Is self sacrifice possible or desirable?

[SteveA]

I read this comment on another thread that got closed and have found the general sentiments to be of a self conflicting and hypocritical theme, unless I don't understand the motivation (if any) behind it:

Perception as influx is not real, since it incorporates fabrications and in the process dysfunctionally 'creates' the fake 'ego'..."What's in it for me and to hell with everyone else."

This statement appears to be a rejection of others perceptions and interests. It also appears entirely hypocritical and self destructive view for anyone who would adopt such a view.

I don't believe this is a natural form of outlook on life either. It appears to be an encouragement of others taking slavish views (one is suppose to not do something in their own interest but instead adopt some unknown values of others ... as others would relate them to oneself?)

The foundation is the exact opposite, IMO. It's the perfectly selfish value found in oneself that gives value to everything else via relationships that are inherited by interactions with others.

For example, if a thief were to try to rob me, I would not place a value on those actions and those actions could be seen as detrimental to me. Though the thief might have similar self interests, they're counter to mine and there's a conflict.

Now if I were to try to place value in the actions of that thief, this would be destructive to my own interests. Truly I wouldn't know what motivations were behind an attempted theft but I could speculate, in which case it would just be placing my own assumptions of values/motivations as representative of something unknown and these wouldn't necessarily agree with the thief's motives. Maybe it's to feed a family or maybe it's a theft to support some crime ring ... it's speculation without communication.

If everyone was perfectly selfless, where would any value or motive arise from? It would always be from something 'else' or 'other'.

Imagine if humanity was such that everyone had to ask someone else what to do ... and noone knew?!! Wow.

Now imagine such instabilities as well if someone declared those values to be something destructive to humanity. Yet again, that seems a bad plan.

Imagine instead if everyone was assigned a responsibility to take care of someone other than themself. Now consider all the difficulties in communication and inability of people to clearly represent things like emotional states or feel each others hunger, outside of whatever icons for communication were used etc.

All of those conditions would appear to be bad states for humanity. Selflessness is practically synonymous with being suicidal and I believe something that is impossible in any event.

-----------------------------------------

So now, how does it really work? It's entirely selfish, from my perspective, which is the only one I've got, so I'll state it from a first person perspective (and avoid confusion and hypocracy etc.) I value interactions with others as well as the diversity of experiences that life provides. This includes others. Hence, my own well being and satisfaction is dependent upon many things and that "self interest" is something inclusive, via all those relationships to/within "self".

The way to resolve the conflicts is simply for people to accept self interest and communicate and coordinate in manners best realizing these desires. If people keep trying to look at what others desire, then this is simply 'chasing ghosts' and never something resolvable. The drives and desires are 'within' oneself and for all intents and purposes they're priceless - no amount of money would ever compensate for having no desire for it. In a similar sense, a (even figurative) old photograph could be something irreplaceable (not that anyone else might perceive the same value though, but that's not inherently a problem).

There's not even a need to explicitly say that there's self interest - it's implicit in any motive or action. Why wake up in the morning if there was no reason to do so?

It seems hypocritical, destructive and selfless (in an undesirable sense - i.e. suicidal) to encourage anyone to not place value on whatever desires they have. The challenge people have is simply to learn how to best achieve such self-realizations together (in whatever aspects those are collective interests).

[austintorn@aol.com]

I wouldn't state all this so harshly, Steve Austin the famous wrestler, for the brain's job is to ensure its own, and our own, survival, even dreaming up ways of how it might continue; we just have to keep an eye on it, for balance, and, sure, one might give's one's life for a loved one or a cause. The rest was too long to read, for I am now old and receiving social security.

[SteveA]

Thanks, Austin. Yes, I believe I understand the general idea and agree that communal/collective/social efforts and structures can be beneficial to individuals.

I don't rate the survival of institutions or ideologies nearly as important as that of people comprising them and I fail to see much of any value in desiring people to be selfless.

It seems much better and supportive of everyone (implicitly including oneself) to instead begin with self interest and show that this is related to interactions with others and from that derive the value of society as (hopefully) supportive of oneself. Though, admittedly there can be various instutitions that are not particularly supportive of a populace comprising it ... in which case it would seem that, once again, selfish interests of individuals should remedy that state. Social structures and ideologies themselves don't have any desires except to whatever extent people place value in those.

It just seems much more natural, simpler, less hypocritical and self destructive to consider the basis of all those derivative values - ones own happiness and I'd assume most people should be able to recognize this. It's a matter of then recognizing that working synergistically is better than working in opposition. Instead of trying to remove or discount desires, it's instead a matter of inclusion and growing those from ones own and see the connectedness - that's a more 'wholistic' view. If one had no desires, then there would appear to be no reason to do anything at all ... not even assist anyone else and that would not appear a desirable state (of course that's a judgement made by my own desire to not see a lifeless world).

Of course, if someone is referencing some 'external' self (i.e. 'other') in the statement, then the statement would only be hypocritical if it was interpreted to be a recommendation for that 'other' person (that he/she/it/they should sacrifice themselves instead for ones own selfish interests ... seems like a bad 'gameplan' for everyone involved though).

[austintorn@aol.com]

We are free to be. There is always the wall of life to either crash into or bounce off of for the better.

[SteveA]

We are free to be. There is always the wall of life to either crash into or bounce off of for the better.

Thank you again. I see it similarly. There's nothing to sacrifice in that, nor any reason/need to devalue such a state. It simply is. Find whatever value one desires from it. If the value one finds is in interacting with others, all the better and noone should be expected to feel an obligation for any true sacrifice.

[labelwench]

My Mother and I have conversation on the topic of 'selfishness' and what exactly the term comprises on a fairly regular exchange, as she frequently worries that she utilizes far too many resources for one little old lady, as she still maintains her own small home and though it has two bedrooms, she does not desire to cohabit with another, male, friend or offspring, at this stage in her life. It took her several years to get used to living alone, as she had always been in the company of others, and now she has come to enjoy pleasing none other than herself.

My argument to her, is that she has worked hard all her life to care for and provide the needs of others, and in fact she is still doing just that. She drives a friend who does not own a car to appointments and shopping. She visits the seniors and shut-ins, and folks in the hospital from her former hometown of Atlin, B.C. She helps with the Salvation Army Kettles at Christmas and so on.....

I try to explain that life does not have to be justified in the manner which she feels is necessary.

We exchange energy through all of our interactions and personal relationships.

The 'ideal model', IMO, is one where the needs of all get addressed to the satisfaction of each, and will always strive toward a 'balanced exchange', for if too much benefit accrues to any part or person, the result will be shortage elsewhere, and this result will NOT be desirous or sustainable indefinitely.

A certain 'selfishness', recognizing that the other works from the same platform, leads to balanced exchanges, and is the basis for all 'ethics' IMO.

[SteveA]

I was trying to get together a decent reply, but it's getting a bit late and I'll have to post something better later.

I wanted to thank you for sharing what I see as an open and honest perspective (at least it agrees with much of 'how I see it', though maybe I'm biased but I don't have much of anything else to reference things with except via exchanges)

It does take some courage and confidence to 'buck the trends' and I appreciate you being able to empathize with things as well.

It's almost ironic but an act more representative of selflessness is to not encourage others to devalue themselves. The ideal, if I understand it correctly, of self-sacrifice isn't actually to expect anyone to sacrifice anything but instead to have a state where individuals act synergistically and live in a manner benefitting everyone involved. That's a state where noone should be expected to sacrifice anything.

If someone was truely made worse off by such a state then I don't think they should be present in it, otherwise it would be effectively powered by slaves (and even for those who might not empathize with such slaves, it's not a stable state nor do slaves have much of a reason to improve themselves nor the circumstances of any masters involved. There are natural reasons why slavery is not an institution that survives well).

I'll put together a more direct reply tomorrow though. Thanks again, Lorrina for the direct manner of your comments. It seems the type of thing that many people could use. (I keep finding more and more ways that such ideologies have many negative effects and it appears to go on because people keep assuming it's someone else who benefits ... maybe almost noone actually benefits from self-sacrifice? ... seriously something to consider though, or at least that the concept should be better represented in terms of how to more directly improve conditions in life)

[leskey]

THIS HAS BEEN EDITED AS DUE TO A PROBLEM IN THE SYSTEM, THE FIRST POST DID NOT REPRODUCE IN TOTAL.

READ THE CAPS IN BETWEEN THE ORGINAL POST:

I read this comment on another thread that got closed and have found the general sentiments to be of a self conflicting and hypocritical theme (MISPERCEPTION COLOURED BY EGO), unless I don't understand the motivation (if any) behind it:

This statement appears to be a rejection (DYSFUNCTIONAL PERCEPTION) of others perceptions and interests. It also appears entirely hypocritical and self destructive view for anyone who would adopt such a view.

I don't believe (YOU'RE ENTITLED TO YOUR BELIEFS) this is a natural form of outlook on life either. It appears to be (DYSFUNCTIONAL PERCEPTION) an encouragement of others taking slavish views (one is suppose to not do something in their own interest but instead adopt some unknown values of others ... as others would relate them to oneself?)

The foundation is the exact opposite, IMO. It's the perfectly selfish value (BASELESS JUDEMENT) found in oneself that gives value to everything else via relationships that are inherited by interactions with others.

For example, if a thief (UNECESSARYILY DETRIMENTAL ANALOGY) were to try to rob me, I would not place a value on those actions and those actions could be seen as detrimental to me. Though the thief might have similar self interests, they're counter to mine and there's a conflict.

Now if I were to try to place value in the actions of that thief, this would be destructive to my own interests. Truly I wouldn't know what motivations were behind an attempted theft but I could speculate, in which case it would just be placing my own assumptions of values/motivations (THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WORLD?) as representative of something unknown and these wouldn't necessarily agree with the thief's motives. Maybe it's to feed a family or maybe it's a theft to support some crime ring ... it's speculation without communication.

If everyone was perfectly selfless, where would any value or motive arise from? (FROM THE SHEER PLEASURE OF BEING THE BEST THEY CAN BE). It would always be from something 'else' or 'other'.

Imagine if humanity was such that everyone had to ask someone else what to do ... and noone knew?!! (NOT AT TOE QUEST, APPARENTLY) Wow.

Now imagine such instabilities as well if someone declared those values to be something destructive to humanity. Yet again, that seems a bad plan.

Imagine instead if everyone was assigned a responsibility to take care of someone other than themself. Now consider all the difficulties in communication and inability of people to clearly represent things like emotional states or feel each others hunger, outside of whatever icons for communication were used etc.

All of those conditions would appear to be bad states for humanity. Selflessness is practically synonymous with being suicidal and I believe something that is impossible in any event. (IN FACT, IT IS NOT...)

-----------------------------------------

So now, how does it really work? (YOU'RE TELLING THE STORY...) It's entirely selfish, from my perspective (YES, BUT WHAT ARE THE FACTS?), which is the only one I've got, so I'll state it from a first person perspective (and avoid confusion and hypocracy etc.) I value interactions with others (BASED ON EVIDENCE, THIS IS SELECTIVE?) as well as the diversity of experiences that life provides. This includes others. Hence, my own well being and satisfaction is dependent upon many things and that "self interest" is something inclusive, via all those relationships to/within "self". (LOTS OF THAT HERE...NOT! )

The way to resolve the conflicts is simply for people to accept self interest and communicate and coordinate in manners best realizing these desires. If people keep trying to look at what others desire, then this is simply 'chasing ghosts' (YES IT IS) and never something resolvable. The drives and desires are 'within' oneself and for all intents and purposes they're priceless - no amount of money would ever compensate for having no desire for it (DESIRE IS PARAMOUNT TO LIFE). In a similar sense, a (even figurative) old photograph could be something irreplaceable (not that anyone else might perceive the same value though, but that's not inherently a problem).

There's not even a need to explicitly say that there's self interest - it's implicit in any motive or action. Why wake up in the morning if there was no reason to do so? (AGAIN, FOR THE SHEER PLEASURE OF EXPERIENCING)

It seems hypocritical, destructive and selfless (in an undesirable sense - i.e. suicidal) (WHAT IF YOUR TARGET WERE SUICIDAL...AND YOUR MIS-PERCEPTIONS AND PUBLIC CONDEMNATION DROVE THEM TO DO IT? HOW WOULD YOUR SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS TASTE THEN?) to encourage anyone to not place value on whatever desires they have. The challenge people have is simply to learn how to best achieve such self-realizations together (in whatever aspects those are collective interests).

Feeling better now, Steve? I'm dealing with this publicly, as per your intent....

So much unsupported hypothesis here. Afterall, what are the facts...exactly?

I rest my case...however, maybe genuine discussion IS your GENUINE intent?

[Mikal]

There’s nothing to sacrafice—quote by SteveA

Its possible Steve that you do not understand that what you are referring to as ‘sacrafice of self’ is a process called ‘the emptying of self’. We could word it as ‘sacraficing or dissolving away the ego.’ (not an entity, a structure of consciousness)

One of the dynamics in the process is ‘dismantling’ and another dynamic in the process is ‘destructuring.’
Dismantling entails the taking apart of social conscience that has been instigated to make one behave and believe according to the dictates or the values of a particular culture. It’s a little like having your whole being ‘agonized’ in the process.

As one agonizes over previous base judgements committed unconsciously, ignorantly or intentionally against others, the structure of thought that was the ‘social conscience’ dissolves away and begins to structure a ‘personal conscience’—a well of knowledge won in a higher ethical and moral battle with self.

After the agonizing struggle what was a fixed structure of thought that had you behaving and believing you should socially and personally judge others, simply has dissolved away and perception now flows from that personal well of knowledge as a good sense of judgement about the true nature of social reality, life and how things work here on planet earth….

Due to my experience of this Steve, I more highly value having a personal conscience because a social conscience prevents us from critical intervention in reality—it’s a little like having a cloak of apathy covering perception. I imagine this dynamic inner process of dismantling and destructuring would involve many elements of us that could be 'changed' so I am not just equating this process to destructuring 'social conscience' into 'personal conscience' but am pointing out it was a significant process in my own experience.

Regards Mikal

[leskey]

QUOTE STEVE A:

...in which case it would just be placing my own assumptions of values/motivations as representative of something unknown ...it's speculation without communication.

QUOTE LABELWENCH:

The 'ideal model', IMO, is one where the needs of all get addressed to the satisfaction of each, and will always strive toward a 'balanced exchange', for if too much benefit accrues to any part or person, the result will be shortage elsewhere, and this result will NOT be desirous or sustainable indefinitely.

A certain 'selfishness', recognizing that the other works from the same platform, leads to balanced exchanges, and is the basis for all 'ethics' IMO.

Thank you for this example, lw.

QUOTE MIKAL:

"...I more highly value having a personal conscience because a social conscience prevents us from critical intervention in reality—it’s a little like having a cloak of apathy covering perception."

Beautifully put, Mikal...as only one who has attained 'enlightenment' could express.


If values and motivations are shared, there is no need for speculation and less need for communication, because appropriate actions 'speak louder than words' and balance is maintained within the bounds of necessity and then some...i.e., necessity, which includes compassion and empathy.

This necessitates adherence to instruction and a sense of honour and privilege in participation - not socio-political constraint or religio-political dictate. Like the alcoholic, no one can be helped until the self determines change of its own volition.

This action borne of 'higher intent' has recently been witnessed around my country, in the days subsequent to successive natural disasters. In the aftermath of the floods in Brisbane, thousands of people just arrived in the disaster areas of their own volition, armed with their own tools, to lend a hand to those worst affected.

Choose one: http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...rmy+video&aq=f

My home state is 1852642 sq km/715309 sq miles...as of this morning, 75% has been declared a disaster zone and a new flood alert has been issued for my area. This is just one state in Australia. A large area of the country is still being assaulted by unprecedented, weather phenomena. Records continue to be broken.

The cessation of mutual condemnation and judgement cease, results in the cessation of self-condemnation and guilt. Ego (the questioning of and/or speculation regarding one's own or another's intent/motives) becomes silenced, or even, extinct...allowing expansion room for constructive thought. A 'new world order' of self-governance emerges - 'paradise' found...