So I'm reading the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, and it keeps talking about impermanence, how everything is always in flux, nothing is constant, there is no essential. So far, I am in agreement with this, even down to our cells that are constantly dying and being born. My issue is that they also believe in the reincarnation of the soul. But this would mean that we have an essential soul that remains throughout our various incarnations, which would seem to contradict the idea that nothing is lasting. Unless he is talking merely about material things not lasting, but what is immaterial other than the soul? Why would the soul be the only exception? It seems like a way out of dealing with the fact that nothing is lasting, truly. It is sort of a cop out to say that nothing is lasting, besides our essential selves, because we do no actually care of anything other than ourselves is lasting. We just want to be permanent.
So I have thought of a way of reconciling with this idea of change and lasting forever, and as a way to connect Tibetan Buddhism with the idea of modern science that we die and that is it. It has to do with biology and the cycle of life. When we die, our bodies decay, and become part of the dirt. The worms eat the dirt, and while most of it is shat out and becomes the dirt once again, some of it stays with the worm once it gets eaten by a bird, and so on through the process of eating it ascends in the life cycle, and a piece of you is once again part of life. Maybe this is a materialistic way of viewing the concept though, a way to make it tangible to me, a Western thinker. So the higher up you get in the food chain, the more of the smaller animals you have, and the wider variety of different past animals. Through this we remain part of this material world, spread out through many animals, all at different stages.
This connects to Borges' idea that All is One, in that we are all made up of each other and remain within each other and are all made up of the same essential substances and are simply different manifestations of what is the same thing. This is also evident to me in ideas- that whenever I digest a new concept, I find that I am able to apply it to everything I have learned before, implying that everything is somehow part of one single idea.
Such as the concept of infinity that I was unable to grasp. I cannot imagine how there is a single number that is never ending, I figured it was only a matter of perspective, that we were too close to be able to see the end of it. Then when I learned about impermanence, I began to think that the only way for a number to be infinite is if it is constantly changing, unstable so that it cannot be determined, rather than a single constant tangible number.
domingo, 8 de junio de 2008
sábado, 7 de junio de 2008
i think its very curious the timing of environmental awareness
in america, it came at a time when our supply of oil was low, and people whose high-paying jobs depend on the availability of oil began to get worried because at the rate that america was consuming oil, we would run out, and their businesses would fail.
so they created a movement that was brilliantly marketed, and served their purposes.
it served their purposes because with people being conservationist, it made companies' limited oil supplies last longer- and they can stay in business longer- we played right into their hands.
they made it seem as a reactionary thing, a liberal thing, a hip young thing- branded as new and innovative and conscientious
so that if you participated it in, you are educated and aware- something that people strive to be- as we are aspirational.
it actually created a new market whereas in theory it should have slowed down business because people would not be consuming as much, but now we have many many new companies touting their environmentally-friendly wares.
companies like whole foods, much like jewish mothers and religion, use guilt to attract and keep their consumers, and it is, after all, a business. like their reusable salad bowls, where you get 15 cents off if you use it, is marketed as something that they are doing because they are concerned about the environment, but actually it is just logical that you get 15 cents off because the bowl weighs more.
the entire movement plays at our guilt- our guilt for being on this planet and that we have to pay back for our space here- we can't get anything that is undeserved- but this is a purely human notion, a social construction that has persisted through time, dating back to the church's money collection.
so has paying back guilt always been monetary-based? is guilt a notion created by business to keep themselves relevant? what would our society be like with no guilt?
we also use guilt to keep ourselves in line, which follows the excuse idea, that we need to create excuses to do anything that is not in line with social constructions to assuage our guilt. but there is in fact no inherent reason for us to feel guilty- it is a way to control ourselves. so who is doing the controlling? is it just a notion that has been passed down through time and is adapted into current trends so that they persist?
in america, it came at a time when our supply of oil was low, and people whose high-paying jobs depend on the availability of oil began to get worried because at the rate that america was consuming oil, we would run out, and their businesses would fail.
so they created a movement that was brilliantly marketed, and served their purposes.
it served their purposes because with people being conservationist, it made companies' limited oil supplies last longer- and they can stay in business longer- we played right into their hands.
they made it seem as a reactionary thing, a liberal thing, a hip young thing- branded as new and innovative and conscientious
so that if you participated it in, you are educated and aware- something that people strive to be- as we are aspirational.
it actually created a new market whereas in theory it should have slowed down business because people would not be consuming as much, but now we have many many new companies touting their environmentally-friendly wares.
companies like whole foods, much like jewish mothers and religion, use guilt to attract and keep their consumers, and it is, after all, a business. like their reusable salad bowls, where you get 15 cents off if you use it, is marketed as something that they are doing because they are concerned about the environment, but actually it is just logical that you get 15 cents off because the bowl weighs more.
the entire movement plays at our guilt- our guilt for being on this planet and that we have to pay back for our space here- we can't get anything that is undeserved- but this is a purely human notion, a social construction that has persisted through time, dating back to the church's money collection.
so has paying back guilt always been monetary-based? is guilt a notion created by business to keep themselves relevant? what would our society be like with no guilt?
we also use guilt to keep ourselves in line, which follows the excuse idea, that we need to create excuses to do anything that is not in line with social constructions to assuage our guilt. but there is in fact no inherent reason for us to feel guilty- it is a way to control ourselves. so who is doing the controlling? is it just a notion that has been passed down through time and is adapted into current trends so that they persist?
oh dear it's been so long
and i wanted to make this a quasi-daily thing.
okay, so three topic:
our use of excuses serving as a reason to break free from socially constructed norms- drinking- our desires and how they conflict with society- freud-we have to justify our actions, even to ourselves,
how everything is a business- banks, the government-they create reasons for themselves to exist and expand and we have to keep adapting
ways in which our society is becoming less collective- dates back to the creation of paper money rather than bartering- standardizes and isolates- so does technology and the increased personalization of our lives- tivo, ipod, since we can indulge our desires so easily, we do not have to compromise- which eliminates working with other people and creating relationships- we are self-sufficient and do not have to rely on other people for favors, so the need (excuse) for building relationships disappears
the ways in which people use religion- security, obviously, not only in life but in death- so that it is not unknown- create a story for us to believe in.
instincts are social constructions- like in art, saying I don't know, I just felt like it- but it is a result of external influences. what about animals' instincts?
okay, so three topic:
our use of excuses serving as a reason to break free from socially constructed norms- drinking- our desires and how they conflict with society- freud-we have to justify our actions, even to ourselves,
how everything is a business- banks, the government-they create reasons for themselves to exist and expand and we have to keep adapting
ways in which our society is becoming less collective- dates back to the creation of paper money rather than bartering- standardizes and isolates- so does technology and the increased personalization of our lives- tivo, ipod, since we can indulge our desires so easily, we do not have to compromise- which eliminates working with other people and creating relationships- we are self-sufficient and do not have to rely on other people for favors, so the need (excuse) for building relationships disappears
the ways in which people use religion- security, obviously, not only in life but in death- so that it is not unknown- create a story for us to believe in.
instincts are social constructions- like in art, saying I don't know, I just felt like it- but it is a result of external influences. what about animals' instincts?
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)