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?

 

[fuelair]

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

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]

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

 

[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]

Avoiding unnecessary hypothetical situations.

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]

I am trying to rise above critical Buddhology to a broader question.

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 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?