Why is a \"designer\" so compelling? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, August 04, 2009, 14:54 (5589 days ago) @ dhw

I'm afraid I'm going to leave you and Nietzsche to battle it out together. Although you are clearly one of his Ãœbermenschen, I am a mere Mensch (though I hope in more than one sense of the word). 
> - Heh. No, no one is or ever will be the Ubermensch. My thought is that N viewed that ideal similar to how Homer served as a heroic template for people like Themistocles and Leonidas. I *think* that it is also the thought of N scholars though I'd have to get a hold of my old prof to verify that. - > Thank you for correcting me on matters pertaining to Buddhism (I will try to forget the last of the Ariya-Sacca) . It seems rather to have changed direction since my youth, but then so have many other things, including our Labour Party (now Conservative), national security (= protect the government), public servant (= screw the public), Right Honourable (= Downright Dishonourable)....hm, better not go down that line.
> - As with all religions... "correction" would be too strong a word. I know for a fact that Tibetan and Sri Lankan Buddhists treat reincarnation essentially as the hindus do. I learned Zen Buddhism (Soto, to be specific) and Zen tends to be quite a bit more austere. I did learn however that the message of Buddhism is incredibly (and deliberately) plastic. You are correct in that the modern meaning is probably quite different from what the early Bhikkus really believed, but this we can never truly know. Either way, I found the ultimate logical conclusions in Buddhism to be a bit more than I was willing to accept. - > You wrote: I'm a "between the lines" reader, I'm usually more interested in the framework that went into what someone said than necessarily what they say.
> We are all "between the lines" readers, though few people realize it. And the less clear the text, the more we read into it. You say it's "the frameworks and the perspectives they cause that create confusion". Sometimes. And sometimes it's our imposition of our own frameworks and perspectives that create confusion.
> - I think that's more what I meant, because by understanding the framework of another's ideas, I can understand how they derived their thought. That leads to understanding and it helps to keep my ego *out* of the picture as I can concentrate on the logic. (Fails sometimes, mind you.) - > As for consensus on "prime causes" or "ultimate questions", no, I don't think we shall ever reach one. If we did, it would probably signify that the fundamentalists had taken over, perish the thought.
> 
> Finally, and most importantly, let me join David in wishing you the very best of luck with your GRE on Wednesday. I hope this website has been a relaxing diversion rather than a dangerous distraction! - Actually I attribute the strength of my verbal scores to the exercises in argumentation you guys put me through. I just wish the verbal scores were weighed as heavily, heh.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"