Is genuine altruism possible?

Actually, I'm female (that's another one of those binary poles, isn't it?).

What I mean by poles, is the limits of all possible conditions. That can be simply binary, in which case ONLY the poles exist, but when I'm talking about light/dark, pure/impure, etc., I mean that there's a pole at which none of the given thing (photons, impurities) exists, since a negative amount can't exist. On the other end, there is no pole, because there is no upper limit to the number of anything in existance. The fact that there is nothing that is pure, or nothing that is completely devoid of photons doesn't put the pole outside the realm of possibility - it is just a possible value that happens not to be the case. Of course, there are differences in intensity (if you will) in terms of how far away from the pole certain situations are, but you can't compare two situations in that respect, unless you know where the pole is.

With me?

Craven is talking about poles in terms of perceived possibility. Mother Theresa is a pole because no one has outdone her in altruism. The pole for absolute darkness contains photons, since there is no place or situation which would not still have photons. There can be two poles here, since there is both an upper and a lower limit to human experience. But since experience and perception change all the time, the poles move. For this reason, I don't consider them accurate. If you're going to measure purity in terms of a pole, you have to use an objective pole and not a subjective, moving pole.

Used to be.



When I mentioned Mother T it was certainly not that I had in mind. i think many have outdone her altruism. When I referencd her as an extreme it was more like she falls in the range of altruism that people consider an extreme. I definitely do not think she is the epitome of eleemosynary life.



Measuring purity? I'd compare that to weighing the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

truth
Rufio, isn't gender in some ways a matter of degree?
Actually, I am not concerned with measuring purity (or anything) in terms of real poles. I'm talking about polar models used by people, and remember, these proposed models are IMPLICIT, TACIT or UNCONSCIOUS. They are subjective fictions, real only as mental phenomena (I think you acknowledged this somewhere). At this point we defiintely tend to talk past one another.

Haha, good call guys.... sociological gender, since it consists of behaviorisms and social definitions, is probaby a matter of degree.... but it still has two poles. Biological sex is still binary. Or maybe, it has two additional poles - both, and neither, to accomodate medical anomolies. But it's not a matter of degree.

My mistake, craven, I misunderstood you. You want poles that mark the line between "normal" and "extreme". Those poles also move, though. And when I say "measuring purity" I of course mean "measuring impurity".

JL, I'm fine with individually defined poles. That is, you can put the Purity Pole whereve you want. I just want it to stay there so we know where it is.

truth
Rufio, I was kidding about degrees of gender. Regarding your other commens, you've lost me. It's too late for someone my age to keep up with you youngsters. Good night.

Oh, I know you were. I wasn't though.

See ya then.

rufio, Did you know that some people have the sex organs of both male and female?

Also, there are people that have their biological sex changed, because they feel more comfortable in the other sex.

CI, I allowed for that. Did you read my post? "Or maybe, it has two additional poles - both, and neither, to accomodate medical anomolies." Since we're dealing with situations, I think that includes specific times as well. You can't very well have a sex when you're dead, or before you're born anyway.

Re: IMPURITY DOESN'T EXIST ?


Yes I do.Free Will is born out of Free imaginations.Generally we act without any thinking.In such a case where is the question of any Will?Even if we start with some intention it will soon be washed away by the emotions and distractions.The best example is this debate.Simply go through the proceedings.Can anyone show me the Free Will? It's all accidents.Once this is realised probably the way to Will starts.

(Rufio,

Thanks for the point of information which you base on traditional descriptive grammar. My point however is based on "generative grammar" (Chomsky) which differentiates between "surface structure" and "deep structure" and uses sentence pairs(contrastive analysis) to establish "explanatory adequacy". There are other grammars too !)

JLN

Yes I agree that "reality" is neither "out there" nor "in here" but we function on a day by day basis as though each of these two had semi-permanent aspects. Looking at the concept of "altruism" for example we would generally pre-suppose that there are defineable "situations" (e.g. man drowning) where an "actor" (not us !) has a "choice" to change the situation at the "detriment"
of his "own interests". However in my experience (fresco intervening to prevent a car theft) the "actor" has no choice and automatically/unconsciously delimits the window of his perceptions to remove negative consequences. As the scene unfolds so both "actor" and "situation" change reciprocally and limited "choice" may begin to creep in, until some termination is reached. For the "actor" it is only in retrospect that an "evaluation" takes within the later "situation" of "self" communicating with "others" (including other selves). At this point the word "altruism" may become a unit of communicative exchange to summarize such evaluation. ( My own retrospective evaluation was that fresco had indeed engaged in an "altruistic act" but with the benefit of hindsight would be unlikely to do so again as both "fresco" and "the situation" had become mutually re-defined )

I notice now that post above this gives a good analysis of the "myth" of choice (which JLN will recognize to be in the spirit of Gurdjieff).

rufio, I'm guilty of lazy reading. Sorry.

truth
Fresco, I have a vague understanding of your meaning. Frankly, the issue of free will vs. determinism is to me a false one. As you may have argued here, we only seem to have choice--in retrospect. In the actual situations of life our actions and reactions are "driven" by biological pressures and ego requirements. Yet, there are moments when we seem to transcend such drives (and in retrospect we evaluate these as noble, perhaps, altruistic--and freely chosen--acts).
I've always felt that when I look BACK at my life, I could not have acted otherwise (the fact that all these acts--and the "acts" and conditions of everything in the Cosmos--have produced my present situation is evidence of this fact) and when I look to the future it seems pregnant with options, the feeling of free will. I think both are delusional perspectives. That's why I consider it a false issue. I like Schopenhauer's attempt at reconciliation (I don't recall the source): "One can do as he will but he cannot will as he wills).
I also feel that the need to believe in free will is a function of society's need to be able to assign "responsibility" to its members for their actions and of the ego's need to maintain the illusion of a distinct and autonomous self. Actually our actions--even this discussion about them--are what the Cosmos is doing. We are only its units of self-conscious expression. "I" am not free because I do not exist. The universe is free to express its nature, which is ultimately the nature of "my" freedom.

JLN, I agree with your thesis; we have free choice more often than not. I'm at my stage in life because of the major choices I made during my 68 years on this planet, and am pleased with most of them. I think having been born in the US was a lucky stroke of karma, and allowed me to achieve as much as I have from living in this environment. If my birth was to be in Japan or elsewhere, I'm not so sure my life would have turned out as it has. Been pretty lucky, I guess.

truth
C.I., your last statement appears to be a response to my diatribe on free will just above yours, but how could that be when I posted mine after you yours? Yes, we have been lucky in the respect that we have been born in the economically most "comfortable" and free country in the world (just our bathrooms and A2K prove that). But we have the misfortune of living in one of the world's shallow and soul depriving cultures. It grieves me to know that except for painting in New York and San Francisco in the 40s and 50s, Blues music and Willliam James I've had to turn to Europe and the Orient for most of my spiritual nourishment. Yet I probably would not have exchanged it all for my comfortable carpeted bathroom.

JLN, It's not only the carpeted bathroom that provides us with more "free will." It's our ability to achieve some economic success, so that we can travel the world to engage ourselves in the world's cultures to enrich our lives. We can have both the carpted bathrooms and the richness of what the world has to offer for our spiritual nourishment. I've traveled to over 75 countries, and I haven't visited a country I didn't like.

truth
T.

Fresco,

Are not all evaluations by definition done after the fact? I.e. Can an altruistic act be premeditated?

I wouldn't wish to belabor a point, but i do believe that making altruism something of personal value, choosing a mode of behavior as desireable because it expresses one's belief is an example of "premeditated altruism." It would seem to me that such behavior comes in hypocritical and "genuine" forms. Hypocritical specifically in the case which JoeFC posits in suggesting that there are no selfless acts, and the "altruist" is preening his/herself on personal virtue. "Genuine" in the case of truly reactive people who are "other oriented." This type of person i've most often seen among the religious, or among women. That last statement may get me in some trouble, but i think it disingenuous not to recognize a profound difference in social views between men and women; that it is an "artificial" product of social roles doesn't alter its applicability. Those not given to processing their choice of actions through the conscious mind, whose view focused on the situations in which they see others, as opposed to focused upon an evaluation of how a situation affects them, may well come out to "genuine" altruists by premeditation. Sounds odd, i know, to contend that those not in the habit of thinking could premeditate something, so perhaps what i mean is "disposed" toward an empathetic reaction to the situations in which said individual finds others.