Can't decide if this is bullying or low-level "justice"

[frankus]

This is what I am wondering. Are you sure?

I'm pretty sure it's my own default state and the reason most humans have a fight or flight response.

Another thing is. In one of the links in the meditation threads it says (basically) that Buddhist monks that meditate/pray on things like love and compassion are making that their default state. So their first instinctive reaction is one of compassion. If that is true would it not be logical to think things like violent video games could have the opposite effect?

It's not unimaginable that monks can condition themselves to ignore the stimulus, it might even be possible for them to completely disable it - that might be a desireable thing for clearer thinking.

For certain schools of logic, where mutual exclusivity is a prerequisite, what you've said could be true. I think that's polarisation and I think it's unnecessary. I personally don't watch horror movies or play computer games because I find them troubling, similarly I don't listen to stuff like meshuggah and I get stressed on roller coasters - but that's me with my upbringing, I don't presume everyone will react the same, in fact i see people having a wail of a time on roller coasters and wish I could too.

If a monk were to play video games would he lose his reaction for compassion or is it something that once learnt is there for life? In that case isn't he just playing a game? If the monk learned it, someone somewhere must have acquired this skill naturally in order to observe it and pass it on... so perhaps some of the people playing violent games are well adjusted people playing a game.

Do you mean aggression in THIS sense?

No! perhaps I have chosen the wrong word to hang a state of mind on, or perhaps scolars are not the people to define words pertaining to vigour or vitality - it's not what I'm describing. The state of mind I'm talking about is instantanious - gone the instant it's executed, whereas to dominate one requires continuous intent.

[DaveMcK]

I'm pretty sure it's my own default state and the reason most humans have a fight or flight response.

"default state" is interesting. Would you agree that this is a conditioned state? Do people learn fear? Do they learn anger? Fight or flight seems like a kind of emotional thing. From a totally logical POV would quick, clear thinking not be more desirable?

It's not unimaginable that monks can condition themselves to ignore the stimulus, it might even be possible for them to completely disable it - that might be a desireable thing for clearer thinking.

I think, from a Buddhist point of view, this would be one of the fundamental states toward "enlightenment".

"As a result of regular practice, [the state of unbounded awareness] is maintained more and more . . . as though we were to take a white cloth and dip it in yellow dye. We bring the cloth out and put in the sun and the yellow fades away. Then we put it back again and again into the colour and back again and again into the sun. It keeps on becoming yellow and yellow and yellow, then fading, fading, fading. But over time the colour becomes permanent. . . . [Thus, likewise,] through regular practice that unbounded awareness, that pure consciousness becomes ingrained in all activities of the mind [and] Unity Consciousness becomes a living reality. [Maharishi mod.]"

For certain schools of logic, where mutual exclusivity is a prerequisite, what you've said could be true. I think that's polarisation and I think it's unnecessary. I personally don't watch horror movies or play computer games because I find them troubling, similarly I don't listen to stuff like meshuggah and I get stressed on roller coasters - but that's me with my upbringing, I don't presume everyone will react the same, in fact i see people having a wail of a time on roller coasters and wish I could too.

I'm only really polarising to make a point. Even the term "spectrum" seems far too limited. I'd have to say that I think roller coasters have a different set of emotions, but maybe the content of the films etc is just more "taboo". It could be though that "finding them troubling isn't a million miles away from Skod's "gut instinct".
As I have got older I have certainly become less interested in gory/violent stuff.

If a monk were to play video games would he lose his reaction for compassion or is it something that once learnt is there for life? In that case isn't he just playing a game? If the monk learned it, someone somewhere must have acquired this skill naturally in order to observe it and pass it on... so perhaps some of the people playing violent games are well adjusted people playing a game.

That's probably the main question. As far as I know it is something that is to be maintained. In the quote above it talks about the "colour" becoming permanent but what he means is through regular practice you have this awareness at all times rather than for all time. Elder monks tend to practice it as much as students, if not more. I imagine they might say that clearer thinking allows them to perceive logic more freely and with that stop doing things that aren't helpful. That may include violent games.

I think it is entirely possible there could be well adjusted people playing games, but with any kind of self improvement it is important to remember that just because you have always felt a certain way or that you have become a certain way so gradually that you didn't really notice it doesn't mean that there isn't a better way. That's what I mean about the "I play video games and I've never killed anyone" argument. There is still a lot of violence in society and maybe as part of society we are also part of that violence.

Lets make something clear though. These are extremes to make a point I am not saying video games are the root of evil and if they were banned all our troubles would be over. Neither am I saying we should all become Buddhist monks and go live up a pole.

No! perhaps I have chosen the wrong word to hang a state of mind on, or perhaps scolars are not the people to define words pertaining to vigour or vitality - it's not what I'm describing. The state of mind I'm talking about is instantanious - gone the instant it's executed, whereas to dominate one requires continuous intent.

Assertiveness?

I posted that link just to be sure, I didn't think you meant that. I can see how that kind of aggression could help you in business, sport etc though...might not make you many friends but could make you a lot of money/medals.

[Fusionista]

[QUOTE]"default state" is interesting. Would you agree that this is a conditioned state? Do people learn fear? Do they learn anger? Fight or flight seems like a kind of emotional thing. From a totally logical POV would quick, clear thinking not be more desirable?[QUOTE]

"The bodymind", according to a book I once read, "reacts 36,000x faster than action precipitated by thought". Even if the figures are moot/unproven, it appears unlikely that 'clear thinking' is the pre-requisite in a 'split-second' emergency, because it takes too long. When I was pilot training, we 'went through the motions' to ensure fluency in a crisis. This is akin to musical and martial arts practice, where speed and dexterity are paramount.

[frankus]

"default state" is interesting. Would you agree that this is a conditioned state?

It's pretty much as Andy (fusionista) has said, it's a biological - the limbic system fires off in response to stimulii before any other part of the nervous system, it's connections are faster too. Basically it's a part of the brain that got our ancestors away from danger before there was time to quantify the danger. We owe our existence to it; but in todays world with fewer immediate threats, it's still there and still firing away - it's not entirely appropriate.

Do people learn fear? Do they learn anger? Fight or flight seems like a kind of emotional thing. From a totally logical POV would quick, clear thinking not be more desirable?

It is entirely emotional, as you've said. The limbic system (or paleomamalian brain) is used for emotion and drives. It's our quickest reaction so it pays to be a keen observer of it. I think that is a major part of meditation - take away all stimuli and we still have feelings and these feelings, often fear and anger are still present but dormant - for me this is an early part of meditation.

Scientifcally, we learn an emotional range up until the age of two and the tape replays over and over; we can choose to accept it's influence or we can challenge it. Negative feelings create stress and the body releases cortisol, from infancy we can become addicted to a drug created by our brains and unconsciously crave situations that create that cortisol. So yes we do learn fear and anger - mostly from our parents and siblings but the effects of being around these emotions are burned chemically into our brains.

I think, from a Buddhist point of view, this would be one of the fundamental states toward "enlightenment".

I agree, the Dalai Lama is exploring these views of equanimity and self-awareness, recognising western psychology is increasingly adopting practices that bear more than a passing resemblance to what we've categorised as eastern philosophy. George Leonard a president of the Association for Humanistic Psychology, an Aikido instructor and a student of Zen explains the two side by side, John Whitmore a professional business coach uses Zen terms like "dancing in the moment" to help business people understand the best ways to improve. I am really hopeful that more and more of the clear-minded thinking becomes part of western culture.

"As a result of regular practice, [the state of unbounded awareness] is maintained more and more . . . as though we were to take a white cloth and dip it in yellow dye. We bring the cloth out and put in the sun and the yellow fades away. Then we put it back again and again into the colour and back again and again into the sun. It keeps on becoming yellow and yellow and yellow, then fading, fading, fading. But over time the colour becomes permanent. . . . [Thus, likewise,] through regular practice that unbounded awareness, that pure consciousness becomes ingrained in all activities of the mind [and] Unity Consciousness becomes a living reality. [Maharishi mod.]"

To me, what this says of monks and computer games is, yes, they can but they'll need to increase their meditation or risk regression.

I'd have to say that I think roller coasters have a different set of emotions, but maybe the content of the films etc is just more "taboo".

For me the experience of a roller coaster creates fear in the same way being a toddler picked up and shaken about did. I don't feel afraid of the rollercoaster, any apprehension of it's maintenance, in me, is justification for a deeper fear. As a parent I know I tower over a two year old... in order for someone to do that to me, I'd need to be 60 feet up in the air... so there's a parallel there... being shaken about, being afraid of being thrown or dropped.

It could be though that "finding them troubling isn't a million miles away from Skod's "gut instinct".
As I have got older I have certainly become less interested in gory/violent stuff.

When my son gets on a roller coaster I don't want to project my fears on him - it's his thing to experience in his way. I took on a lot of behaviour to gain approval from my parents and as I get older I am eager to liberate myself from that; I want to know the real me before I die.

That's probably the main question. As far as I know it is something that is to be maintained. In the quote above it talks about the "colour" becoming permanent but what he means is through regular practice you have this awareness at all times rather than for all time. Elder monks tend to practice it as much as students, if not more. I imagine they might say that clearer thinking allows them to perceive logic more freely and with that stop doing things that aren't helpful. That may include violent games.

I agree, I think this is more a case of costs and benefits than "good" and "evil". I can drink a beer and it'll relax me, but I might not get the other chores done afterwards..

I think it is entirely possible there could be well adjusted people playing games, but with any kind of self improvement it is important to remember that just because you have always felt a certain way or that you have become a certain way so gradually that you didn't really notice it doesn't mean that there isn't a better way. That's what I mean about the "I play video games and I've never killed anyone" argument. There is still a lot of violence in society and maybe as part of society we are also part of that violence.

A lot of our society is founded on violence and exploitation - it'd be good to understand this more and challenge it. It'd be good to improve the culture. I think it's happening too perhaps not fast enough for some people but films are getting less violent - compare 80s films with todays, I suspect computer games will become less violent as realism increases too.

Assertiveness?

I posted that link just to be sure, I didn't think you meant that. I can see how that kind of aggression could help you in business, sport etc though...might not make you many friends but could make you a lot of money/medals.

A lot of very successful people are what psychologists would call psychopaths and are incapable of empathy. They don't even see the need for friends. I think we've seen a generation of people emulating these people too.

[Fusionista]

[QUOTE] I want to know the real me before I die [QUOTE]

Led Zeppelin let me down. "I'm going 'round the world, I'm gonna find myself" did not work. After I'd been around the world a few times, I found this out: there is no 'real me', except in the sense 'I AM'.

"Who you are is not about finding yourself, it's about creating yourself" (Netinety)

Barclay James Harvest "Everyone is everybody else"

[frankus]

[QUOTE=Fusionista;1388821][QUOTE] I want to know the real me before I die

Led Zeppelin let me down. "I'm going 'round the world, I'm gonna find myself" did not work. After I'd been around the world a few times, I found this out: there is no 'real me', except in the sense 'I AM'.

"Who you are is not about finding yourself, it's about creating yourself" (Netinety)

Barclay James Harvest "Everyone is everybody else"

I can see that working if I don't find there are past experiences holding me back - one of my most recent was inspired by my youngest "I wanna go over Tower Bridge" ... so we plod across it "No! I want to go over it" (points upwards) at his age I was petrified of heights and for now, he's fearless.

Everyone is everybody else - reminds me of the film "I heart the Huckabees" recommended if you've not seen it

[DaveMcK]

It is entirely emotional, as you've said. The limbic system (or paleomamalian brain) is used for emotion and drives. It's our quickest reaction so it pays to be a keen observer of it. I think that is a major part of meditation - take away all stimuli and we still have feelings and these feelings, often fear and anger are still present but dormant - for me this is an early part of meditation.

So these emotions, instincts are learned. I'd actually say they are constantly being learned and re-learned. Which is why I think a clear mind is needed. In martial arts you practice to react a certain way in a certain situation. The more you practice it the quicker you react. It's kind of like you are making a "plan" and learning to put the plan in action as quickly as possible. I wouldn't say it is "instant" just very fast. Before that though you spend a lot of time looking at it logically.
What happens when you don't have a plan?

I don't believe emotions are always repressed, I think we can "evolve" away from them Or at least learn to control them, I'm sure we could bring them back if we wanted. Whether or not you can ever be totally free of them I'm not sure. Buddha says the final veil is lifted when you die. I reckon he's not far off the mark.

One of the forms of meditation I practice is very much about clearing repressed emotions. It's a bit like a psychotherapy session. It is a technique of opening the sub-conscious, letting your deepest, darkest thoughts come up, starting with the ones that are troubling you most, but allowing you to perceive them without prejudice or emotion.
A similar thing happens just before you go to sleep. Fears and anxieties pop into your head but by that time you are too tired and usually just try and forget about it. Often resulting in bad sleep.

I also think that clear thinking heightens (or makes less dull) the senses as a result of a "de-fragged" nervous system.

I agree, I think this is more a case of costs and benefits than "good" and "evil". I can drink a beer and it'll relax me, but I might not get the other chores done afterwards..

I think this is it. What do you think is a cost and what is a benefit. I suppose that's what I was getting at with the "what's it all about" thread. If you condition yourself to be who you are, then what do you want to be? How do you get there?
I don't think compassion is the way for no reason. I have experienced how it makes life better...for everyone.


I've not heard of "bodymind" before, I'm looking into it.

[Fusionista]

[QUOTE]What happens when you don't have a plan?[QUOTE]

Anything can happen. You may get time to think it through. You may not. But you cannot plan for everything. You can have the intention, and you can practice. Usually that works. Sometimes it doesn't.

[DaveMcK]

Anything can happen. You may get time to think it through. You may not. But you cannot plan for everything. You can have the intention, and you can practice. Usually that works. Sometimes it doesn't.

That's kind of what I'm talking about.

[Fusionista]

That's kind of what I'm talking about.

What is it that you wish to achieve ? Is this discussion an intellectual inquiry (which is fine) or have you an object in mind ? Are we trying for example to decide whether playing violent games is 'good' or 'bad' for one ? The answer depends on where you are and where you want to go. Is it good or bad for children ? IMHO no-one knows - my kids don't seem to be psychopaths. Is the question about letting kids on the internet unsupervised ? Well the internet is just another 'space' isn't it ? Would you let your 7-year-old walk in the park unsupervised ? The original question was about bullying and justice, both of which depend massively on the observer. Or are you trying to discover how the mechanism, or part of it, works ? Big one, that