Given the nature of events in the world today, and GWBs declarations of good vs evil, right vs wrong and the world in very black and white terms. I was wondering if people would be interested in having a socratic dialogue about these topics.

We wont focus on any specific person, event or specific political bent. Lets just ask questions and hope to find answers.

Ill start off. Answer as simply as you want, or as completely as you want.

Some ground rules.
1. We bring only OUR personal knowledge and beliefs into the dialogue.
2. We respect what each other says, we can ask questions and ask for further clarifications, but attacks are not permitted.
3. We all will respect any well reasoned answer, but will at all times try to expose the errors in each others thinking.
4. We must all agree to attempt to answer the core question at all times, we can get sidetracked.. but we must remain true to the cause.

Ok..


here is the question.

What is Good?

A brief, necessarily incomplete, perhaps rambling response:

If we stipulate that there are multiple, different replies to this question, then we should determine the best way to decide what is good. By choosing a parsing system, we might thereby answer the question (that is, the parsing system itself becomes the answer, rather than supplying a means to the answer). With this in mind, here is one route to the formation of such a parsing system:

Because "what is good" is, on some level, a matter of individual opinion, and individual opinions develop from individual experiences (in the broad sense of the term), it follows that experiencing must be part of our parsing system. However, our observations (part of our experiencing) make it clear that certain experiences are counterproductive in fleshing out our system.

In particular, consider experiences in the present that inhibit later experiences, and experiences that inhibit others' experiences. In the former case, for example, taking heroin might broaden my life in some respect in the short term, but addiction is a costly endeavor that is more likely to ruin life down the road rather than enhance it. In the latter case, breaking someone's neck "for kicks" limits that person's own ability to become part of the solution to "what is good?" While doing so might add to your list of things that are "not good," simple contemplation should yield the same result.

Thus, "contemplation" joins "experiencing" as part of the parsing system. And because contemplation lacks the two caveats above, one might consider it superior to experience in some respects. However, with less definable terms this breaks down: I'd rather experience love than contemplate what it might be like. I'd rather experience beauty than think about what "being beautiful" might entail.

Thus, living a contemplative life that chooses experiences that neither inhibit the self or others yields an understanding of "what is good." Therefore, it is good, if not the final or complete answer to that ancient question.

A briefer response:
Beer.

Remove from my next statement it's obvious religious conotations and I'll give you a simple answer.

The 10 commandments, minus the God references, are a pretty good framework of what is good.

Short because I'm at work and lacking the creative juices to properly elucidate.

I'll have some of Thor's better answer later this week and ramble more appropraitely in a socratic manner.

Fandros

Is what you are saying Thor that the definition of good is contained entirely in our experiences and there is no universal definition?

Is the assumption that "good" is a matter of individual opinion/experience one we are going to agree on?

Following that logic. If an act of evil lends itself to the greater good in the long run, was that what we consider to be evil part of a larger good?

Damn, I was hoping to hear some quotes from Bill & Ted.


Dust... Wind... Dude!

I think universal or nigh-universal goods can be drawn from the sum of individual experiences and contemplation of those experiences. There will always be some whose notions of good are a few sigmas off the bell, but there is a median upon which we can draw and that can be found repeated throughout history, from Hammurabi to Moses to Pericles to Jefferson and Madison.

Given that only individuals and a concensus of individuals can answer the question, I think it necessary that "'good' is a matter of individual opinion/experience." However, since we're looking at a rather absolute question ("Good" vs "good"), the summation of experience/contemplation is the answer, rather than this or that individual's interpretation.

An act of evil is an act of evil. We simply might be willing to pardon it based on its eventual consequences. Let us consider an "evil" event at time x. This event ultimately yields positive results at time y despite its evil nature. That y might be qualitatively better than x doesn't change the action at x from evil to good.

Of course, we're generalizing about this act. If an act has a 90% probability of yielding good results and a 10% probability of yielding evil results, we might consider it a "good" act. Whether it remains good as we reach the 50/50 mark depends a lot on individual experience and the nature of the act itself (e.g., whether its consequences are extensive).

what if an act of personal good results in a societial harm? Is it still good?

Jay Gould, a famous New York capitalist in the Gilded Age springs to mind. His actions, while not illegal at the time, resulted in the swindling of many people of their life savings through less than honest means of his manipulating the market. This resulted in his personal gain. Because his actions have had no impact on us, can we view what he did as good?

Because his actions have had no impact on us

Can we ever say that actions that occured several decades before had NO impact on us? I don't think we can.

Did what he did lead to further legislation? Did the money he swindled the people out of get returned to the rightful owner? What if the loss of this money put even a slight strain on social programs or took money from a business owner that could no longer pay employees? Would you have to be a direct decendant of the people he swindled to see some resulting factor of this?

what if an act of personal good results in a societial harm? Is it still good?
Reference the third paragraph of my first post.

Experiences are, what they are. They are neither good, nor bad until you reflect upon them.
Contemplation is the key.
Once contemplated upon, you can put them into the category of either personal or collective good.
A personal good may benefit an individual, but not necessarily the collective.
A collective good may be good for others, but harm the individual.
A balance of a personal and collective good should be strived for. The purest of actions and experiences will benefit both the individual and the collective.
Grasshopper.

Good is what one makes of it.

There is good in almost everything, even in the most evil of acts will always come something good.

That paragraph seems to indictate that an act like drugs and herion are only not good because of the eventual harmful effect down the road.

What Im saying is what if the act has no personal negative consequence ever, but is harmful to another person. I guess its kind of like asking if action undertaken in a Hobbesian State of Nature are intrinsicatly moral because they serve the personal good, because your gain is dependant on anothers loss.

Can we ever say that actions that occured several decades before had NO impact on us? I don't think we can.

Did what he did lead to further legislation? Did the money he swindled the people out of get returned to the rightful owner? What if the loss of this money put even a slight strain on social programs or took money from a business owner that could no longer pay employees? Would you have to be a direct decendant of the people he swindled to see some resulting factor of this?
His actions did indeed lead to reform of the way Wall Street conducted business. But he never had to pay a dime back and died a very rich man, his family becoming one of the prominent NYC socialite families to this day.
Does this mean his actions were good?

There is good in almost everything, even in the most evil of acts will always come something good.
How can their be good in almost everything? I dont follow. Arent there some acts that there is no good, no redeeming value or happy ending, nothing is ever made right and no justice is ever delivered? Where can be the good in this?

If you act in a manner that hurts someone else, and you feel no remorse, you have no conscience. Regardless if there is no negative personal consequence. Empathy is one of our core traits of being human.

His actions did indeed lead to reform of the way Wall Street conducted business

You stated that his actions had no effect on us, but this clearly states that it has. There would be no need to reform business practices if they weren't wrong on some level.

Does this mean his actions were good?


It means his actions resulted in something good for the greater of society...to be rich is not necessarily good, it only means you possess wealth.

If you act in a manner that hurts someone else, and you feel no remorse, you have no conscience. Regardless if there is no negative personal consequence. Empathy is one of our core traits of being human.

What of a suicide bomber. The people arrested in Britian feel deep and sincere empathy for the people in Palestine im sure. This empathy led them to want to hurt those who they felt responsible.

Conversally.

Israel had to kill innocent people at times in order to achieve the objective of making Israel safer. Even if they do feel remorse, they intentionally undertook an action they knew would lead to the death of innocents, does this mean they acted without conscience?

There would be no need to reform business practices if they weren't wrong on some level.

Are laws always good? But not to get too side track Tal. The point was one that Thor made about the perspective of the individual being a critical element of Good. My point was that if no bad came to Jay Gould from his actions, are they good? From our perspective, if no bad came to us personally because of it, can we agree with that Definition of good from Goulds perspective.

It means his actions resulted in something good for the greater of society
So he can claim responsibilty for a good? Or was it others actions in response to him?


...to be rich is not necessarily good, it only means you possess wealth.
again, what is good? If good is personal based then wealth is indeed good, because wealth gives you the means to fulfil personal wants for yourself.

That paragraph seems to indictate that an act like drugs and herion are only not good because of the eventual harmful effect down the road.
That was the first caveat: Don't let experiences in the present inhibit possible experiences down the road. Obviously, perfect prediction is impossible -- therein lies the need for contemplation.

The other caveat (and the response to the quoted text above) is to not let your experiencing [intentionally] inhibit that of others. Because the "Good" I've described has a communal element, interfering with that community is not part of the good (and might be evil) despite personal benefits.

Israel had to kill innocent people at times in order to achieve the objective of making Israel safer. Even if they do feel remorse, they intentionally undertook an action they knew would lead to the death of innocents, does this mean they acted without conscience?

Only if there was no remorse.
Your conscience is the part of you the knows right from wrong. It depends on how often you were taught in your life that following its advice was beneficial that determines your actions.

So does society trump the individual in the weighing of choices of actions?

No, a balance must be maintained.
If the individual benefits too much, society suffers.
If society benefits too much, the individual suffers.
Only actions and decisions in which both benefit would be deemed "good".

If you are looking at good on a grander scheme then yes, societal needs should trump personal. One can do good for themselves AND do good for society. I think ultimately someone that does something good for society and for themselves are 'more' good than someone who's completely selfless and only thinks of societal good.

If one only thinks of societal good on a grand scale and no good on a personal level, what kind of affect does that have on people directly tied to the individual? Would one persuing only the good of society be doing a disservice to people closer to the individual?

The individual should contemplate an actions' effects on society. While not every action need be considered good based on societal effects, many actions might be deemed evil on that basis and should be discarded thereby.

Obviously, all this scratches the surface of possible scenarios with all sorts of cost/benefit possibilties (e.g., a person who steals from a neighbor OR bank OR crook in order to feed a starving child, etc), and I lack the time to respond to every possible example. My presentation is thus geared toward the meta-topic of what "Good" entails.

I’ll take a crack at this, after reading Thormir's response. I think Thormir only gets at part of "Good."

What is “Good?”

“Good” is a word we often use to describe something we either agree with or just like for our own self-centered reasons (consciously or not). This kind of gets to what Thormir is saying above, I believe.

Most of us do not use “Good” in the absolute sense as we do not have the profound understanding to be capable to use “Good” in such a sense.


Rather, we see “Good” as a way to describe the results of a series of actions. Usually we describe something as “Good” because those results are something we personally agree with.

For instance, Osama bin Lama describes 9-11 as “Good.” I doubt anyone reading this board would share his point of view. We might find eating a bit of 72% Cacao from Valhrona “Good” because it agrees with our taste buds; if we don’t like that dark chocolate taste we might find it “Bad.” We accept that killing one’s parents (a ten commandment chosen at random) is not “Good;” but someone conducting euthanasia to a beloved parent in a vegetative state might disagree.


So, to really frame the question of “What is ‘Good,’” you have to take a look at reality itself.


First, no phenomenon exists independently; all phenomena are interdependently arising.

Second, all phenomena are impermanent, meaning they change form continuously.


(If you don’t believe this, pick up any object near you and ask yourself if that object will remain exactly in the form and shape you experience it in forever. Next, ask yourself how you know the object is, in fact, the name that you call it. What goes into making this object? Did it appear here in front of you, spontaneously?)


Third, this gives us the law of cause and effect, meaning within this interdependent arising, everything affects everything else.


So, in relation to the above, that which we call “good” results from a series of events in a relative way because we see something as “good” from the context in which we find ourselves. For all we know, however, something we judge as “Good” might not be “Good” at all if we had a bigger picture and were able to see all of the factors going into a situation.


So "What is 'Good?'" On an absolute level, when we don’t grasp onto reality with our concepts and judgments such as ideas about what is “good” or “evil,” then that is, in itself, the absolute “Good.” When we see all beings and all phenomena in this pure way, this is “Good.”


When concepts arise in our minds as a result of all of the causes and conditions we’ve collected ourselves, throughout time, this can be seen as “not-‘good’” and even an obstacle for us to overcome. You see, if you continually allow concepts to arise, they will never end, and you will never achieve the pure, “Good” state which is itself concept-less and indescribable with the concepts created by the use of language.


Hope this will be viewed as a contribution, and not a sidetrack…..

Is it possible for us to consider Good on some level without "concepts?" I must admit to not understanding what you mean by "On an absolute level, when we don’t grasp onto reality with our concepts and judgments such as ideas about what is “good” or “evil,” then that is, in itself, the absolute 'Good.'" Couldn't abandoning concepts just as easily lead to absolute "Evil" in some way? I think it likely, for our concepts surely include notions of morality and ethics, for example.

I also doubt mankind's ability to "...see all beings and all phenomena in this pure way," as it suggests something necessarily approaching a type of omniscience. I agree that everything is interdependent and that greater knowledge (and contemplation) yields a greater likelihood for good results from a given action, but you seem to be saying that without knowing everything we can't achieve a purely Good state. This might be true, but is it utile? And would such knowledge necessarily produce a state of pure goodness?

I think increased understanding of cause and effect relationships can lead to good or evil. One needs a more solid framework for determining what is Good, such as I looked to develop with my parsing strategy. Good to see you, Ruthey =)

I believe good is best defined by the "Golden Rule".

As I teach my children how to behave and be "good" to each other, I often use the teachings of the golden rule to explain the concept. One asks, "why can't I take this toy from my brother, I want to play it?" The easiest answer is, "would you want your brother to come and take a toy from you when you're playing with it?"

"Good" is entirely subjective given one's world view.

Dear Lleauric:

Ooooh, pick me!! Damn it, I'm sitting here over my afternoon caffeine, and have to prep the most important lecture I've ever given (job interview for a Lecturer position at the University of New Mexico :) ) today, and I'd *love* to ruminate/speculate on this. Have fun playing, you guys, and perhaps procrastination will let me sneak in a word tonight :)...

Regards,
Nydia

Ahhh I was hoping you would ask that, Thormir, about abandoning concepts (and whether this can lead to Evil) or someone would, so I could think it through myself.

Can we have omniscience?

Let’s start by picking apart our actions on a general level.

Something comes to an individual’s consciousness, observed through their senses. When the observation first occurs, in that split second there is no judgment. It is within that moment that the individual experiences the absolute. The experience then meets the part of the mind where it is parsed, lightning quick, and first identified. When it is identified, named, then it is available for a judgment.

So, for instance, a bit of smoke enters a person’s nostril. The nostril sends signals to the brain indicating a smell. The brain recognizes that smell and names it for the mind. The mind then passes a judgment on that smell. (“Good” for incense; “Bad” for “cheap,” “super-sweet” incense, as an example.) This is a simplified example; a more complex example would be when someone's words reach our ears (or eyes, as we have here on the forum).

In any case, to keep it simple, the mind does not pass this judgment in a vacuum, but rather according to all of the causes and conditions that lead to this particular mind having its particular set of likes, dislikes, prejudices and opinions, this particular mind will have a particular reaction to the smell.

Based on this, we will take action. The judgment arises in our mind "that smells!" We think, maybe in a split second, "how to get rid of the smell?" A window appears to our eye consciousness; we go to it and open it. Thus we have the root of the action of "opening the window." And perhaps this is a neutral action.

Or, we might go through this series of thoughts:
- Incense smells bad
- Neighbor is burning incense
- Because I do not like the incense smell, this bothers me
- Because it bother me, I feel angry
- I must stop the source of this discomfort
- I must take an action relating to the source of my discomfort

Etc.

So how can you transcend this series of events and arrive at “Good?”

By extending the moment prior to the arising of concepts and judgments in your mind, just as you perceive phenomena. By developing this kind of awareness.


Of course, Thormir, you also raise the issue of the practicality of walking around in everyday life and encountering phenomena and reacting to them in any sort of way, "Good" or whatever.


So, I see a few methods.


First, by practicing the extension frequently (some call it “meditation”) you can train your mind to change the way it reacts.


Second, on a relative level, when you understand that these are in fact all a series of judgments and, ultimately, a grand misunderstanding caused by our limitations and that this, in itself, is a source of suffering not only for ourselves but for all beings with any level of consciousness, then you can find the other wing of the dove.

In fact, it is this very process itself, in which we perceive something, name, judge and file it away, mentally, that causes our suffering. It is from this that thoughts like “I want that,” “I don’t want that,” or “I don’t care about that” originate. It is the process of our minds holding onto something which is, ultimately, not permanent and itself the result of a circumstance of causes and conditions.

What arises when you realize that we ourselves are the cause of our own suffering, ultimately? When Christ was on the cross he looked down and said “Father forgive them; they know not what they do.” He saw that everyone was acting how they thought was best, according to the concepts of "Good" in their own minds. This describes perfectly the state in which we find ourselves. So does that leave us with nothing-ness? A nihilistic sense that there is no “Good?”

Actually, not. When we realize the cause of all our so-called happiness, neutrality and suffering is not realizing this true concept-less nature of things, without prejudice, then a sense of kindness towards all others can develop in our minds. And that is what we call real “Compassion,” as Christ had in this example, because it is not based on something self-centered.

There’s a whole other line of reasoning I thought to get into which has to do with intention – but I’m blathering on far too long.

So I would say that to behave in a “Good” way, that one needs to meditate and cause this sense of “compassion” as I have described above, to be at the root of intention behind all of one’s actions.

You seem to have chosen as your absolute the initial sensation of a thing, prior to reference (naming and "judgment"), but I don't see how without judgment a thing can be seen as good or evil. I can see how absolving oneself of judgment can lead to evil out of lack of consideration for a thing or action. It also seems to me that "extending the moment prior to the arising of concepts and judgments in your mind" doesn't develop awareness -- it abandons it.

Second, on a relative level, when you understand that these are in fact all a series of judgments and, ultimately, a grand misunderstanding caused by our limitations and that this, in itself, is a source of suffering not only for ourselves but for all beings with any level of consciousness, then you can find the other wing of the dove.
I'm not sure what "these" or "this" refer to in your context. I'm also not sure what grand misunderstanding you're referring to, unless it's the necessary understanding implicit in non-omniscient creatures -- and again, this doesn't seem utile. I also don't see how a sense of kindness toward others depends on abandoning judgments. In fact, I see the opposite: "compassion" seems heightened when extended toward those for whom you judge negatively and lessened when you blithely cast off all judgment of whatever sensations come your way (if such a thing is even possible).

To recap, this I question whether this viewpoint (abandonment of judgments of sensations) is a) possible, b) necessary, c) intelligible and d) incapable of backfiring due to evident lack of contemplation of options. I don't see, for instance, how one makes choices without relying on concepts and judgments.

EDIT: Quick last thought. It occurs to me that somewhere along the line Ruthey's tactic must have been judged as "Good." Yet we're addressing a system that attempts to obviate judgment altogether (or so it seems). This appears to generate an internal contradiction, where the plausibility of a system must be determined in a manner that the system deems implausible.

You definitely draw out some valid flaws in the way I have presented my argument. And I sound like I think I know something, but please understand, I’m just exploring here and have to take a point of view to make the argument. In fact, it is interesting because as soon as you start to put things like this into words, concepts, you find yourself with a position that needs to be argued or defended or whatever. And that, in itself, is not what “it” is, the state of conceptless-ness. Kinda ironic.

But to proceed anyway, the point is there *is* no good or evil – or neutrality. Things just exist. It is the mind that attributes any quality to phenomena whatsoever based on its own concepts. The universe has no attachment, aversion or neutrality to the possibility that this world (earth) might cease to exist right here and now. It is us with our own minds who care. And why do we care? Because it affects our precious selves. Our notion of what will make us happy most likely includes “world being here tomorrow.” ;)

You say you can see “how absolving oneself of judgment can lead to evil out of lack of consideration for a thing or action.” I would respond that “absolving oneself of judgment” implies the existence of a judgment (as there must be a judgment *to* absolve.) So it is not “absolving” oneself of judgment that is engaged in here. It is extending the moment before judgment arises so that we can be aware that, in fact, we have judgments. All too often we just walk around with the idea that our judgments and concepts are so very, very real. Haven’t you ever had the discomforting experience of figuring out you had it all wrong?

If you take the example of Jesus on the Cross, what was going through the minds of the people who were crucifying Him? Were their intentions truly “Bad?” Or were they Roman Soldiers doing their job and Pharisees protecting the people of the temple from an upstart? Did these guys “have it all wrong?”

So when our understanding of emptiness meets our understanding of ignorance (on the relative level, because we all know not what we do), then we can see that those Roman Solidiers, those Pharisees, those grieving for Jesus, etc.are, ultimately, the same as ourselves.

When you say “extending the moment before judgments arise in your mind” is abandoning awareness, I’d have to challenge you on what, actually, awareness is. If you stop for a moment and listen to your mind, just watch your mind work and dream up all kinds of concepts and stories (not “you” in the sense of “you Thormir” – but “you” as in all of us), then you can see that in fact through this web of thoughts we actually dull our awareness by parsing the world into something we can digest via our judgements.

Quote:

Second, on a relative level, when you understand that these are in fact all a series of judgments and, ultimately, a grand misunderstanding caused by our limitations and that this, in itself, is a source of suffering not only for ourselves but for all beings with any level of consciousness, then you can find the other wing of the dove.

To rephrase, it is because all of us have our minds full of judgments and concepts that we misunderstand reality itself. We don’t really see what’s there because we’re so busy judging and contextualizing within the confines of our own relative experience.

There is nothing “blithe” in suspending judgment. In fact, such a suspension is very, very open. It leads to all kinds of possibilities, such as maybe our enemies could really be our friends.

Further you ask is it “possible?” Definitely, you can try this for yourself by sitting quietly and placing your focus on your outbreath and watching how your mind works. Is there ever a gap? Can you extend the gap?

Is it “intelligible?” I assume you mean can you make sense of the world if you practice the abandonment of concepts and judgments. That gets back to the notion of impermanence and interdependence. If you see the world as interdependent and impermanent you know that first, things are going to change and second, you can start to see your role in that grand impermanence. As a direct result of this, you see that abandonment of concepts of judgments is intelligence itself.

Is it “necessary?” Well, the question we started off addressing is “What is Good?” You have the choice of blindly accepting everything that is in your mind, as is. No question about it. But if your goal is to truly be Good then I think, yes, very necessary

Can it “backfire?” I would respond that by seeing all other beings as the same as ourselves, as experiencing this same suffering of concepts and judgments, and then experiencing the compassion that comes from that understanding, it is not possible to backfire. How can we act if we were to do as I suggest? Of course, on a relative level you have to act as best as you can, within the best of your experience and the causes and conditions – context – in which you find yourself. You still have to act according to what is in your own personal set of prejudices, but you can start to temper these prejudices by engaging in this sort of mind training. So on that note, I’d start to get on that topic of intention, as in making sure one’s intention is truly not self-centered and based on self cherishing and self-grasping (“ego”). But not for now...!

Excellent so far everyone +) Really good stuff.

Lets try to hone the conversation a little bit more.

I think we are at the point of the conversation where I can ask:

"Is Good a Virtue" By that, is it a conscious choice? Or merely a byproduct of our conditioning?

I think people have the choice to be good.

It is most definately a choice.

Ruthey, I'd have to say I disagree with practically every aspect of your presentation, start to finish. I understand that you're thinking through things as you write them, but I'm not finding any substance to speak of. What does "extending the moment before judgment arises so that we can be aware that, in fact, we have judgments" even mean? How do you abandon judgment so that you are aware of your judgments? It sounds like not crying so that you're more aware of your tears.

In a discussion of what is "Good" you say that there is no Good, that concepts of good and evil and neutrality are what our minds overlay upon the world, and that only by abandoning these concepts and judgments can we actually be "Good" (which, remember, doesn't exist according to your model). I fhind this nonsensical.
There is nothing “blithe” in suspending judgment. In fact, such a suspension is very, very open. It leads to all kinds of possibilities, such as maybe our enemies could really be our friends.
But how are we to determine this without contemplation of the matter? How are we to determine any course of action with your "no judgment/no concept" model? You seem to be saying that everything might be okay, therefore everything is okay, but this seems entirely devoid of real world value and wide open to the possibility of "backfiring" as I noted previously. Great for mountaintop wisdom (and, based on your example, cross-tops), but I see no reason to consider it "Good" in any way, or utile compared to other models.

So, again with my objections:
Is it "possible" to function this way (i.e., by your model) and make meaningful, informed choices while in this "gap" between sensation and judgment? How?
By "intelligible" I ask whether your model is in any way coherent. With sentences like "As a direct result of this, you see that abandonment of concepts of judgments is intelligence itself," I'm thinking that no, it is not coherent. At the very least, it needs sharpening, as the language stirkes me as non-sensical (no pun intended ;)).
I don't see how "blindly accepting everything in your mind" is different than blindly accepting what you achieve through the senses, nor how any of this allows one to be compassionate. I think it quite clear that people can be truly Good (which seems to exist again) and compassionate without pursuing this bizarre mode of conceptless judmentless thoughtlessness. I suggest that history is on my side.

I would respond that by seeing all other beings as the same as ourselves, as experiencing this same suffering of concepts and judgments, and then experiencing the compassion that comes from that understanding, it is not possible to backfire.
This all sounds loaded with concepts and judgments in an effort to dispense with concepts and judgements (i.e., incoherent, as I noted in the EDIT of the previous post). I suggest that simple empathy and a sense of fairness duplicate the results without the peculiar mental gymnastics of living "between sensation and judgment."

Perhaps some kind of illustration is in order, so that I better understand your model. Could you point out a person in history that engaged in this conceptless, judgmentless mode of thinking and show how they were a) good, and b) made decisions based on this mode of thinking? Note that Jesus hardly qualifies, as he (as recorded) was as judgmental as anyone (indeed, for Christians he is the ultimate judge).

I hope the above doesn't come across as "mean" in any way. =)

"Is Good a Virtue" By that, is it a conscious choice? Or merely a byproduct of our conditioning?
I wouldn't say Good is a virtue. Rather, virtues are Good.

Well, I don't mean to drag the conversation down into a conversation between us, Thormir, but hopefully L2 will not mind one last post. I apologize in advance for my poor abilities to make this argument. I believe where I am running into trouble is by naming the absolute as "Good" when in fact the absolute is beyond words, beyond conception, beyond description.

So you see there are two levels to what I have attempted to describe: relative and absolute. I'm looking at "Good" within this framework - if not expressing myself well.

My whole argument, as poorly made as it is, is that Good" is not independently arising in the relative sense.

This "Good" is based on personal opinion and tastes - on what we like and dislike, on what we think will result in less suffering, and usually, less suffering for ourselves. But "Good" on this level does not really exist but is merely what we think given our own perspective. It is just a judgment and not an absolute.

I think I have said "Good" is absolutely there in the absolute sense, but that is where you are correct, Thormir, and I have judged that absolute. That is due to my own lack of realization of that absolute state. I am in fact calling the absolute state "Good" but it is far beyond "Good."

I don't see how "blindly accepting everything in your mind" is different than blindly accepting what you achieve through the senses,

If you look carefully, I'm not saying blindly accept the information you receive through your senses. In fact, you could be receiving incorrect information for some reason (due to illness or other reasons).

The point is not to blindly accept anything that arises in the mind but rather to be aware of how your mind, itself, works. To be conscious that you are having judgments and concepts and be open to the possibility that you could be wrong on the relative level. And that on the absolute level we are all profoundly beyond these ideas of "Good" and "Evil."

"extending the moment before judgment arises so that we can be aware that, in fact, we have judgments" even mean? How do you abandon judgment so that you are aware of your judgments?

I'm talking about thinking itself. If you do as follows: sit still with both feet on the floor and your hands on your knees. Gaze slightly downward and your mouth slightly open. Breath through your mouth. Now, focus your attention on your outbreath. When a thought arises, don't follow it, let it go. Gently attempt to stop your internal dialogue. You may find yourself thinking "OK, now I'm thinking I'll stop this thinking and now I'm thinking about stopping myself thinking" and so on. Or you may be able to find a gap in all that thinking. Regardless, I think you'll find, as most people do, that the mind is full of a buzzing of the continually arising of all kinds of thoughts and judgments. A lot of it completely uncontrolled and possibly not that intelligent. Don't we filter ourselves a lot? Anyway, I'm only saying there's a way to suspend that activity and that I believe something pure and absolute can be recognized in this way. In this way you can become super-aware.

It may seem nonsensical to you, because in fact the conceptless state can only be experienced, it can't, by its nature, be described. Of course, because it is beyond words, beyond conception.

I should spend a tad more time with this, and I don't want to completely derail this thread. However, hopefully this doesn't break the rules L2 laid out, but I'll give you my attribution and what influenced me to think in this way - and my example person - Shakyamuni Buddha. What the Buddha acheived sitting under the Boddhi tree was to completely awaken (which is why he is called "Buddha" or "awakened one.") He was able to transcend that buzzing and active mind.

I know of other examples in my day-to-day life, but you wouldn't have heard of them. More famous and modern examples would be Gandhi or His Holiness the Dalai Lama. These may not have achieved the Great Perfection that the Buddha achieved, but my senses have informed my little judging mind that they have come close. ;)

Am I starting to make sense to you? Perhaps read this:http://www.fodian.net/English/HeartSutra.pdf (edit for better xlation).

Anyway, derailment done... back to your regularly scheduled discussion....

"Is Good a Virtue" By that, is it a conscious choice? Or merely a byproduct of our conditioning?


I believe people make decisions to act in such a manner that will benefit others, to act in such a manner that will not cause discomfort or harm to others, and in that respect I would say "good" is a conscious choice.

If by "Good" you are implying the nebulous concept of moral and/or ethical virtue, rather than the even more overloaded and muddled opposite of Bad, you're likely best served by looking at good for any given narrow generality of action along the grounds of the principle of universality (or the categorical imperative): it is only Good if it is something you would allow anyone and everyone else to do.

On the other hand I don't subscribe to a word of that, and humans have a well documented ability to reimagine the expedient into the moral after the fact.

Good is a virtue to be achieved, and virtues tend to be good.
Decisions and actions that benefit both the individual and society should be what is strived for.
Rarely, however, are they achieved.

I am running into trouble is by naming the absolute as "Good" when in fact the absolute is beyond words, beyond conception, beyond description.Well, we're talking about "good" rather than indefinable absolutes. I think trying to tie your indefinable absolute to what is "Good" would be a painful exercise. The notion strikes me as completely incoherent; that is, without words, concepts or descriptions your term is meaningless, and anything appended to it entirely arbitrary.

I think I have said "Good" is absolutely there in the absolute sense, but that is where you are correct, Thormir, and I have judged that absolute. That is due to my own lack of realization of that absolute state. I am in fact calling the absolute state "Good" but it is far beyond "Good."Keeping in mind what I noted above (the difficulty/impossibility of appending anything to an undefinable, indescribable term), you seem to be suggesting that what is Good is beyond us. As noted previously, I find this a useless exercise in metaphysics. Now, clearly you believe that we can channel that absolute in some way, but if it's beyond description, etc., how can we be aware that we are doing so? Additionally, how can we be aware that we're not channeling Evil-as-absolute?

The point is not to blindly accept anything that arises in the mind but rather to be aware of how your mind, itself, works. To be conscious that you are having judgments and concepts and be open to the possibility that you could be wrong on the relative level. And that on the absolute level we are all profoundly beyond these ideas of "Good" and "Evil."Alright, I'm conscious of having judgments and concepts, and I've been able to do this without looking for gaps or indulging in a meditative effort to avoid those judgments and concepts. I'm open to possibilities that I could be wrong, though I'm not sure how I could do that without judging the interplay of concepts, persons and events at the heart of decision making. I don't see how we are in any way beyond ideas of "Good" and "Evil" (indeed, this is quite a bold claim, and I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it). This idea needs considerable fleshing out, since it relates to a notion (the "absolute") that lacks a coherent meaning (apparently by definition, though it apparently lacks that, too).

[Buddhism related things]It was clear for awhile that you were describing aspects of Buddhism (your presentation of "suffering" tipped me off early on), but you could have just said so. ;) So, how do you know that Shakyamuni Buddha achieved this awakened state? How do you know -- without judgment or concepts or descriptions -- that the other worthies you named are close? As you meditate, what certainty do you have that your "awakening" is not actually a self-delusional "deadening?" I ask this not to demean your path and method, but because I consider Goodness a necessarily active thing, not an aspect of some indescribable introspective end point that has been reached by only a few dozen ascetics. I think of Gandhi and the Dalai Lama as great because of what they do, not where they're heads are at. =)

I don't want to get into an extended discussion of Buddhism's merits and flaws. I happen to like that path more than most others, but I think my last paragraph above gets at the heart of our disagreement. My concept of Good is active, personal but translatable to a wider standard, and -- hopefully -- of immediate use. Yours seems to be tied to an indescribable non-concept achievable by only a few after passive decades of staring at your feet. ;) Such a notion may have value (obviously it provides fulfillment to those who pursue its course), but I find it lacking in utility, particularly for day-to-day decision making. Cheers.

Yours seems to be tied to an indescribable non-concept achievable by only a few after passive decades of staring at your feet.

Although that contemplative activity certainly helps, and in fact isn't so difficult (what's 10-20 minutes a day of your time, after all), being aware of the fact that you have judgments and setting your motivation in a non-selfish way certainly seems utile to me and quite a strong basis for guiding day-to-day actions, actually.

I understand how you could get stuck on emptiness/wisdom aspect of what I was trying to say about the idea of "Good" and think that removes us from awareness. But in fact, it is our minds that "deadens" us with all of the stories we dream up. The reason we have trouble understanding the conceptless is because we don't want to let go of how we think things are. We like, relish, and enjoy these movies in our minds of a Good Guy and a Bad Guy (with ourselves usually starring as the Good Guy) far too much. We're too busy protecting the temple from the upstart to realize we even crucifying someone, never mind crucifying someone who, on the relative level, is a true Good Heart.

Well more to come later.... best not be too hasty in response.

Although that contemplative activity certainly helps, and in fact isn't so difficult (what's 10-20 minutes a day of your time, after all), being aware of the fact that you have judgments and setting your motivation in a non-selfish way certainly seems utile to me and quite a strong basis for guiding day-to-day actions, actually.
I don't see one following from the other, however. If these frames of reference help you be good, then more power to you, but I see no reason to think such a worldview is necessary. People have been good without such a worldview, and people can understand quite readily that they have judgments without meditation. Ultimately it comes down to the quality of your actions and decision making. If you act in a good manner (perhaps along the lines of my initial post in this thread), then it hardly matters how you came to make those decisions -- there need not be simply one route to "goodness."

Lastly, I have trouble "understanding the conceptless" because it is incoherent, internally contradictory. The only utility I see from it comes from the actions it engenders, actions which are better examined by other means than the indescribable.

In other words, what may be "good" for you might not be "good" for someone else. The end result can be achieved, through different means.
Regardless, I think most people that have a conscience know what is inherently "good", and what isn't.

I have yet to think through a response to Thormir, but I thought it would be interesting to refer to this online description I found of Socratic inquiry:


Perhaps the most important rule of Socratic discussion was laid down by Socrates himself, that we should follow the argument wherever it leads. This means that some of the forms of relevance that a judicial proceeding must exhibit, and the forensic style and strategies required by formal debate, are irrelevant to dialectic. The point is not to instruct one's fellows, nor even to persuade them, but to think with them and trust the argument to lead to insight, sometimes to very unexpected insights.


I'm not sure we're there yet in terms of this discussion, b/c I think we got sidetracked off? Anyway, more to come....

By the way, here is a well-worn Nietzsche quote about "Good" - which I want to take a look at when returning to this topic later. What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome. Friedrich Nietzsche (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Friedrich_Nietzsche/), The Antichrist, section 2
German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

I think that the value of "good" operating on a macro level in a society can be different from the value of "good" operating on an individual, day to day level.
Likewise, what is "good" in one place can be considered evil in another.

Taking on the second point, modern society is a bit of a blender in terms of the whole "good" thing because modern methods of communication are erasing the barriers that once stood between the hodge-podge collection of different cultures on the globe. As our different cultures come into conflict, the question of "What is Good" becomes less a matter of navel gazing and more of a search to understand how different cultures are going to react to each other.

To that end, I'll submit that the value of "Good" will be determined by whatever society dominates culture in the next few thousand years.

Just as I have stated previously, social goods tend to be bad for the individual. Individual goods tend to be bad for society.
Balance is the key.
What is "good" benefits the individual and society equally.
If one wins out over the other, then the balance is disrupted, and chaos ensues.