I've encountered this disconnect in argument before or I might not have recognized it between us. And I've learned by wrestling with this with others that it is just a difference in perspective. Neither one of us are right. And yet both of us are right. And we're never going to convince each other. This is a subtle thing to try to ferret out. It's hard to describe. If I've mischaracterized you please correct me.

Interestingly though, this is kind of what prompted me to offer the essay as a blog on this website. Because even though we really are coming from different perspectives we have been more or less agreeing about the 'peace of mind' idea. It's when we move away from that simple point that we start to misunderstand one another. And all I wanted to do was offer this simple idea as a possible starting point.