Jeredb.com - Latest Comments

Re: Embracing my inner hippie

stephenmurphy — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:41:31 -0000

Everything in moderation. Plastics and fossil fuels are not going to disappear - too much progress has been made with them and too much relies on them. But don't use it where you don't need it.

How long does it take you to ride to work on the bike? I've thought about it as I used to do it in Ireland.

Re: Embracing my inner hippie

rookcnu — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 06:56:39 -0000

Interesting. I have just been named to (again) a sustainability committee at work. I think this is round 3 for this committee (or something like it), since I have been here.

Re: Embracing my inner hippie

esther — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:21:32 -0000

This newfound green lifestyle has been a fun challenge- I feel like we're really living more congruently now, it seems to "fit" us very well. I suppose this means you're keeping the beard?

Re: http://jeredb.com/life/the-f-word/

stephenmurphy — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:20:38 -0000

I did, in fact, look it up in Wikipedia.

"It can be used as a noun describing a disagreeable, offensive or unpleasant person (also f***er);"

What a polite definition. Perhaps you could elevate the vexatious waif from "the fat kid" to this?

Or better still, perhaps facebook could let you (privately) define "friends" into sub groups - "friends" and "f***ers"?

But don't tell me which one I'm in I can't take a crushing blow like that on a Wednesday.

Re: http://jeredb.com/life/the-f-word/

esther — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:38:46 -0000

That kid drives me nuts!!! A few days ago he was peeking in our dining room window (again), I told him to cut it out and he left- so obnoxious!!!

Re: iPhone Apps and the App-stravaganza

esther — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:23:10 -0000

I love the 6 word review!!!

Re: On religion

stephenmurphy — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:00:13 -0000

lol, i hope not - I hate repetition.

You'll have to excuse my eagerness on the topic, it is a fascination of mine. I also have not found all the answers - but people's decisions on this topic fascinate me and I find myself questioning them not because I don't think they should make the decisions they have but to really find out the 'mindset' of the person making the decision. Most people in the US are very private on the matter (understood) but when someone is open on it, I'm afraid I'm a little over zealous in the search for more knowledge!

What is cool is that you have found yourself more grounded since leaving Catholicism for Buddhism. A peace of mind which I am sure is of great reward! I feel for your family situation though, I can honestly say I know what that's like.

I suppose an interesting question I have would be do you feel that more is owed to leaving Catholicism behind, and the mental grief it gave you, or to what was gained when you started to follow Buddhism? I am from a Catholic family, but am not Catholic (that may not mean much here in the US of A - but believe me where I come from that's a pretty BIG deal).

Re: On religion

jeredb — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:59:55 -0000

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the realm of the metaphysical. Linear versus cyclical perceptions of time, semantic back and forth. This was my explanation of how I got to where I am today. I am willing to admit that I don't have all the answers, but I also have enough fortitude to accept if I'm wrong, I will have an "eternal death". If I'm right, we may be having this discussion again. ;)

Re: On religion

stephenmurphy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:05:17 -0000

I don't find them argumentative, you're just trying to answer some quesitons! Christianity is just a topic that I am fond of debating - and I don't think less of anyone who disagrees with me - most of my family disagree!

__________

In the article you posted there is a line:

"Because of his Nirvana, the Buddha was perfectly moral, perfectly ethical, and ended his suffering forever."

What is perfectly moral and perfectly ethical? I find no definition of these terms in Buddhism. If morality is a matter of opinion and circumstance, then morality simply does not exist.

Buddhism has its deities such as Brahmā Sahampati who appeared to Buddha himself. I'm not sure if all sects within Buddhism give deity status to the Brahma, or if the Buddhism you follow does though.

Interestingly, the Dalai Lama is referred to as "His Holiness the Dalai Lama", like the Papacy. Although holiness in Christianity refers to the characteristic of God and in Buddhism it refers to 'purity'. Again, the definition game arises as I find it difficult to see what a Buddhist definition of 'pure' is. Not purity from sin, as sin is breaking God's law and there is no 'sin'.

"In the religion of Buddhism we don’t have a first cause, instead we have a never ending circle of birth and death."

This definition of eternity is confusing. The universe, as we know it, is made of mortal pieces. They have a beginning and an end. Planets, stars, humans etc. Logically mortality must have had a beginning. All things we see had a start (enter another debate *here* on when that was... :D ). There are repeating patterns, but ultimately the world moves along a linear path.

But eternity is a given, whether you believe that there is a being that inhabits eternity is another story, but time had to begin somewhere by definition. So what is there before time? A previous finite universe? Again, there must be a point where finity begins and 'outside' our finite time must be eternity/infinity.

The beginning of time, when our universe began and the circumstances of this beginning is of utmost importance as it effects everything that follows. Here in a summary is my belief:

As a Christian I believe that God created a perfect world. Man, the 'cherry on top' of the creation breaks God's commandment - this is sin. A rift is created in the relationship between God and man. Previously man communicated with God as with another man. However, God being holy, sin cannot be in His presence and man must live apart from God. Man's sinful state separates him from eternity. Man is cursed with physical and spiritual death. The world is cursed with death and the sicknesses and that lead to it.

Ultimately man's sin must be atoned for spiritually as well as physically. Man, being made in the image of God (which is what separated him from the animals) has a soul - a spirit. "Man, whatever his affinities with the animal realm, is radically distinguished from all other earthly creatures by the fact that he alone has been created in the divine image and is intended by constitution to be a godly creature.''

In His mercy sends His son to take the place of sinners. A perfect person who has done no wrong (and thus has no penalty that must be paid) takes the wages of sin upon Himself (death). Those that accept this unmerited gift from God (grace) are then brought back to life ("born again" - we are already physically born, but this is the point of our spiritual birth). It is by the sacrifice of Jesus that we are brought back into communion with God (forgive the term). It cannot be of our own good works as any sin we have committed must be punished - so it is impossible to earn 'salvation' on your own.

But we still live in a cursed world, where physical death is all around us. Suffering, as a result of sin and what happened 'in the beginning' is still around us. When a person dies, if they have not been spiritually reborn then eternal death awaits, but those who have been reborn live with God. Heaven and Hell. Ultimately this world is finite and will end ($50 awaits whoever guesses the correct date) and will be replaced with a perfect world populated by those who chose to follow God in this life, a people from 'every tribe, tongue and nation'.

-----

Re: On religion

jeredb — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:39:24 -0000

Thanks for responding. While I am by no means an expert, I have written some responses to your comment. I hope you do not find them argumentative, they were not meant to be.

The religion seems to contradict itself, even in its most basic principles. It attempts to alleviate suffering, yet even after 2500 years the countries it is most prevalent in are full of suffering. It offers no solution for suffering, and no explanation as to why the world suffers in the first place.

--
Suffering is different for each person, there is no ultimate solution for suffering. That is for each individual to find the root of their suffering and attempt to eliminate.

Suffering originates attachment. That is plainly stated in the 4 Noble Truths.

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.
--

Another hole I saw was that there is no moral compass to guide 'karma'. As it stemmed from Hinduism, Buddhism took a lot of it's world-views from its predecessor. But these views were set by gods, something that some Buddhists (another contradiction) do not believe in.

--
A good explanation of Buddhism and god: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html.
--

So who/what then dictates what is right and wrong? How does one know murder is wrong - does it become a matter of opinion?

--
The right and wrong is always situational. Will murder increase suffering? Yes, for the person who has been killed, for their family, relations. Will murder increase the suffering of the world as a whole? Potentially yes, if that person held the unrealized cure to cancer, the solution to world peace, etc. If suffering can be decreased, that is considered good or right, if suffering is increased, that is considered a bad thing.
--

The rational mind says that the whole universe is governed by laws - a common sense answer is that murder is wrong because it goes against the order of things. But who laid this order out? Where do these laws come from? Where does karma pull its information on what is right/wrong so as to give justice appropriately?

--
Karma is a cumulative tally (poor choice of words, but the only thing that comes to mind at the moment) of a persons actions. Murder in self defense, participating as a soldier in war, and other moral quandaries is mitigated by the fact that is was done with the intention of decreasing suffering. War makes for a tricky scenario, what is "right"? That is why most Buddhists are pacifists and conscientious objectors.
--

Another oddity is that Buddha (if that indeed was his name) rejected the more common idea that man has a soul - yet reincarnation (another hangover from Hinduism) makes no sense if one's being is not soul-bound.

--
Reincarnation is by far the most difficult concept of Buddhism to grasp. Karma is not tied to a soul, merely an extension of "universal energy". If my karma is good when I die, my karma will pass back to the universe and be reborn as a higher being. I, being a relatively new Buddhist, do not have recollection of any previous karma. But those who have achieved enlightenment are able to feel the previous karmic imprint. They do not have direct recollection, or recalled memories.
--

There are almost no absolutes, yet through science we see that the universe is full of absolutes.

--
Really? There are absolutes? We are learning that those things that have been seen as constant (the speed of light, abolute zero) are not quite as absolute as their name would indicate.
--

f one is to attain enlightenment (which in itself is an impossible task) one must dedicate their whole life and being to it. Yet realistically if everyone did this, the world would come to a grinding halt and the human race would be gone within a month. If you don't want to attain enlightenment then there would be no point to the pursuit of a religion that you don't agree with.

--
Enlightenment, as with suffering, is situational. Each person can find enlightentment in their own way. The study of one's self and how one interacts with the universe with deep introspection can lead to enlightenment. This doesn't require the cessation of all other life tasks (work, eating, etc), merely a commitment to this meditiation.
--

One of the major ones being 'is there a god'? There can only be a yes/no response to such a definite question - yet the Buddhist religion does not provide an answer.

--
A good explanation of Buddhism and god: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html.
--

Re: On religion

stephenmurphy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:52:22 -0000

Ok. Here it goes. This is written as a comment on the religion and not meant to be insulting. I have the utmost respect for someone who attempts to find answers to the burning spiritual questions. For the record, and to be clear of my bias, I am a Christian so feel free to respond likewise with any questions or comments. I have no problem if you think that Christianity is a crock and wish to express that - I won't be insulted!

I surface studied Buddhism before and was left with more questions than answers. It was strange to me that someone with questions on the purpose of life etc., (which all of us that are enlightened know is '42') would choose a religion that does not attempt to provide those answers - from what I see. In Buddhism it seems there are no answers, only rhetoric that has been formed by people over the centuries after the death of an unknown Nepalese noble. There are no primary or first hand accounts, just a collection of ideas.

The religion seems to contradict itself, even in its most basic principles. It attempts to alleviate suffering, yet even after 2500 years the countries it is most prevalent in are full of suffering. It offers no solution for suffering, and no explanation as to why the world suffers in the first place.

Another hole I saw was that there is no moral compass to guide 'karma'. As it stemmed from Hinduism, Buddhism took a lot of it's world-views from its predecessor. But these views were set by gods, something that some Buddhists (another contradiction) do not believe in. So who/what then dictates what is right and wrong? How does one know murder is wrong - does it become a matter of opinion? The rational mind says that the whole universe is governed by laws - a common sense answer is that murder is wrong because it goes against the order of things. But who laid this order out? Where do these laws come from? Where does karma pull its information on what is right/wrong so as to give justice appropriately?

Another oddity is that Buddha (if that indeed was his name) rejected the more common idea that man has a soul - yet reincarnation (another hangover from Hinduism) makes no sense if one's being is not soul-bound.

I see Hinduism as a religion set up to enshrine a permanent state of superiority for the few and keep vast millions in an officially sanctioned state of depravity and despair. I see Buddhism as a nicer version that attempted to correct this one huge drawback and ends up with no real answers at all. It seems escapist and unrealistic, formed in the mind of someone who was disconnected from the rest of the world for so long (as the story goes - since birth). It comes across as a religion built on a faulty foundation (Hindusim) that has to constantly contradict itself in order to cover the inevitable holes in its philosophy. There are almost no absolutes, yet through science we see that the universe is full of absolutes.

If one is to attain enlightenment (which in itself is an impossible task) one must dedicate their whole life and being to it. Yet realistically if everyone did this, the world would come to a grinding halt and the human race would be gone within a month. If you don't want to attain enlightenment then there would be no point to the pursuit of a religion that you don't agree with.

Yes there are some good points made by some of the followers of the religion, one in particular is constant self examination but this is not a uniquely Buddhist idea. But overall it really does not provide answers to questions. Questions that have an answer. One of the major ones being 'is there a god'? There can only be a yes/no response to such a definite question - yet the Buddhist religion does not provide an answer. It leads people down a never ending quest, to unattainable goals and throws them a few good suggestions along the way - not good enough for me.

Re: On religion

jeredb — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:14:25 -0000

It is totally acceptable to discuss in the comments. That is why I posted it. :)

Re: On religion

stephenmurphy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:05:41 -0000

Is it cool to discuss it on your blog in comments or is that too open?

Re: This blog

Esther — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:09:52 -0000

As am I... he's my favorite :)

Re: This blog

Shauna — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:48:50 -0000

I for one am a fan of Buddist Jered.

Re: 360° Awareness

jeredb — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:07:33 -0000

Why do you think I greet people with "howdy" and say adieu with "adios"? Me and John Wayne, we are tight.

Re: 360° Awareness

Jered — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:24:34 -0000

Doug, I finally wrote something that got you to comment! Excellent. I imagine that a detail guy such as yourself is driven crazy by the lack of awareness that people have.

Re: 360° Awareness

stephenmurphy — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:50:20 -0000

I hate when someone just stands in front of you while you're browsing at a shelf in the store. They're not malicious, just ignorant. That almost makes me angrier because their 'mama didn't teach 'em right'.

It's also awkward when the perpetrator is someone you know and you have to somehow inform them of their ignorance before the person they're impeding does. It seems better that you inform your friend to show the stranger that as a group you're okay, and for some reason they won't judge the offender too harshly because you stepped in. In reality they think that you're a minder for an ignorant fool who would cause a 22 car pile up on I-64 to read the latest marketing humor on the cool LCD billboard.

Also, I love the word gait. It conjures up old John Wayne scenes in my mind.

Re: 360° Awareness

Doug — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:25:49 -0000

Ummm - couldn't agree with your more!

Re: My new daughter

Mommab — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:40:49 -0000

I love you so much Mac Daddy J :)

Re: Cube Video

stephenmurphy — Fri, 30 May 2008 13:31:02 -0000

excellent. the singularity has indeed arrived then. I just missed the memo.

Re: Cube Video

jeredb — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:48:46 -0000

No work, all automated by computers... that is why we are IT

Re: Cube Video

stephenmurphy — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:18:16 -0000

Does anyone work down there, or is it constant pranking?

Re: Handpicked Artisanal Links

stephenmurphy — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:54:42 -0000

The number 2 barrier to Kaizen is particularly pertinent.

Also, like the look of StatusWiz, might give it a whirl.

Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skulls

stephenmurphy — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:30:53 -0000

From the Beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/74146...

"But, in the case of the British Museum object, some point the finger of suspicion at a 19th Century French antiquities dealer called Eugene Boban."

Classic.

Ps- seems I double posted. oops. wot a noob.