What does it mean to be a better person?

[blü 2]

"...mirror neurons are an exciting, intriguing discovery – but when you see them mentioned in the media, remember that most of the research on these cells has been conducted in monkeys. Remember too that there are many different types of mirror neuron. And that we're still trying to establish for sure whether they exist in humans, and how they compare with the monkey versions. As for understanding the functional significance of these cells … don't be fooled: that journey has only just begun.[16]" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

No argument.

But they make attractive, nay, seductive, sense. I think there's something there.

 

[blü 2]

Does make sense, you must be a "killer" to be successful (making millions) in business (they have even an expression "kill the deal").
And you must have ambition to be in control of others too. I have totally not that ambition. So lucky me, I am not a psychopath

On the down-side, it's one more chore when you come to count your blessings.

 

[deci belle]

When I asked wrote the OP, both what and meaning were intended. Because I think that both are linked or at least one motivates the other.

To be honest I am finding it difficult to comprehend what you are saying because I think that you are approaching from a perspective that I know nothing about. Is it religious, ideological or philosophical? And could you help me understand your worldview?

I certainly do not understand what non psychological means and why it impacts the discussion.

You probably would have to dumb things down for me

Hahahahahaaaaa~ I'm used to that Israel-- so I don't mind.

I made the distinction between "what" and "meaning" is because "meaning" was being ignored by morality issues and cultural differences.

Most people consider the psychological spiritual, but the psychological apparatus is the sphere of the person, the created, the incremental realm of time (karma, if you will). Psychological momentum is the world's situational matrix which we perpetuate by our webs of thought and their changes. There's nothing wrong with that (I'll reference that aspect as as karma), as it is all we have to work with in terms of spiritual self-refinement.

My point, other than to introduce the nonpsychological, is to introduce the idea that people who use use ordinary situational worldly affairs to refine away the habitual employment of the psychological apparatus defining the personality, naturally bring the nonpsychological to the fore in the course of doing so, because the nonpsychological is already the underlying mind-ground of the psychological. It is only obscured by the habitual use of the personality's self-referencing patterns. By breaking down the habit-based psychological patterning, ulitmately the psychological reverts to its proper relationship with the nonpsychological capacities of the individual.

By your own admission, you do not have any idea what constitutes the spiritual capacity of nonpsychological awareness. It's just your own mind right now before the first thought.

All I'm saying is that people who refine away habit-energy, enable the emergence of the inherently spiritual nonpsychological capacity. Such enlightening activity constitutes the meaning of the "better" [person], without involving conventions of value judgements relative to ego and general terminology positing rational moral injunctions. The reason for this is because enlightening development of nonpsychological activity is beyond conventions of right and wrong and self and other. It is actually the meaning of selflessness, which is truly entry into inconceivability. There is no reason or explanation. It is a mystery. And that is a good thing.

True selflessness is in no way relative to hackneyed notions pertaining to moral imperatives. Why? Awareness really has no self. Awareness has never begun (it's inconceivability, remember)— that's why it is immediate, not involving deliberation relative to the personality's psychological ratio-syncreticism. You might say that awareness, being the nature of human being, is our immediate connection to god, in terms of our being made in its image, which has no image. The uncreate is none other than the nature of immortality. Awareness has no birth and death. It's not created.

As for the nonpsychological, it is simply awareness which is within the sphere of human perceptive capacities that is not relative to thinking; rather it is immediate knowledge known without psychological deliberation. Its effect is free of self-referencing. It is an application, in terms of awareness within the sphere of human perception, of that which is not created and has no self. It is not some other mind. It's just not the thinking psychological apparatus relative to the thinker, knower, and liver of life. The key to recognizing the nonspychological is in terms of the inherent nature of people, which is open, untrammeled, calm and effective. That's the nature of [selfless] awareness. Afflicted awareness is recognized as ordinary conscious awareness. Our true nature as beings is inconceivable. It is the nonpsychological which is spiritual.

Since the spiritual is the better part of the person, and is in no way detrimental to the proper functioning of the psychological apparatus of human beings— the beneficial impact of the discussion in terms of nonpsychological awareness, is in recognizing the basis of better, in terms of the unmoving spiritual essence of the Unborn, instead of the moral, rational intellectually proscribed injunctions of self-perpetuated psychological momentums relegated to the realms of birth and death.

This may not be of any help, but it's the best I can offer at this time.



ed note: typo 4th paragraph

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think as humans with our many different perspectives we come up with a wide variety of ideas about what makes a better person, which is pretty arbitrary. I believe only the Creator God’s view , as revealed in the Bible, gives an accurate assessment concerning human nature.

Well, in many cases not arbitrary I think. It really has to do with our normal social behaviour. The majority of people appreciate others and want to be appreciated so they want to create a world that benefits all and doesn't infringe on others quality of life. What hinders this progress is tribalism and indoctrination and narrows this affection to just a few.

What, in your view, is God's assessment concerning human nature?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I start with animals. Which animal is a better animal? TigerCat or PussyCat?
Some on RF strongly claimed that humans are just animals.
IF true then can we talk about "better" animal (human)?

Pussycat can sleep in my bed
Tigercat NOT

I don't call the Tigercat "better" then Pussycat though.
It's more, that I like to be in control when it comes to having others in my bed.
At least the control of not being eaten while asleep (or worse awake)

I consider an animal better each on their own merit of their species. I would consider both a pussycat and a tigercat equally as awesome (unless they completely ignore me. A very sad situation)

They can decide what is a better kitty amongst themselves.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well, the instincts we have support our ability to live together in cooperative tribes, and they work as tendencies that will vary in strength from person to person. Further, you may have come across the not unpersuasive hypothesis that psychopaths have no, or too few, mirror neurons; and the observation that the Venn diagram for success in business and psychopathy often shows substantial overlap.

Within one's tribe, one's place in the peck order is highly relevant to one's chances of surviving and breeding, so we have to compete with our peers as well as with other tribes. So we also come with the built-in capacity for anger, envy / jealousy is built in, and sex/lust is an imperative.

So, as someone once said, it's complicated.

I have indeed heard of psychopaths and their success in business. In fact what is funny about that is that Trump is a successful business man. So I wonder if America is being run by a psychopath, which would be hilarious. In fact, I wonder if world leaders are often psychopaths. And since many religious institutions could be exploited and run like a business, I wonder if the psychopath tendency amongst their leaders is also high.

Yeah, it is complicated. We do have those emotions and many of us override them for the greater good. I think that many of us also agree with a general concept of morality but are willing to throw it out the window when emotions take over.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Imo, humans have the opportunity to gain higher moral standards if they can see the forest from the trees, and they truly desire such standards. Trouble is that many people desire only that which is necessary to survive and thrive and base their morality on selfish desires. If your morality is of the highest standards you certainly can't expect others to follow.

So one climbs the mountain of their journey to find that which is the greatest path to follow, and at the end of their journey find that few if any others sought it also.

I think many people are focused on what is and not what could be if. People see the apparent end of the road of living and see nothing further then that. They live on through their offspring if they care as such.

So there are eternal mindsets, and temporal mindsets. But to be moral certainly benefits everybody who is reasonable and empathetic.

I have found there to be great standards of goodness, and all roads lesser. Can humans be good without God? If God didn't make us to be good, then why bother making anyone or anything? Surely humans are capable of deciding their own fate or destiny? Some religions would have you believe that humanity can not be good of its own accord. If that is true then we would have all died out by now. Or God would be obvious to us all.

Some say God is hidden from those whom do not truly seek God. I don't think that is reality. You can't behold the evil and the good without making your presence known and be a God of action.

For me personally, I am actually thinking of whether those with a temporal mindset truly believe that giving into their base desires is moral. They might give into them, but do they realise that they are doing wrong?

Well humanity can be good of its own accord, even from that religions perspective (even though some deny this), with the proof being that the non religious do the very same good as the religious do in many cases.

I completely agree with your last statement.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Depends on the intent. I would have to think defending oneself against a deadly threat would not detract from being a moral person if it were necessary for survival.

Execution of justice is not an excuse to be immoral and it should never cause harm imo.

So then the moral trait could be better translated as "do not harm others unless defending oneself against a deadly threat"?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I made the distinction between "what" and "meaning" is because "meaning" was being ignored by morality issues and cultural differences.

Reflecting on what you have said, I don't know if I am able to separate meaning from what. I can only describe what it means to be a better person by describing what it is. But I suspect that I don't even truly know the meaning of what it "means" to be a better person. Something to reflect on further.

Most people consider the psychological spiritual, but the psychological apparatus is the sphere of the person, the created, the incremental realm of time (karma, if you will). Psychological momentum is the world's situational matrix which we perpetuate by our webs of thought and their changes. There's nothing wrong with that (I'll reference that aspect as as karma), as it is all we have to work with in terms of spiritual self-refinement.

My point, other than to introduce the nonpsychological, is to introduce the idea that people who use use ordinary situational worldly affairs to refine away the habitual employment of the psychological apparatus defining the personality, naturally bring the nonpsychological to the fore in the course of doing so, because the nonpsychological is already the underlying mind-ground of the psychological. It is only obscured by the habitual use of the personality's self-referencing patterns. By breaking down the habit-based psychological patterning, ulitmately the psychological reverts to its proper relationship with the nonpsychological capacities of the individual.

By your own admission, you do not have any idea what constitutes the spiritual capacity of nonpsychological awareness. It's just your own mind right now before the first thought.

All I'm saying is that people who refine away habit-energy, enable the emergence of the inherently spiritual nonpsychological capacity. Such enlightening activity constitutes the meaning of the "better" [person], without involving conventions of value judgements relative to ego and general terminology positing rational moral injunctions. The reason for this is because enlightening development of nonpsychological activity is beyond conventions of right and wrong and self and other. It is actually the meaning of selflessness, which is truly entry into inconceivability. There is no reason or explanation. It is a mystery. And that is a good thing.

True selflessness is in no way relative to hackneyed notions pertaining to moral imperatives. Why? Awareness really has no self. Awareness has never begun (it's inconceivability, remember)— that's why it is immediate, not involving deliberation relative to the personality's psychological ratio-syncreticism. You might say that awareness, being the nature of human being, is our immediate connection to god, in terms of our being made in its image, which has no image. The uncreate is none other than the nature of immortality. Awareness has no birth and death. It's not created.

As for the nonpsychological, it is simply awareness which is within the sphere of human perceptive capacities that is not relative to thinking; rather it is immediate knowledge known without psychological deliberation. Its effect is free of self-referencing. It is an application, in terms of awareness within the sphere of human perception, of that which is not created and has no self. It is not some other mind. It's just not the thinking psychological apparatus relative to the thinker, knower, and liver of life. The key to recognizing the nonspychological is in terms of the inherent nature of people, which is open, untrammeled, calm and effective. That's the nature of [selfless] awareness. Afflicted awareness is recognized as ordinary conscious awareness. Our true nature as beings is inconceivable. It is the nonpsychological which is spiritual.

Since the spiritual is the better part of the person, and is in no way detrimental to the proper functioning of the psychological apparatus of human beings— the beneficial impact of the discussion in terms of nonpsychological awareness, is in recognizing the basis of better, in terms of the unmoving spiritual essence of the Unborn, instead of the moral, rational intellectually proscribed injunctions of self-perpetuated psychological momentums relegated to the realms of birth and death.

This may not be of any help, but it's the best I can offer at this time.



ed note: typo 4th paragraph

I non-psychological that feeling of being at peace with yourself and just knowing your true self and in general just knowing? And is psychological the active mental activity, the ego, that interferes with the nonpsychological?

So the nonpsychological will be who I really. So the truly self aware and self actualised.

The psychological will be all the tainted ego and society driven influence that oppresses the nonpsychological.

Am I right in this? I don't think I fully understand.

 

[stvdv]

I would consider both a pussycat and a tigercat equally as awesome (unless they completely ignore me. A very sad situation)

Being ignored, or not being taken serious doesn't make me happy either.

Everyday a cat visits me, walks in and totally ignores me. In the beginning I thought "what the heck is she doing". But soon I found out, that the cat wants to decide when to come to me; she has some trauma. Interesting how some animals sometimes behave like humans.

They can decide what is a better kitty amongst themselves.

That's a good point. They can decide among themselves.

Coming again to your question "what does it mean to be a better person"?
I believe all humans are good, only some humans act bad. But even them acting bad, always have a reason.

Once I was in an Ashram in India. Many foreigners. One was always screaming and yelling at others; full of anger. First I thought "he is a bad man, not a 'better' person". Ashram rules were clear and strict. Violate rules, they send you out. Except this man. Seems he had carte blanche.

So I asked security "what is it with this man, others get kicked out for almost nothing, but this man seems to have Carte Blanche". Yes, the security man replied "The Master has told us, this man has Carte Blanche, we are not allowed to do anything. The Master said that He personally takes care of this man".

Some month (after I was judging him in my mind), I talked to this man and he shared his life story with me. He was dropped on the street as a baby; then taken in by a man who beat him his whole life. In a flash my judgments were gone, because now I understood. I did not see a 'better/worse' person anymore. And he was one of the most fanatic ones, when it came to pleasing God and the Master (only pleasing other humans was not his best part; I don't say it's good to please others though!!).

So. Can we decide who is a better person? First of all it's relative (people find it easy to like their own better). Secondly, we don't know the past.

But what I do know is myself. I can try hard to become better myself. Major key for me is "Hurt Never". That sums it up pretty much for me.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Being ignored, or not being taken serious doesn't make me happy either.

Everyday a cat visits me, walks in and totally ignores me. In the beginning I thought "what the heck is she doing". But soon I found out, that the cat wants to decide when to come to me; she has some trauma. Interesting how some animals sometimes behave like humans.

It is very interesting. One of the most fascinating animals are elephants:

Elephants really do grieve like us: They shed tears and even try to 'bury' their dead - a leading wildlife film-maker reveals how the animals are like us | Daily Mail Online

Cats are manipulative though. They act like abusive spouses. Ignore you when you need affection and then show affection randomly. No wonder I love them.

Coming again to your question "what does it mean to be a better person"?
I believe all humans are good, only some humans act bad. But even them acting bad, always have a reason.

Once I was in an Ashram in India. Many foreigners. One was always screaming and yelling at others; full of anger. First I thought "he is a bad man, not a 'better' person". Ashram rules were clear and strict. Violate rules, they send you out. Except this man. Seems he had carte blanche.

So I asked security "what is this with this man, others get kicked out for almost nothing, but this man seems to have Carte Blanche". Yes, the security man replied "The Master has told us, this man has Carte Blanche, we are not allowed to do anything. The Master said that He personally takes care of this man".

Some month (after I was judging him in my mind), I talked to this man and he shared his life story with me. He was dropped on the street as a baby; then taken in by a man who beat him his whole life. In a flash my judgments were gone, because now I understood. I did not see a 'better/worse' person anymore. And he was one of the most fanatic ones, when it came to pleasing God and the Master (only pleasing other humans was not his best part; I don't say it's good to please others though!!).

So. Can we decide who is a better person? First of all it's relative (people find it easy to like their own better). Secondly, we don't know the past.

But what I do know is myself. I can try hard to become better myself. Major key for me is "Hurt Never". That sums it up pretty much for me.

I fully agree with this. If one looks at history and learn peoples life stories, one can tell that who they are presently is because of cause and effect. Your story reminds me of the series Criminal Minds. We start off hating the murderers as if they are evil. But once we discover how they were abused and how that abuse affected them psychologically their story becomes tragic. I think that is the beauty of the message I get from the new testament. We are all sinners, so we must forgive each other and show love to our "enemies". There is hope for them. That doesn't mean that those who do evil must not be punished for their deeds though.

 

[Heyo]

Agree with most of that. Not the religious part, of course and not this:

That doesn't mean that those who do evil must not be punished for their deeds though.

Revenge is not the best basis for dealing with criminals. Amends, where possible and rehabilitation otherwise not only work better, they are also more in line with humanistic and Christian ideals.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Agree with most of that. Not the religious part, of course and not this:



Revenge is not the best basis for dealing with criminals. Amends, where possible and rehabilitation otherwise not only work better, they are also more in line with humanistic and Christian ideals.

Why would you not agree that we are all flawed, and because of that we should forgive each other? (I do not treat the Bible as religious scriptures but as piece of literature like other man made books. So I wasn't referring to it in the religious sense but just the message I get from it like how other literature affects me)

By punishment I do not mean revenge. Revenge is an emotional thing which stems from hatred. I mean that we have laws and those who disobey those laws have to be punished by being put in jail and such things. Not punishing crimes causes chaos unless one can change their minds so that they will never do said crimes again. Isolate them from society then try to rehabilitate them.

 

[Heyo]

Why would you not agree that we are all flawed, and because of that we should forgive each other? (I do not treat the Bible as religious scriptures but as piece of literature like other man made books. So I wasn't referring to it in the religious sense but just the message I get from it like how other literature affects me)

Might have been the language. Replace "flawed" and "sinner" with "prone to error" and I agree.

By punishment I do not mean revenge. Revenge is an emotional thing which stems from hatred. I mean that we have laws and those who disobey those laws have to be punished by being put in jail and such things. Not punishing crimes causes chaos unless one can change their minds so that they will never do said crimes again. Isolate them from society then try to rehabilitate them.

Then we agree here also and it was only the language that put me off. "Punishment" has just that connotation of revenge for me.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I can't be a better person than others but every day I can be better than I was yesterday.

I understand "better" as building of character, perfection of virtues but in a humble (non perfectionist) way.

 

[blü 2]

I have indeed heard of psychopaths and their success in business. In fact what is funny about that is that Trump is a successful business man. So I wonder if America is being run by a psychopath, which would be hilarious. In fact, I wonder if world leaders are often psychopaths.

You're not the first to wonder (though not everyone seems to find it hilarious). Look at Xi making himself president-for-life in China and Putin prancing down the same road. When third-world countries do this, not least in Africa, we tend to think of them as primitive, but ...

And since many religious institutions could be exploited and run like a business, I wonder if the psychopath tendency amongst their leaders is also high.

I doubt I'm the person for insights into the motives of folk in the religious industry ─ especially after they turn 40.

Yeah, it is complicated. We do have those emotions and many of us override them for the greater good. I think that many of us also agree with a general concept of morality but are willing to throw it out the window when emotions take over.

I think we cover the full range on that score, and cultures play their part.

Which brings us to the puzzle of altruism, and questions like whether the right kind of altruism will increase the presence of your genes in the next generation even if you don't make it, and whether it's necessary for tribes to function at all, and its occurrence in various forms among animals and birds, and so on. I really should do some more homework on the question.

 

[wandering peacefully]

So then the moral trait could be better translated as "do not harm others unless defending oneself against a deadly threat"?

Sure. Not harming can be an indication of a moral character. It would only be a part of a larger set of characteristics which when viewed as a whole would distinguish a moral person from an amoral person.

An action taken in order to preserve one's life against a deadly threat would not be enough to determine a person's morality.

 

[InChrist]

Well, in many cases not arbitrary I think. It really has to do with our normal social behaviour. The majority of people appreciate others and want to be appreciated so they want to create a world that benefits all and doesn't infringe on others quality of life. What hinders this progress is tribalism and indoctrination and narrows this affection to just a few.

What, in your view, is God's assessment concerning human nature?

I think God’s assessment of human nature is revealed in the Bible and that is that all have sinned and fall short. I see for the most part that humans are basically self-centered as history and the daily news attest to repeatedly. Sure people can appreciate others and desire things which benefit the world because we are created in the image of God.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Which brings us to the puzzle of altruism, and questions like whether the right kind of altruism will increase the presence of your genes in the next generation

I think it might have to because those who are rejected by the tribe because they cannot or will not cooperate or be nice, are ousted or rejected so the chances for them to reproduce would be more limited than the more altruistic members?

 

[wandering peacefully]

history and the daily news

These are not good sources for judging the the morality of humans. History's story belongs to the powerful and is vastly unrepresentative of the majority. The 'news' presented only shows the worst of the worst. Most people are good.