I am bringing in examples of rejecting something that is universally positive [e.g. equanimity as with being educated or wiser] is irrational in general.
Equanimity is not universally positive.
That’s what I meant. You think that my understanding of the concept of equanimity is meaningless, which I argue it isn’t.
When there is too much stress, it is a natural reaction for emotions to die. In fact, it is a reaction that is superior to the alternative that is emotional excess. It is a given that, all else being equal, it is better to be emotionally rich than to be emotionally poor. But being emotionally rich requires that adequate circumstances are in place which, for most people, simply aren’t. So, when making decisions, you have to evaluate choices that you actually have.
Beside that, people with addictions such as food, alcohol, drugs, etc are not emotionally in control of themselves. If you think that this is what equanimity is then . . .
A write-up re Equanimity. Part I
Equanimity: Part II
In general, the notes from the two parts above reflect positive elements to the individual[s] and humanity.
I would say that in practice equanimity is neutral. We can come up with all sorts of horror stories about people reacting wildly. Certainly the immediate effects of staying calm are less dramatic. This is not where the effects or lack of effects end, in those first moments. It is easy to find examples that reinforce one’s belief at such an abstract level. Notice that when you are given extreme examples, ones that in some cases have no relevance, the defenders of equanimity are reacting with passion, bluntness and likely on their end of the net, strong emotion. Why they think that passion, bluntness, and strong emotions, dare I say even a dash of hysteria are valid and appropriate for them, but not for others is very odd.
If you read the note above re equanimity, it is more than being calm or compose.
I understand the existence of duality, subjectivity, relativity e.g. ‘one man’s meat is another’s poison.’
However note the Law of Non-Contradiction.
That what is inherently good [positive] cannot be evil at the same time and in the same sense.
If one merely equate ‘calmness’ with ‘equanimity’ it is possible that one is so calm to the extent of not reacting speedily, and more ‘excitably’ to a fire that is burning quickly which end up in the person’s death.
But that is not the point with equanimity as explained in more details in the notes above.
As per the notes above, the essence of equanimity is meant to be universally positive, i.e. to promote good.
Phyllo,
If you think ‘Equanimity is not universally positive’ [good] what is your argument taking the notes above into account?
A good is universal if every single individual within the universe agrees, through their actions, that it is a good. If there are individuals who disagree with that claim then it is not a universal good other than perhaps in some weaker sense such as the one that can be captured with the statement “most people agree it is a good”. I don’t doubt there are people who think that it is better to be emotionally unstable than emotionally stable, so I disagree with the strong version of the claim.
Prismatic, I wouldn’t rush ahead and embrace Buddhism just yet. It portrays itself as somethg desirable and lofty, but it also promotes pruning of the mind and passivity. Was it a mere coincidence the the great Khmer Empire declined just after it converted from Hinduism to Buddhism? Maybe history can teach us something about the causes and effects of its influence. History shows that passive religions, like Buddhism, have a disintegrating effect on an already weakened parts of a system. And what price are you willing to pay for your own peace of mind? Because everything comes with a price.
openendedsocialstudies.org/2016 … -ruin/amp/
I am not a Buddhist per se. Nevertheless I have high regards for Buddhism and adopt their principles and practices where they suit me.
I understand the fall of the Khmer empire was due to geographical and environmental reasons. Note Thailand and Myanmar are prospering but I don’t think Buddhism is the reason.
When Buddhism proper was introduced it was too advanced then and even the present. The majority who practice Buddhism at present are practicing a compromised and diluted form. E.g. Buddhism proper do not cater for praying to statues with joss-sticks and other adapted cultural practices by believers.
Many monks practice asceticism which is not recommended by the Buddha.
But nevertheless Buddhism-proper is flexible without compromising its core principles which will prevails [as human nature] eventually.
Many Buddhists had wrongly promote pacifism and compassion to the extreme which is not in alignment with reality. It is not rational and is stupid just to sit there to be killed by an enemy.
The core principles of Buddhism is the Middle-Way with provisions to take to the extreme in the right conditions but one must always get back to the Middle-Way. The Two-Truths of Buddhism asserts ‘It is and It is Not.’ Thus one cannot insist on ‘Pacifism’ all the way regardless of the different conditions.
However at present towards the future, it is time to extract the core principles and practices of Buddhism, make it generic and blend with other spiritual philosophies and practices that are progressive.
As such I would not recommend Buddhism as an organized religion in the future. At present there are lots of scandals and evil acts related to the religion, i.e. by monks in Buddhist monasteries and elsewhere but that has nothing to do with the teachings of the Buddha.
My argument is the same that it has been all along. Although equanimity has benefits, it also involves a loss of something. It’s not irrational for a person to decide that the benefits do not outweigh the loss. The person is deciding that the equanimity is not a net good. We typically see that “creative” people reject equanimity in order not to lose creativity.
One can look at it in terms of this analogy :
MP3 is a compression system which reduces the size of music files. Superficially this appears to be a universal good because music takes up less space on devices and it can be downloaded faster than an uncompressed file. But MP3 loses data in the process of compressing a file. During playback, the full range of sound is no longer there. That may not be important to a lot of people and it may not be important in all listening conditions but if a listener feels that the loss is significant, that he/she is losing the richness of the sound , then rejecting the MP3 format is reasonable.
In this sense, MP3 is not a universal good.
Fundamentally, every action and decision involves trade-offs.
Your example is not good enough.
Equanimity is a human value.
For example ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ or the Golden Rule is a universal value.
Such values can have no trade offs.
There will be people [due to various reasons] who do not agree with ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ but these are moral deviants.
There are provisions for killing but they have to be justified against the universal value of no killing of another human is permissible.
Equanimity is not as clear-cut as ‘killing is not permissible.’
I am not saying [in this case] those who disagree with ‘equanimity’ are moral deviants, it is just that they do not fully understand the essence of equanimity as universal.
Equanimity do not stifle creativity.
It is generally understood calmness [a quality of equanimity] is essential and critical for higher creativity.
5 steps to calm your mind and increase creativity
treehugger.com/health/5-ste … ivity.html
There are many other links to this point.
18 Things Highly Creative People Do Differently
creativitypost.com/psycholog … fferently1
If you study this 18 things, the fundamental is a state of equanimity and not its opposites, e.g. anxieties, despairs and other negative states to equanimity.
When the brain faces or perceives anxieties, despairs and other negative states to equanimity, it shuts down to prepare the mind and body to deal with those real or perceived threats. Such negative states do not promote creativity which need a relaxed mind to ensure extensive connectivities between all parts of the brain.
Completely over-the-top irrational nonsense.
You’re suggesting it without outright saying it. You’re trying to tarnish people by association.
You already tried it once with your “Boko Haram/Taliban terrorism” example and here it is again in a slightly different form.
I understand that’s your claim.
The source, which is entrepreneur Trevor Blake, uses this process to generate ideas. Who says that he has any equanimity?
The article says that “mental work can be aided by our physical practices”. Okay, but that’s not equanimity.
Some people are productive in a quiet room, some with TV or music blasting away, some have particular rituals, some work early, some late at night, etc.
That doesn’t support your claim.
Examples, from the article :
This suggests that they do not respond to “traumatic” events with equanimity. Why would it be “gut-wrenching pain and heartbreak” if you responded to it with equanimity? It would not be considered traumatic if they dealt with it with equanimity.
This sections supports my claims.
As do these bits and pieces from the article :
“Thrill seeking”, “openness to your emotions”
“Passionately involved”
“Exhibit high sensitivity and responsiveness to artistic beauty”.
That’s not equanimity, is it?
Prismatic, Why are you turning to Buddhism to solve your problems? Can you not find solutions to your problems closer to home? The problem/risk with Buddhist solutions is that they comes with, well…Buddhism (in whichever form). And that opens the door going in the wrong direction. I mean, is the problem you are trying to solve so complex and historically unprecedented that you have to seek solutions all the way on the other side of the earth, in the East? Personally, I don’t think it is. This is similar to people following the fad of taking up eastern martial arts in order to know and better themselves. Do you have to study kung fu or karate, or whatever, in order to get to know yourself or be a better person, or address whatever problems you have? Is this the only choice you have? And what price is paid for that choice? Call my view xenophobic, but these systems originated from different histories and from different people, and are alighted with different values so I don’t believe you can just copy and paste them across cultures and expect it to be a 100% fit.
Here’s what an epitome of Buddhist equanimity looks like.
Note, this was also done as a form of protest (and consequently also a form of covert emotional manipulation). There are numerous examples of such self-destructive behaviors in Buddhism, under guise of profound equanimity.
The core tenants of the belief assume that there is no self and that the perceived world (and self) are an illusion, and equanimity is practiced with that idea in mind-based on extreme detachment and denial, in other words-on a big lie. You may tweak it any which way but the foundation is still based on willful denial of the obvious.
So I propose we take Buddhism off the table here.
Note what I posted above, i.e.
.
Note my point above against Buddhism as an organized religion.
What I had proposed is to extract the positive universal values which Buddhism has many and combined them with positive values from elsewhere and repackage them as a generic solution to the fundamental existential problem.
Your thinking is faulty here due to hasty generalization.
Have you studied Buddhism in its full range and perspective before you come up with your criticisms.
Why and how?
You are overly sensitive over this.
It is a fact it is so common where people committed so-called evil acts based on ignorance.
I had stated the fundamental of all the above is equanimity which basically is developed via the following;
Based on research by various neuroscientists, e.g. Antonio Damasio and others, it is noted ‘emotions’ are very critical for human development. One cannot suppressed one’s emotions totally but one must modulate and manage one’s emotions effectively. To do so one must cultivate a state of equanimity plus emotional intelligence.
Note Aristotle on the modulation of anger, one type of emotion;
The above is applicable to all emotions so that one’s emotions are not driven blindly.
As for thrill, not all are thrill seekers, but for those who seek thrills for creativity sake, they don’t do it blindly but with a sense of calculated-risks. Such require a degree of equanimity.