Agreed. It’s important to note the health of the family lies with the mother. Preparing safe food keeping clean house watching for safety of the young. Without these skills whether innate or learned family is doomed. The birth rate is usually 51 percent born are male. With preferential breeding however this number has likely changed without natural selection deciding what’s best for evolution. Humanity fails to recognize these vital skills females have bc they think they are easy to obtain. We know better.
A woman will give her life for her young. Birthing is dangerous business. She will risk her life to kill prey for her young. She will give up monetary opportunities and impoverish herself. for the privilege of raising her young. If not she risks the loss of opportunity to imprint herself on her young or know their safety. Society wishes this loss bc then they get to control the mindset of the innocent. Look at the many fatherless children who become subject to controls outside the family. The mother is stretched beyond bounds and can’t watch the innocents. Then they lose them. Whether to government controls like Edward Snowden was lost to an evil government project until he found his truth. Or to drugs or evil exploitive trades.
All I can say is when it happens to you get off your chairs stand up and fight back. You might lose but you will have sent a message and inspired others. I could go on but you can do this better than I can. Have a great day !
One possible reason (far from the only one) that activities may be gendered is the associational risk of putting two genders in common contact over time. Perhaps it is simply “safer” societally to have genders separated, when not in the established family setting, so when at “work” (fewer murders; less disruption of successful raising of offspring).
Heather, the middle part of that chart is fascinating. Makes one so curious as to why some of the tasks that could physically be done by either sex, and that were, in fact, often shared across sexes (N, E, G) have little obvious rationale. For instance, why cordage making or basket making would be skewed in either direction, albeit that the tasks are not well defined.
On our own farm, it's easy to see why my wife would be the primary processer of our broiler chickens (small hands make evisceration much easier, and I'm more emotionally suited to the 'dispatch' part of the process) and why I would be the one to de-horn calves or corral the bull. But, why am I the one to plant, tend, and harvest the garden beds, and she the one to weed, process, and store the harvest? Why do we come to these tasks so easily, without much thought involved, with neither of us being raised in this life? I know this must be cultural, not evolutionary, but still...
Seems you're resurrecting the serial essay of older times. Well done; I'll be back for part 2 and beyond. Thanks.
Lets be honest the Buddha was a spoiled entitled rich kid, a prince. Even in his ascetic wanderings he was taken care of by his followers. For me his perspective was valid as away of coping emotionally with ones struggle with life, like any religion is used, but from his unique position it was still a luxury. Buddhism is not without its own forms of violence; militant monks, the Japanese Sohei and of course the conflict in Myanmar to name a few. I have read much of his writing many years ago and forgotten more than I know so just my opinion.
I agree that the mass violence tendency has been with us since the beginning of civilization but I'm not sure it is so simple to reduce to a 'natural' phenom as selection. Animals rarely advance a confrontation over territory further than a bluffing puffing match. I think that perhaps the tendency comes from the intellectual hubris of humans that leads to political power struggles over territory and resources? Ego is a big part of it and the Buddha speaks to the control of that as a way of life. I embrace that thought.
But as much as I disdain violence, if for example, someone was holding a gun to my head while the *nurse* was trying to jab me with the latest and greatest cure for life, I might give it all I had in a final push for agency. And of course there is that 'mama bear' thing as well. :-)
I too am not a fan of the vast majority of what calls itself Buddhism.
The part that I find valuable is the navigational map from "suffering" to "the end of suffering" which, if the current world situation continues to worsen (as I expect it might), others might also find helpful.
I believe this particular tool to be of unique value because the Buddha's solution to the problem of suffering is to neither avoid nor suppress the inner conflicts which give rise to it, but rather to systematically resolve them in favor of a new predictive model of the world which predicts sensory experience without giving rise to misprediction.
As you suggest, the strengthening of this particular skill creates the conditions for a very interesting confrontation between the part of us representing the evolutionarily older "zero-sum game" compulsions of the "survival machine for genes" and the part of us representing the more recently evolved "positive-sum game" compulsions of "genuine care and concern for the wellbeing of others".
I believe the resolution of this particular inner conflict creates the conditions which increase the probability that humanity may yet avoid destroying itself by ascending to a higher level of being than that which allowed the current world situation to emerge.
P.S. Although there is always uncertainty in such things, my understanding is that scholars believe that much of the Buddhist canon, including beliefs about the Buddha being a prince, are probably not true. It seems that ruling classes have been changing narratives to better align with their interests for quite some time. :-)
According to Gil Fronsdal (whom I trust), the "discourse on being violent" quoted here seems to be regarded by scholars as more likely to be genuine.
In case you are interested, here is Gil talking about his book:
Thank you for the link I will check it out. Have you listened to the recorded dialogues between J Krishnamurti and David Bohm? Also I find Bohm’s ideas on proprioceptive thinking interesting. Thanks for the thoughtful response! :-)
You are welcome & thank you for sharing. I found the YouTube channel and will check out the dialogues.
I believe your intuition about "proprioception" to be directly on target.
Jeff Hawkin's "Thousand Brains Theory" makes a compelling case that the sensory motor brain evolved to create navigational maps of the world so that we beings could orient ourselves to better find food and shelter and avoid predators. He also gives evidence to support the hypothesis that higher level map making abilities evolved on top of this foundation.
I believe the "navigational maps" of the Buddha are meant to be interpreted with "proprioception".
They are constructed by overlaying the "lists" of the Buddha which contain the same terms.
For example, if you overlay the "5 indryas" (faculties/strengths/powers) with the "7 bojjhaṅga" (factors of awakening), you end up with a navigational map for how to respond to the "arrow. Hard to see. Embedded in the heart" mentioned in "The Discourse on Violence". i.e. You end up with a guide for "pulling out the arrow":
> saddha (faith) + viriya (heroic effort) <-- first nudge towards "sati"
> sati (mindfulness)
> dhamma vicaya (investigation) + viriya (heroic effort) <-- second nudge towards "samadhi"
> pīti (rapture)
> passaddhi (tranquility)
> samādhi (unification of mind)
> pañña (understanding) + upekkha (equanimity)
The first nudge counters "avijjā" (the compulsion to avoid that which is uncomfortable)
in favor of holding the discomfort in spacious non-judgmental awareness so that it does not overwhelm us.
This skill creates the conditions for fearlessness.
The stronger our fearlessness, the greater our openness to considering uncomfortable truths.
It should be noted that "avijjā" is the root condition of the 12 Links of the "Dependent Origination" (aka "emergence") of suffering. If we train our minds to collapse this root condition, suffering will not emerge.
The second nudge orients the mind to turn towards the discomfort with the intention to investigate and resolve the inner conflict which is giving rise to it. This resolution takes the form of the arising of "insights" when the mind is concentrated in samadhi.
The reward for following this map and developing this skill is
(1) pañña: A more accurate predictive model of the world
(2) upekkha: The ability to move through the world with less anxiety because our predictive model is making good predictions and can be relied upon to guide our movements
For a long time I wondered why the suttas of the Buddha were so voluminous and contained so much redundancy.
This seemed incredibly inefficient to me as the Buddha clearly had the intelligence to communicate the path more succinctly.
So why didn't he?
I believe the "narrative control" behavior of the zero-sum game playing ruling class to be the reason.
As Gil Fronsdal says in his introduction to the Dhammapada ...
The Buddha did not create the path. Rather, he "rediscovered" it.
My hypothesis is that Buddha, having experienced civilizational collapse, knew that the path would become lost again and he added the voluminous redundancy in order to make it easy to be rediscovered in the future.
I have nothing substantive to add to your discussion, but wanted to thank you both for publicly sharing such a compelling and (pun intended?) enlightening conversation. Mature conversation on interesting topics seems hard to come by lately (particularly on the internet!), so thank you for providing "food for thought" while I sipped my morning latte.
Agreed. It’s important to note the health of the family lies with the mother. Preparing safe food keeping clean house watching for safety of the young. Without these skills whether innate or learned family is doomed. The birth rate is usually 51 percent born are male. With preferential breeding however this number has likely changed without natural selection deciding what’s best for evolution. Humanity fails to recognize these vital skills females have bc they think they are easy to obtain. We know better.
A woman will give her life for her young. Birthing is dangerous business. She will risk her life to kill prey for her young. She will give up monetary opportunities and impoverish herself. for the privilege of raising her young. If not she risks the loss of opportunity to imprint herself on her young or know their safety. Society wishes this loss bc then they get to control the mindset of the innocent. Look at the many fatherless children who become subject to controls outside the family. The mother is stretched beyond bounds and can’t watch the innocents. Then they lose them. Whether to government controls like Edward Snowden was lost to an evil government project until he found his truth. Or to drugs or evil exploitive trades.
All I can say is when it happens to you get off your chairs stand up and fight back. You might lose but you will have sent a message and inspired others. I could go on but you can do this better than I can. Have a great day !
One possible reason (far from the only one) that activities may be gendered is the associational risk of putting two genders in common contact over time. Perhaps it is simply “safer” societally to have genders separated, when not in the established family setting, so when at “work” (fewer murders; less disruption of successful raising of offspring).
Heather, the middle part of that chart is fascinating. Makes one so curious as to why some of the tasks that could physically be done by either sex, and that were, in fact, often shared across sexes (N, E, G) have little obvious rationale. For instance, why cordage making or basket making would be skewed in either direction, albeit that the tasks are not well defined.
On our own farm, it's easy to see why my wife would be the primary processer of our broiler chickens (small hands make evisceration much easier, and I'm more emotionally suited to the 'dispatch' part of the process) and why I would be the one to de-horn calves or corral the bull. But, why am I the one to plant, tend, and harvest the garden beds, and she the one to weed, process, and store the harvest? Why do we come to these tasks so easily, without much thought involved, with neither of us being raised in this life? I know this must be cultural, not evolutionary, but still...
Seems you're resurrecting the serial essay of older times. Well done; I'll be back for part 2 and beyond. Thanks.
The emergent phenomenon of periodic descent into mass violence which we are entering has been with us since civilization began.
I firmly believe it to be rooted in the conflict between “natural selection” and “sexual selection”.
In one of his first teachings, 2500 years ago, the Buddha discusses it …
ATTADAṆḌA SUTTA
The Discourse on Being Violent
from “The Buddha before Buddhism”
translation by Gil Fronsdal
Violence gives birth to fear; [Just] look at people and [their] quarrels.
I will speak of my dismay
And the way that I was shaken.
Seeing people thrashing about
Like fish in little water,
And seeing them feuding with each other,
I became afraid.
The world is completely without a core.
Everywhere things are changing.
Wanting a place of my own,
I saw nothing not already taken.
I felt discontent at seeing
Only conflict to the very end.
Then I saw an arrow here,
Hard to see,
embedded in the heart.
Pierced by this arrow,
[People] dash about in all directions.
When the arrow’s pulled out
They don’t run, and they don’t sink
…
Lets be honest the Buddha was a spoiled entitled rich kid, a prince. Even in his ascetic wanderings he was taken care of by his followers. For me his perspective was valid as away of coping emotionally with ones struggle with life, like any religion is used, but from his unique position it was still a luxury. Buddhism is not without its own forms of violence; militant monks, the Japanese Sohei and of course the conflict in Myanmar to name a few. I have read much of his writing many years ago and forgotten more than I know so just my opinion.
I agree that the mass violence tendency has been with us since the beginning of civilization but I'm not sure it is so simple to reduce to a 'natural' phenom as selection. Animals rarely advance a confrontation over territory further than a bluffing puffing match. I think that perhaps the tendency comes from the intellectual hubris of humans that leads to political power struggles over territory and resources? Ego is a big part of it and the Buddha speaks to the control of that as a way of life. I embrace that thought.
But as much as I disdain violence, if for example, someone was holding a gun to my head while the *nurse* was trying to jab me with the latest and greatest cure for life, I might give it all I had in a final push for agency. And of course there is that 'mama bear' thing as well. :-)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts 'mama bear'.
I too am not a fan of the vast majority of what calls itself Buddhism.
The part that I find valuable is the navigational map from "suffering" to "the end of suffering" which, if the current world situation continues to worsen (as I expect it might), others might also find helpful.
I believe this particular tool to be of unique value because the Buddha's solution to the problem of suffering is to neither avoid nor suppress the inner conflicts which give rise to it, but rather to systematically resolve them in favor of a new predictive model of the world which predicts sensory experience without giving rise to misprediction.
As you suggest, the strengthening of this particular skill creates the conditions for a very interesting confrontation between the part of us representing the evolutionarily older "zero-sum game" compulsions of the "survival machine for genes" and the part of us representing the more recently evolved "positive-sum game" compulsions of "genuine care and concern for the wellbeing of others".
I believe the resolution of this particular inner conflict creates the conditions which increase the probability that humanity may yet avoid destroying itself by ascending to a higher level of being than that which allowed the current world situation to emerge.
P.S. Although there is always uncertainty in such things, my understanding is that scholars believe that much of the Buddhist canon, including beliefs about the Buddha being a prince, are probably not true. It seems that ruling classes have been changing narratives to better align with their interests for quite some time. :-)
According to Gil Fronsdal (whom I trust), the "discourse on being violent" quoted here seems to be regarded by scholars as more likely to be genuine.
In case you are interested, here is Gil talking about his book:
http://www.audiodharma.org/talks/audio_player/7323.html
A tool for transcendence?
Thank you for the link I will check it out. Have you listened to the recorded dialogues between J Krishnamurti and David Bohm? Also I find Bohm’s ideas on proprioceptive thinking interesting. Thanks for the thoughtful response! :-)
You are welcome & thank you for sharing. I found the YouTube channel and will check out the dialogues.
I believe your intuition about "proprioception" to be directly on target.
Jeff Hawkin's "Thousand Brains Theory" makes a compelling case that the sensory motor brain evolved to create navigational maps of the world so that we beings could orient ourselves to better find food and shelter and avoid predators. He also gives evidence to support the hypothesis that higher level map making abilities evolved on top of this foundation.
I believe the "navigational maps" of the Buddha are meant to be interpreted with "proprioception".
They are constructed by overlaying the "lists" of the Buddha which contain the same terms.
For example, if you overlay the "5 indryas" (faculties/strengths/powers) with the "7 bojjhaṅga" (factors of awakening), you end up with a navigational map for how to respond to the "arrow. Hard to see. Embedded in the heart" mentioned in "The Discourse on Violence". i.e. You end up with a guide for "pulling out the arrow":
> saddha (faith) + viriya (heroic effort) <-- first nudge towards "sati"
> sati (mindfulness)
> dhamma vicaya (investigation) + viriya (heroic effort) <-- second nudge towards "samadhi"
> pīti (rapture)
> passaddhi (tranquility)
> samādhi (unification of mind)
> pañña (understanding) + upekkha (equanimity)
The first nudge counters "avijjā" (the compulsion to avoid that which is uncomfortable)
in favor of holding the discomfort in spacious non-judgmental awareness so that it does not overwhelm us.
This skill creates the conditions for fearlessness.
The stronger our fearlessness, the greater our openness to considering uncomfortable truths.
It should be noted that "avijjā" is the root condition of the 12 Links of the "Dependent Origination" (aka "emergence") of suffering. If we train our minds to collapse this root condition, suffering will not emerge.
The second nudge orients the mind to turn towards the discomfort with the intention to investigate and resolve the inner conflict which is giving rise to it. This resolution takes the form of the arising of "insights" when the mind is concentrated in samadhi.
The reward for following this map and developing this skill is
(1) pañña: A more accurate predictive model of the world
(2) upekkha: The ability to move through the world with less anxiety because our predictive model is making good predictions and can be relied upon to guide our movements
For a long time I wondered why the suttas of the Buddha were so voluminous and contained so much redundancy.
This seemed incredibly inefficient to me as the Buddha clearly had the intelligence to communicate the path more succinctly.
So why didn't he?
I believe the "narrative control" behavior of the zero-sum game playing ruling class to be the reason.
As Gil Fronsdal says in his introduction to the Dhammapada ...
The Buddha did not create the path. Rather, he "rediscovered" it.
My hypothesis is that Buddha, having experienced civilizational collapse, knew that the path would become lost again and he added the voluminous redundancy in order to make it easy to be rediscovered in the future.
Awesome! I love it! Thank you Maitreya.
:-)
I have nothing substantive to add to your discussion, but wanted to thank you both for publicly sharing such a compelling and (pun intended?) enlightening conversation. Mature conversation on interesting topics seems hard to come by lately (particularly on the internet!), so thank you for providing "food for thought" while I sipped my morning latte.