Do you care?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Do tell.

Informed only by your postings over the last couple of months I imagine that you are guided by your faith, a benefit I sadly lack. My motivations are of a rather more selfish nature, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Informed only by your postings over the last couple of months I imagine that you are guided by your faith, a benefit I sadly lack. My motivations are of a rather more selfish nature, I'm afraid.

Well, according to Lex Rhodia, “if merchandise is thrown overboard for the purpose of lightening a ship, the loss is made good by the assessment of all which is made for the benefit of all”. The law was adopted later by the Romans and by the Byzantines, and this is the reason why we see in the Justinian’s legislation (Lex Rhodia de Jactu, Pandectae 14:2) the following article: “It is provided by the Rhodian Law that where merchandise is thrown overboard for the purpose of lightening a ship, what has been lost for the benefit of all must be made up by the contribution of all."
After 1453 Lex Rhodia was adopted by the Arabs too.

This specific forced loss -a loss that is adopted for the sake of the security of the ship- was mentioned by the Arabs as “awar” (damage) and “awariya” (goods/ merchandise that suffered of damages), whilst the Latins, the Greeks and the Portuguese used the word “avaria”, the French the word “avarie”, the Dutch the word “avarij”, the Germans the word “havarie” and the English the word “average”. It is clear that Lex Rhodia was a way to imply justice -and I bow to this human invention known as justice, to the social commitment that the participation of everyone at every gain and at every loss should be equal/ average!

Truth is empty; motivations are empty; methinks is enough to care for the other, and this belief is empty too;
Nothing Holy😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Well, according to Lex Rhodia, “if merchandise is thrown overboard for the purpose of lightening a ship, the loss is made good by the assessment of all which is made for the benefit of all”. The law was adopted later by the Romans and by the Byzantines, and this is the reason why we see in the Justinian’s legislation (Lex Rhodia de Jactu, Pandectae 14:2 ...[text shortened]... empty; methinks is enough to care for the other, and this belief is empty too;
Nothing Holy😵

The Soap Opera
that some call Samsara
weaves its hypnotic spell
until even freedom seems
like a melodrama, fraught
with the organ-music of angst—

And, if you get free
(not just changing channels
from one melodrama to another),
you become of course
an “enemy of the people”.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Informed only by your postings over the last couple of months I imagine that you are guided by your faith, a benefit I sadly lack. My motivations are of a rather more selfish nature, I'm afraid.

Truly, I cannot imagine a more selfish person than me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Truly, I cannot imagine a more selfish person than me.

Well, you ain’t tryin’ then! 😉

Seriously, though— Once again, you have started a thread with so much stripped away, to try to get at a root question. I think that’s helpful. In this case, as in another recent thread of yours, I am struck by the need to be “care-ful” about language.

And in this case—and riffing off of my own immediate frame of mind—I am inclined to hear that word “care” (as you care-fully defined it) with a solid background of “As the World Turns” melodramatic organ music. Hence, my mention of the Soap Opera in the preceding post.

You and I—given our cultural grounding—are likely to grasp the sense of that phrase “Soap Opera” right away. I think that one of the reason that the soaps (daytime or glossier primetime) are so popular is because that are accurate caricatures (and sometimes only slight caricatures) of the melodramatic life that most people seem to be mired in. Me too—I sometimes see my participation on here as mirroring my extrications from, and fallings back into, that mire over the past years.

For me, that pesky word “spirituality” has got to have something to do with living outside the Soap Opera—all of the soap operas, including those I am likely to make up in my own head. Otherwise, whatever the concept behind that word “spirituality”, it’s a quite dispensable one.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, you ain’t tryin’ then! 😉

Seriously, though— Once again, you have started a thread with so much stripped away, to try to get at a root question. I think that’s helpful. In this case, as in another recent thread of yours, I am struck by the need to be “care-ful” about language.

And in this case—and riffing off of my own immediate frame ...[text shortened]... Otherwise, whatever the concept behind that word “spirituality”, it’s a quite dispensable one.

Desperately, we want to be bare of thread, and yet we persist: clutching our clothes to hide the nakedness.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Desperately, we want to be bare of thread, and yet we persist: clutching our clothes to hide the nakedness.

Yep. But why?

I think that desperate “need” for clutching comes from a kind of “hypnosis” that many of us undergo from before we have verbal skills—a kind of incremental hypnosis that nevertheless leaves its deeply embedded “post-hypnotic suggestions”. The specific content of that may be different across local cultures, religions, familial contexts, etc. That’s why changes in particular beliefs may not represent an escape from underlying hypnosis—e.g., a Christian becomes an atheist, or an atheist a Christian. The underlying “hypnotically grooved” way of thinking about things may not have undergone any real uprooting.

“I used to be a Baptist, but now I’m a Buddhist” is not necessarily any different from saying, “I used to be in General Sanitarium, but now I’m in As the World Spurns.”

Originally posted by vistesd
Yep. But why?

I think that desperate “need” for clutching comes from a kind of “hypnosis” that many of us undergo from before we have verbal skills—a kind of incremental hypnosis that nevertheless leaves its deeply embedded “post-hypnotic suggestions”. The specific content of that may be different across local cultures, religions, familial cont ...[text shortened]... saying, “I used to be in General Sanitarium, but now I’m in As the World Spurns.”

Or, "I used to be frantic, now I just panic."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Or, "I used to be frantic, now I just panic."

Wonderful! I'm going to steal this from you.

Originally posted by bbarr
Wonderful! I'm going to steal this from you.

Feel free. At least I'll be quoted.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Or, "I used to be frantic, now I just panic."

Great!

In the end, you either give that all up, or you don’t. That’s it. Not “I could give that all because I’m a Christian/Buddhist/Vedantist/Sufi…”—whatever. I mean, such varied spiritual “arrivings” may well influence the decision—but that is relative. And is the basis for a lot of the argument across religions/spiritual philosophies.

Don’t get me wrong—I am not “dissing” the diverse religious understandings that lead to that, or their mutual counter-claims as to the content of “the truth”. You and I don’t need to cover that ground (except perhaps for others “listening in” ).

I’m just saying that—aside from other considerations of religion or religious philosophy—one either gives that all up, or not. I have known Christians whose Christianity has allowed them to give that all up. I have known Zen Buddhists whose Zen Buddhism has allowed them to give that all up. Etc., etc. That does not overcome their conflicting truth claims (e.g. dualism versus non-dualism). It does get them into the same spiritual vestibule, so to speak.

To be able to stand “bare of thread” in our nakedness—that is at least the minimal “spiritual” offering, is it not?

You and I, old friend, I think have come to that. We disagree—passionately—about theology and basic religious philosophy. But we have more and more come to be able to do so without the defensive “clothing”. They are no longer necessary (maybe they never were, but I think there have been times when we—or at least I—thought so). Ironically, that is why we don’t “go at it” as much as we used to. We have become like two players who see each other’s moves so far in advance that we don’t even bother… (like those famous Samurai swordsman); though sometimes we might, just as a test…

Originally posted by vistesd
Great!

In the end, you either give that all up, or you don’t. That’s it. Not “I could give that all because I’m a Christian/Buddhist/Vedantist/Sufi…”—whatever. I mean, such varied spiritual “arrivings” may well influence the decision—but that is relative. And is the basis for a lot of the argument across religions/spiritual philosophies ...[text shortened]... even bother… (like those famous Samurai swordsman); though sometimes we might, just as a test…

The de-escalation of the war, wherein a raised eye-brow determines the winner. Most polite.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

By "care," I mean in the traditional sense of the word, to wit:

O.E. carian, cearian "be anxious, grieve; to feel concern or interest," from P.Gmc. *karojanan (cf. O.H.G. karon “to lament,” O.S. karon “to care&rdquo😉

If affirmative, to what is your care applied?

"Care": To Regard Highly, To Protect, Prioritize, Treasure, Love....

diametrically opposed to Dislike, Disregard, Ignore, Neglect, Hate.



..................................................

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"Care": To Regard Highly, To Protect, Prioritize, Treasure, Love....

diametrically opposed to Dislike, Disregard, Ignore, Neglect, Hate.



..................................................[/b]

Passion is a funny thing, a sometimes-irksome quirk.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Truly, I cannot imagine a more selfish person than me.

No surprise there. Seeing as "Salvation by grace" both attracts and reinforces them.