[Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism?

[andy]

Dan wrote:
>Andy wrote:
> > "At least as natural" means that there is no basis for the preference.
> 
> Hardly. Neither you nor Richard want to acknowledge a difference between an
> expression of a ethical nature, and an urge to violate it. This is because
> we've left the term "human nature" ambiguous.

It just _is_ ambiguous! What is an expression of an ethical nature, other than 
rules which happen to be in place for unknown reasons in a particular culture? 
And then a violation could be just an alternative expression of an ethical 
nature.  So how do we tell what is ethical and what is not, without some 
criteria?  I was suggesting the Four Noble truths are a stab at such criteria. 

> 
> Let's stay with Mencius for the moment since this was ground well traversed
> by him 2400 years ago. His interlocutor, Gaozi (Kao Tzu), argues -- like
> Richard -- that Human Nature has no innate ethical directive, it will go
> whichever way conditions encourage. Water will flow to the right or the
> left, without preference. To which Mencius replied, water is not
>  indifferent to up and down. Gaozi attempts then to define human nature by
>  our appetites, viz. our appetites for food and sex.
> 
> Before looking at Mencius' reply, let's observe that:
> (1) to say everyone has an appetite for food and sex is basically true.
> (2) Nonetheless, there are apparent countercases: anorexics, people who
>  find sex "disgusting," etc. Such people are not viewed as expressions of
>  unadulterated human nature, but are typically considered people who have
>  deviated from their rightful nature. For cultures that esteem or celebrate
>  celibacy, this can lead to some interesting issues. That people commit
>  adultery is not 'nature,' the argument can also go, but a violation of
>  nature, a distorted nature, hence the condemnation, and the rules against
>  it.

Why are we discussing Confucianism on Buddha-l?  OK, we'll go with it.  
Deviance requires something to deviate from, perversion is turning aside from 
what is right.  Until we have an argument for what human nature is, it is 
somewhat difficult to accept opinions on what is a distortion.  And we are not 
really talking appetites and desires here, but which ones are good, and why 
they are good.  
	This is my problem with virtue ethics:  it has to assume that there is an 
excellence of a kind, which means it makes presumptions about the kind to 
justify the excellence. Otherwise it just repeats the prejudice of a 
particular culture.   

> Mencius doesn't deny that such appetites are part of our nature, but, he
> replies, that fails to differentiate us from animals. We have human nature,
> and that means a higher nature as well, one which values certain principles
> above food and even life. It is that higher nature that makes us human, and
> which we need to cultivate.
> 
> So even human nature is not a singular entity.
> 
> To not do so condemns us to live like animals in an animal-like society,
> which would be a shame since we are capable of doing better. That, in a
> nutshell, is Mencius' argument.
> 

What is this better of which you speak?  I think Mark Twain may have had 
something going when he points out that humans may not be the higher animals.  
And again, what does this have to do with Buddhist ethics?

<snip>
> 
> >> > Again, the question is "why?"
> >>
> >> Actually, it tends to be "which?"
> >
> > Dan!  You ARE arguing in circles!  Just a short while ago, when the
> > Northern
> > Coast of California was being oppressed by giant trees that just stood
> > there,
> > you were insisting that the intention or mental state of those who cut
> > them
> > down did not matter!    'Which' is a function of "why'.   You many not
> > agree
> > with my analysis of which redwoods to take out, but that would only be
> > because
> > you do not have access to the intelligence that I do.   I know a tyrant
> > tree
> > when I see one.
> 
> I have no idea what you think you were trying to say here. "Which" is not
> "why", and detailing the varieties of consequences (which we were doing
> because you wanted to focus on consequences) does not negate anything that
> was said about the redwoods.
> 
> If you can't tell a tyrant from a tree, you need to spend less time in
> universal studios.
> 
> Dan

You don't see it?   Those trees are dangerous!  I tend to find a lot of 
presumption lately that some beings deserve to be killed.  That is the 
"which".  I was just offering my own hypothetical targeting, which is meant to 
be ridiculous.  I mean, how could a Sequoia be a threat to us? (See, that's 
exactly what they want us to think!).   But that is the point: without a 
"why", the "which" is arbitrary.  

-- 
James Andy Stroble, PhD
Lecturer in Philosophy
Department of Arts & Humanities
Leeward Community College
University of Hawaii

Adjunct Faculty 
Diplomatic and Military Studies
Hawaii Pacific University 

_________________

"The cyber world has grown out of control. State and national law enforcement 
mechanisms are not equipped to deal with the rapidly evolving threat. The 
complexity of information systems has far exceeded the ability to secure them, 
while reliance on these systems has only increased. HBGary has an intimate 
understanding of this problem; We know that understanding the attacker and his 
methods is the only way to defeat him. This is the core strength of HBGary and 
why our technology and services outperform the competition. To us, it's 
personal. 
And we would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling 
kids!!!"  February, 2011