The Offical I Hate Karma, Astrology And Other New Age Crap Thread

[Spademan 94]

confused

Yes. You've got the gist of it then.

[vbnautilus 48]

it's NOT a principal. that's my point. bad things frequently happen to good people, and vice versa. the exact sameactions may lead to good or bad results for different people.

I think there are two separate threads to the argument happening here. One concerns the definition of karma and whether it requires anything metaphysical. I think it clearly does not, and I would argue that the historical version from the Vedas does not postulate anything metaphysical, although I agree it has been interpreted that way by many and distorted by the theosophists and newagers. The second issue is whether the principle accurately describes reality. I find it hard to believe that you think the results of actions are unrelated to their causes.

obvious equals pointless. if you find meaning in pointlessly stating the obvious good for you.

I strongly disagree with this. Sometimes it is worth pointing out the obvious. The fact that things fall is rather obvious, but that doesn't render the concept of gravity pointless.

because you are explicitly adding the part where you're only referring to what can be traced directly topurely physical cause and effect. no traditional defintion of karma has ever done that, and mostpeople that use the term whether they realize it or not use it in a way that implies something more.

Look, I sympathize with your position on this. Living in California I am all too familiar with the crystal-carrying crowd and as a scientist and non-theist I get frustrated with it as you do. I agree it is quite often implied that something supernatural is involved, to the point where it is difficult to use the concept without invoking those connotations. But I also think the core of the concept is not superstitious and needn't be interpreted that way. I think it can be a useful concept that does carry with it a deep truth about nature: it reacts to you in relation to the way you act on it.

[crowTrobot 2]

One concerns the definition of karma and whether it requires anything metaphysical. I think it clearly does not, and I would argue that the historical version from the Vedas does not postulate anything metaphysical

i have no idea what the vedas specifically says about karma (i would guess it's pretty vague), but ancient hindus certainly did formulate belief in karma as a force or law in a sense that absolutely would not fit with physical laws as we know them today. obvious, since they considered karma to propagate somehow through reincarnation.

The second issue is whether the principle accurately describes reality. I find it hard to believe that you think the results of actions are unrelated to their causes.

i didn't say that. i said there is no natural/physical system of law that necessarily matches what we consider good consequences to good actions or bad to bad.

Sometimes it is worth pointing out the obvious. The fact that things fall is rather obvious, but that doesn't render the concept of gravity pointless.

no, but it would be pointless to re-name gravity to fit some traditional religious concept.

Look, I sympathize with your position on this. Living in California I am all too familiar with the crystal-carrying crowd and as a scientist and non-theist I get frustrated with it as you do. I agree it is quite often implied that something supernatural is involved, to the point where it is difficult to use the concept without invoking those connotations

not difficult, impossible. the trouble is it's an intrinsically religious/superstitious concept that you can't use at all without connoting some sort of ontologically real good/bad scorekeeping system in the minds of most people.

I think it can be a useful concept that does carry with it a deep truth about nature: it reacts to you in relation to the way you act on it.

so it's important that we take care of our environment because we rely on it for survival. what's the point of calling that karma?

[crowTrobot 2]

Yes. You've got the gist of it then.

so you're mocking karma? what, did buddhism refuse to have anal with you today?

[vbnautilus 48]

i have no idea what the vedas specifically says about karma (i would guess it's pretty vague), but ancient hindus certainly did formulate belief in karma as a force or law in a sense that absolutely would not fit with physical laws as we know them today. obvious, since they considered karma to propagate somehow through reincarnation.

I disagree that it doesn't fit in with physical laws as we know them today. The reincarnation thing is another metaphor misunderstood. The essence of reincarnation is that you psychologically reinvent yourself in each moment when you carry your personal narrative forward in time, therefore behaving habitually. The opposite of that, nirvana/samsara/etc is to exist only in the present moment -- in which case cause and effect, the carryover in time, is nonexistent, and action is unencumbered by the habits of the past. It's almost just another version of Hume, and is precisely what the buddha was getting at too.

no, but it would be pointless to re-name gravity to fit some traditional religious concept.

I don't see where that has been done. There is more than one way to carve up reality, and there is more than one useful ontology. It's a mistake to be attached to one since they are all provisional. What we have here is really just a different level of analysis; it is not competing with western physics. I think your mistake is thinking that 'karma' is postulating some alternate form of physics. Let me try an analogy, not sure if this will work. Think about how it's perfectly useful to speak of something like "desires" and "thoughts" causing behavior, when at the physical level behavior is caused by a the various firing patterns of neural networks. Even though we cannot currently and may not logically ever be able to map from one level of understanding (e.g. neural firing patterns) to another (mentalistic terms like "thought"), it is still useful to speak in mentalistic terms. We have an ontology of mental states which makes it easy to communicate about various phenomena. Do you see what I am getting at?

not difficult, impossible. the trouble is it's an intrinsically religious/superstitious concept that you can't use at all without connoting some sort of ontologically real good/bad scorekeeping system in the minds of most people.

I'm not going to argue this point as I think this is a discussion about whether the concept has any real merit, beyond public misunderstandings.

so it's important that we take care of our environment because we rely on it for survival. what's the point of calling that karma?

Eh, your statement doesn't reveal a very deep understanding of the concept. Have you seen that picture going around of meth addicts before and after? The central message of that photo gets closer to the point.

[crowTrobot 2]

I disagree that it doesn't fit in with physical laws as we know them today.

the vast majority of karma believers think about it in a "spiritual" way such that physical law won't do the trick. you canargue all you want that they are misinterpreting what the authors of the vedas or buddha meant, but the fact remains that karma will always be a superstitious religious concept to most. IMO it would be more helpful in getting pastreligious superstition if you called the simple physical cause and effect you're apparently trying to refer to something elsebesides karma that doesn't invoke traditional thinking. that's why i'm bothering to argue this.

The reincarnation thing is another metaphor misunderstood.

not in hinduism it isn't.

The essence of reincarnation is that you psychologically reinvent yourself in each moment when you carry your personal narrative forward in time, therefore behaving habitually. The opposite of that, nirvana/samsara/etc is to exist only in the present moment -- in which case cause and effect, the carryover in time, is nonexistent, and action is unencumbered by the habits of the past. It's almost just another version of Hume, and is precisely what the buddha was getting at too.

different subject, but i'll take your word for it since i haven't read much buddhist scripture. right or wrong traditional buddhists do believe in something real (but vague) that connects a lineand passes karmic information somehow through physical death and rebirth.

Eh, your statement doesn't reveal a very deep understanding of the concept.

i understand it perfectly. i restated what you said in more specific, practical terms that don't connote superstitious belief -damaging the environment is detrimental to us because a damaged environment makes it harder for us to thrive. nurturingthe environment makes it easier for us to thrive because we rely on it. that's obvious. no reason to state that in terms justvague enough so you can feel comfortable calling it karma.

Have you seen that picture going around of meth addicts before and after? The central message of that photo gets closer to the point.

if you become a meth addict it will cause your appearance to become gross? again, if you call that karma most people will think of the action andreaction in terms of ontologically real good/bad and reward/punishment, not much different than sin in christianity, when you're just really talking aboutsomething obvious. i don't see the point.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

[vbnautilus 48]

the vast majority of karma believers think about it in a "spiritual" way such that physical law won't do the trick. you canargue all you want that they are misinterpreting what the authors of the vedas or buddha meant, but the fact remains that karma will always be a superstitious religious concept to most. IMO it would be more helpful in getting pastreligious superstition if you called the simple physical cause and effect you're apparently trying to refer to something elsebesides karma that doesn't invoke traditional thinking. that's why i'm bothering to argue this.

Most of science is also misinterpreted by the public, that doesn't mean that the actual concepts are useless or wrong. People think evolution means random chance (how many frigging times have we heard that claim around here), but you and I know that's not what it is.

not in hinduism it isn't.

Sure it is, in the same way that most christians believe some dude actually died came back to life instead of taking the metaphor of rebirth that is the true point of the story.

different subject, but i'll take your word for it since i haven't read much buddhist scripture. right or wrong traditional buddhists do believe in something real (but vague) that connects a lineand passes karmic information somehow through physical death and rebirth.

"Right or wrong" is important here. I'm not defending those beliefs, and I've made that clear.

i understand it perfectly. i restated what you said in more specific, practical terms that don't connote superstitious belief -damaging the environment is detrimental to us because a damaged environment makes it harder for us to thrive. nurturingthe environment makes it easier for us to thrive because we rely on it. that's obvious. no reason to state that in terms justvague enough so you can feel comfortable calling it karma.

Yes, and when you hear someone restate something you can tell how well they understand it, because the words they choose are revealing. Although in this case it may not be so much misunderstanding as it is intentional mischaracterization. You made it more specific, yes. But in doing so you lost the general principle (the concept is not about environmentalism, and I don't ever recall bringing up the so-called 'environment' -- not that it couldn't also apply to that), as well as the gist. I am pretty sure you're spending close to zero effort trying to understand what I'm communicating to you though since you associate this concept with religion and that taints it for you. If you can't hear this from me, though, its unlikely that you will hear it from anyone, since I guarantee you I have as much distaste for superstition and the ignorant aspects of religion as you do.

if you become a meth addict it will cause your appearance to become gross?

If that's the entirety of the insight you gained from looking at those pictures, I suggest you look for a little longer.

again, if you call that karma most people will think of the action and reaction in terms of ontologically real good/bad and reward/punishment, not much different than sin in christianity, when you're just really talking about something obvious. i don't see the point.

This is getting redundant, but please lets forget about what most people think and deal with what is. You know in Hindi (which is directly descended and overlaps with sanskrit) the word karna is simply the verb to do. The sanskrit karma isn't really all that different; it refers to action, doing things over time. If you were interested in physics, I agree the concept wouldn't be all that useful to you; it's not going to build a bridge. But if you are interested in making decisions that serve your life well, it does help to focus on the fact that each choice you make invokes a different set of consequences in the world. I can't see why you'd object to having a word for that. The concept is notably different from sin in christianity because it is descriptive rather than normative. It doesn't tell you what to do. It points your attention to what will happen if you do. The choice is yours. Very different. 'Punishment' in the christian sense is something served on you from an outside force because it deemed you bad. Karma is more like the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come.

[Spademan 94]

"Good" or "bad", karma is best avoided.

[crowTrobot 2]

Sure it is, in the same way that most christians believe some dude actually died came back to life instead of taking the metaphor of rebirth that is the true point of the story.

pretty safe bet that belief in the resurrection did not originate from misinterpretation of intended metaphor.

"Right or wrong" is important here. I'm not defending those beliefs, and I've made that clear.

what the buddha was getting at is a matter of interpretation and totally irrelevant. the points you're making about actions leading to effects aretrivial and obvious, and there is no value in tying them to what most people interpret as religious superstitious belief.

You made it more specific, yes. But in doing so you lost the general principle (the concept is not about environmentalism, and I don't ever recall bringing up the so-called 'environment' -- not that it couldn't also apply to that), as well as the gist.

unless you want to imply something metaphysical, nature = environment. i didn't lose the general principal, just any wiggle room for implied metaphysical scorekeeping. your wording about nature reacting in relation to how we act on it is vague and has plenty of room for a superstitious/religious type of interpretation.

I am pretty sure you're spending close to zero effort trying to understand what I'm communicating to you

you're not saying anything that takes effort to understand. i agree with what you are arguing for, but i see potential harm inputting it in the frame of reference you insist on using.

If that's the entirety of the insight you gained from looking at those pictures, I suggest you look for a little longer.

another vague statement that leaves room for mumbo jumbo.how about "meth has bad effects that can ruin lives, here is an example of the harmful consequences of using meth". straightforward & simple. no need and no point in framing this in more vague terms and calling it karma.

But if you are interested in making decisions that serve your life well, it does help to focus on the fact that each choice you make invokes a different set of consequences in the world. I can't see why you'd object to having a word for that.

i don't object. as i said i'd rather you found a different word.

The concept is notably different from sin in christianity because it is descriptive rather than normative. It doesn't tell you what to do. It points your attention to what will happen if you do. The choice is yours. Very different. 'Punishment' in the christian sense is something served on you from an outside force because it deemed you bad. Karma is more like the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come.

my point was they're both viewed in terms of metaphysical scorekeeping by most adherents.

[vbnautilus 48]

pretty safe bet that belief in the resurrection did not originate from misinterpretation of intended metaphor.

I'll take that bet. The resurrection myth both predates jesus and is found in various cultures around the world (e.g. Osiris, Adonis, Odin, the phoenix, etc.). ( In fact there is some good evidence that christianity was a direct re-interpretation of the osiris-dionysis death/rebirth myth - see Freke & Gandy's book on the Jesus Mysteries for a nice account of this relationship -- the details of the osiris-dionysis myth share an uncanny similarity to the jesus story ). It's a recurring story because it represents an archetypal pattern in human life: the power we have to reinvent ourselves and transform. This kind of "rebirth" usually represents a shift from identifying with the physical body to the whole of which the body is merely a part; thus one physically 'dies' but is reborn 'spiritually'. Humans transmit knowledge through story, and it is one of the great tragedies of culture that these stories have been taken as literal history. The karma idea almost certainly came from the ancient indians use of hallucinogenic plants, which have the ability to provide a transcendental experience of 'extended present'. The experience in consciousness of suppressing the cognitive processes of memory (past) and planning (future) can make it pretty clear that we actively create these things with our mind. The freedom of the experience of acting anew -- moksha -- is easily contrasted with re-creating yourself in every moment, burdened by karma -- what you carry with you from moment to moment. (The vedas talk more about soma than anything else, which some have argued is the amanita muscaria mushroom, but I have doubts about that since muscimol doesn't act on the right neural systems to produce this effect ).

what the buddha was getting at is a matter of interpretation and totally irrelevant. the points you're making about actions leading to effects aretrivial and obvious, and there is no value in tying them to what most people interpret as religious superstitious belief.

I didn't really bring the buddha into this except as an offhand remark that a similar idea had occurred to him. Trivial and obvious to you perhaps, but in fact many humans behave without regard to the consequences of their actions.

unless you want to imply something metaphysical, nature = environment. i didn't lose the general principal, just any wiggle room for implied metaphysical scorekeeping. your wording about nature reacting in relation to how we act on it is vague and has plenty of room for a superstitious/religious type of interpretation.

Now I see the source of the misunderstanding. No, I don't think nature = environment, although I don't fault you for taking it that way. Nature is a broader concept which includes pretty much everything; when people talk about the environment they usually mean something like the ecosystem but don't include things like other people and themselves. ( as an aside I think the concept of 'the environment' as it is used by environmentalists is a much worse concept than karma ). Not particularly important in this discussion though.

you're not saying anything that takes effort to understand. i agree with what you are arguing for, but i see potential harm inputting it in the frame of reference you insist on using.another vague statement that leaves room for mumbo jumbo.how about "meth has bad effects that can ruin lives, here is an example of the harmful consequences of using meth". straightforward & simple. no need and no point in framing this in more vague terms and calling it karma. i don't object. as i said i'd rather you found a different word.my point was they're both viewed in terms of metaphysical scorekeeping by most adherents.

Now all of this has to do with your objection to the supernatural things some people believe, which is fine, and because of that you'd don't want to use the term. That's fine, but in a discussion of the value of the concept I think we should at least acknowledge what it is really all about. The resurrection analogy turns out to be useful one, because there is real value to the story. I understand strategically why you would want to just get rid of any of these things that have been made into fictional religious dogmas, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[theresa113 0]

[davezz5 0]

I've just been Karma rolled!

[Spademan 94]

karmarolledOh shit, as I am typing this I see someone got there first.

[Spademan 94]

what the buddha was getting at is a matter of interpretation

You sure?Interesting, I don't know how to interpret emptiness. I agree however, that it is totally irrelevant.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Gawd.... why did I click that... I'm going to Rick Roll myself now to get that crap out of my head.

[crowTrobot 2]

The resurrection myth both predates jesus and is found in various cultures around the world (e.g. Osiris, Adonis, Odin, the phoenix, etc.). ( In fact there is some good evidence that christianity was a direct re-interpretation of the osiris-dionysis death/rebirth myth - see Freke & Gandy's book on the Jesus Mysteries for a nice account of this relationship -- the details of the osiris-dionysis myth share an uncanny similarity to the jesus story ). It's a recurring story because it represents an archetypal pattern in human life: the power we have to reinvent ourselves and transform. This kind of "rebirth" usually represents a shift from identifying with the physical body to the whole of which the body is merely a part; thus one physically 'dies' but is reborn 'spiritually'. Humans transmit knowledge through story, and it is one of the great tragedies of culture that these stories have been taken as literal history

i'm talking specifically about christianity, not some broader historical perspective. it's (arguably) likely that the jesus resurrection myth is based loosely on actual events, and if the original author(s) retelling the story morphed it using pre-existing mythology from other cultures they most likely did that for selfish reasons (like sensationalistic fulfillment of OT jewish prophecy). does not seem very likely the specific jesus story originated from someone's desire to make a simple philosophical point. i would bet it was meant to be literally believed.

Trivial and obvious to you perhaps, but in fact many humans behave without regard to the consequences of their actions.

MOST people do that to some extent. doesn't mean they aren't aware of what's happening, or that formulating their problem in vague termsthat carry superstious connotations is going to help any more than formulating it in terms that are specific and practical.

Now I see the source of the misunderstanding. No, I don't think nature = environment, although I don't fault you for taking it that way. Nature is a broader concept which includes pretty much everything; when people talk about the environment they usually mean something like the ecosystem but don't include things like other people and themselves.

either way. the statement "pretty much everything" reacts in relation to how you act on it is just as vague and potentially open to metaphysical interpretation.

I understand strategically why you would want to just get rid of any of these things that have been made into fictional religious dogmas, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

no, but lets do throw out the bathwater completely. i believe that was what the OP was getting at.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Hey Crow... no disrespect meant... but do you ever laugh?You just seem like a guy that would rather place a flower in a blender, mix it up, break it down and look at it under a microscope to determine what exactly makes it a flower rather than just smell it and admire it's beauty.I know I'm going to get dog piled for that but I wasn't trying to be funny or hurtful.You actually may take that as a compliment.

[theresa113 0]

Hey Crow... no disrespect meant... but do you ever laugh?You just seem like a guy that would rather place a flower in a blender, mix it up, break it down and look at it under a microscope to determine what exactly makes it a flower rather than just smell it and admire it's beauty.I know I'm going to get dog piled for that but I wasn't trying to be funny or hurtful.You actually may take that as a compliment.

I was thinking the same thing when he just cruised right on by the silly Karma Roll.But the world would be quite boring if we didn't have all types of people.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

I was thinking the same thing when he just cruised right on by the silly Karma Roll.But the world would be quite boring if we didn't have all types of people.

Oh I totally agree.... and thanks for the video... not sure if I would have EVER seen it again had you not Karma-Rolled us.

[crowTrobot 2]

I was thinking the same thing when he just cruised right on by the silly Karma Roll.

err, i was typing when you posted that and leapfrogged you without seeing it. har.

[vbnautilus 48]

i'm talking specifically about christianity, not some broader historical perspective. it's (arguably) likely that the jesus resurrection myth is based loosely on actual events, and if the original author(s) retelling the story morphed it using pre-existing mythology from other cultures they most likely did that for selfish reasons (like sensationalistic fulfillment of OT jewish prophecy). does not seem very likely the specific jesus story originated from someone's desire to make a simple philosophical point. i would bet it was meant to be literally believed.

Certainly you don't mean that the resurrection part of the jesus story was based on actual events. The story wasn't just re-morphed from other cultures, it existed as a story already told by the mystery cults of that region of the world. It became updated and mixed with judaism over time. There are actually artifacts from the middle east predating jesus that show crucifixion symbology. Mythologies don't form out the conscious intentions of individuals... as dreams are to an individual, myths are to societies. The desire of the individual telling the story is not particularly important. If someone tells me their dream and I interpret it as reality I am making a mistake regardless of what their intention was. What is important is that the myth carries metaphorical significance and if you interpret it as history you miss the point.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

err, i was typing when you posted that and leapfrogged you without seeing it. har.

love it

[Spademan 94]

crow is clearly a robot who has been programmed to respond to forum posts in some sort of Turing-esque experiment. We all know that humor will be his highest test.The singularity is near.

[crowTrobot 2]

Certainly you don't mean that the resurrection part of the jesus story was based on actual events.

i think its probable that someone with devotees being martyred inspired the retooling of the mythology. not much beyond that though, no.

The desire of the individual telling the story is not particularly important.

well this whole side branch started because you seemed to be saying it was (a "right" interpretation is more important or relevantthan what people actually believe).

What is important is that the myth carries metaphorical significance and if you interpret it as history you miss the point.

there's no value in turning to ancient myths for metaphorical significance when the points you're looking to make are simple commonsense ideas that don't require them. all that does is validate and strengthen the historical/superstitious/literal beliefs of those who already adhere to them.talking about karma to someone who believes in it in a superstitious sense just tends to strengthen their belief, even if that's not what you believe.