The Good Place: Moral Reward

[blackraven]

Originally Posted by Gem

There is still the issue of how goodness is associated with motive, so the pure selfish act as opposed the act to general benefit is merely a representation of why one does what they do.

I was at a store yesterday and a elderly man was in front of me fumbling with his wallet as well as having general difficulty understanding the transaction. He seemed very confused. I looked down and noticed large bills of cash all around his feet. Instead of me touching his money I tapped him on his elbow and told him he had cash on the floor. He looked down and picked it up and thanked me.

Question is why did I tell him he had money on the floor? I suppose I've been around enough elderly people to know just how much they struggle. I felt sorry for him I suppose. I wanted to help him out. I didn't tell him for a reward. In fact I wouldn't have cared if he said 'thank you' or not. I simply put myself in his place with the hopes that someone would treat me the same. Just plain ole human compassion and care for ones fellow man/woman.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello Gem,
IMO self-reflection is a natural thing to do for humanity. AND YET the pushback is defensive, fierce, and thus far pretty unrelenting. Socrates said the unexamined life was not worth living. He was offered banishment or a life of silence...which is a form of a living death -- the annihilation of meaningful communication of your inner thoughts.

The unspoken question here is why is self-reflection such a difficult burden to accept? It's not, if ownership is freely received. But if we want to be in spiritual diapers forever, then ownership is a huge and scary burden and we resent the hell out of it. At best we are terrified and uncomfortable. We could all self-reflect right now...but it's telling that this is so often portrayed as all that heavy stuff we'll have to face in the afterlife, LOL...


Yes we all judge, often without realising and many times also intentionally and perhaps with some degree of mean-spiritedness and schadenfreude.

Shadenfreude

So this aspect too seems spot on in its reflection of current times. Meaning, it's always been a known issue, the harsh judgment of others (due not only religion but to many other -isms...racism, sexism, classism, and all the usual suspects).

Now however we're finally examining and questioning that presumption of the right to pass judgment. In many cases, upon reflection and discussion, our motives are revealed to be base or are obviously self-interested. Often, the judgment is shown to be a structural form of oppression (of "those ppl" or "ppl like that and not this")...harmful and toxic but in fact baseless and not sound on its merits, due to our lack of knowledge of the context and of those we judge. It's how we (especially at the elite and the more powerful levels) shame or abuse others and keep them down for not conforming to the dictates and whims we inflict upon them.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Gem]

Originally Posted by emeraldheart

Lol about the spiritual diapers comment!

I am up to episode 3?? of the latest season of this show so I am still waiting to see how the characters might (or might not) graduate out of their spiritual diapers.



Interesting how the demon who runs 'the good place' is named Micheal (I had assumed that it meant to indicate a connection to Angel Micheal) who yes, is ruling a small part of 'Hell' but who is also learning a lot about his own code of ethics and morals as he goes.

I hadn't thought about the name Michael before, but now you mention it, it makes sense - Archangel Micheal, of course!

It is when Micheal begins to notice how his every attempt to torture his people ends with the people in his created pseudo heaven to improve and grow in understanding of others though even if at first this is because of a perceived reward... Of course.

But it can be seen that after some time we do tend to see some titbits of genuine care for each other at least a little.

I'd be interested for the show to take a little peek into the characters back stories - though perhaps that would take away from the whole point of the show.

The show has many flashbacks which give the character's backstory bit by bit, and shows why they ended up where they did in the afterlife.

What made these people who they were to get to 'hell'?
.. .Will the experiment sort of prove a 'nurture' model for change?

I dunno lol... These are all just some fairly basic thoughts I guess lol

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by emeraldheart

Lol about the spiritual diapers comment!

I am up to episode 3?? of the latest season of this show so I am still waiting to see how the characters might (or might not) graduate out of their spiritual diapers.



Interesting how the demon who runs 'the good place' is named Micheal (I had assumed that it meant to indicate a connection to Angel Micheal) who yes, is ruling a small part of 'Hell' but who is also learning a lot about his own code of ethics and morals as he goes.

It is when Micheal begins to notice how his every attempt to torture his people ends with the people in his created pseudo heaven to improve and grow in understanding of others though even if at first this is because of a perceived reward... Of course.

But it can be seen that after some time we do tend to see some titbits of genuine care for each other at least a little.

I'd be interested for the show to take a little peek into the characters back stories - though perhaps that would take away from the whole point of the show.

What made these people who they were to get to 'hell'?
.. .Will the experiment sort of prove a 'nurture' model for change?

I dunno lol... These are all just some fairly basic thoughts I guess lol

Hey there EH :)

Projection...it's what we (humanity) do

I think this is saying that progress (in the sense of spiritual alignment) is inevitable at the end of a pitchfork, LOL...BUT in reality, we might say this is both true and false.

Change is inevitable to avoid getting pitched back into the soul soup pot...but it will only continue to approach alignement through conscious awareness and engagement.

Otherwise folks would just stop evolving beyond whatever minimal "enlightened self-interest" was required to get by and perhaps still get over on others as needed.
They could meander and regress and sidetrack alignment for infinity...

...and they will do, too, unless they realise that their own awareness and ownership is where it all starts spiritually -- even when it's equally all about interbeing and community for the "next steps" on the journey.

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

Shadenfreude

Hello Gem,
It's a great word innit, because it captures something of the not-so-nice, hard-core essence of humanity.

It may be this as much as equanimity and lovingkindness that propels humanity to eventual global forms of social justice.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Gem]

Originally Posted by blackraven

I was at a store yesterday and a elderly man was in front of me fumbling with his wallet as well as having general difficulty understanding the transaction. He seemed very confused. I looked down and noticed large bills of cash all around his feet. Instead of me touching his money I tapped him on his elbow and told him he had cash on the floor. He looked down and picked it up and thanked me.

Question is why did I tell him he had money on the floor? I suppose I've been around enough elderly people to know just how much they struggle. I felt sorry for him I suppose. I wanted to help him out. I didn't tell him for a reward. In fact I wouldn't have cared if he said 'thank you' or not. I simply put myself in his place with the hopes that someone would treat me the same. Just plain ole human compassion and care for ones fellow man/woman.

I was at the store, and the bill was something like 14.95. I had 14.90 in small bills and change, so I said to the storekeeper, I can give you 14.90, or a 50 dollar bill you'll have to change. The woman behind me overheard and said, I think have a 5 cent coin here, and after rummaging for it, gave it to me to make up the 14.95 in exact change. There was consideration there even though I was not in need at all. In that sense, no 'good' came of it, but is was still goodness.

[blackraven]

Originally Posted by Gem

I was at the store, and the bill was something like 14.95. I had 14.90 in small bills and change, so I said to the storekeeper, I can give you 14.90, or a 50 dollar bill you'll have to change. The woman behind me overheard and said, I think have a 5 cent coin here, and after rummaging for it, gave it to me to make up the 14.95 in exact change. There was consideration there even though I was not in need at all. In that sense, no 'good' came of it, but is was still goodness.

Humans at their finest!

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello Gem,
It's a great word innit, because it captures something of the not-so-nice, hard-core essence of humanity.

It may be this as much as equanimity and lovingkindness that propels humanity to eventual global forms of social justice.

Peace & blessings
7L

It is a great word. I had to look it up, and there is no English equivalent I know of. It describes how misfortune of others is somehow a pleasure, and it is funny to see 'fails', for example, or seeing a villain get their just deserts at the end of a movie is kinda nice.


The question in the show, "The Good Place", is largely one of desert. Do they deserve to be in the good place or the bad place, and by what justification? That is the 'hypothesis question, so to speak. The inquiry into that question is a complex one, as how bad or good is any deed? Can one realise the error of their ways and change? Or are there essentially bad people - bad seeds, as it were? And so on.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

It is a great word. I had to look it up, and there is no English equivalent I know of. It describes how misfortune of others is somehow a pleasure, and it is funny to see 'fails', for example, or seeing a villain get their just deserts at the end of a movie is kinda nice.

Hello there Gem.


'Tis. However, it's a gray line between the hard-corel clear-cut villain or conniver getting [their] comeuppance, and the bloodlust and pleasure the mob derives from the hordes of innocents getting the guillotine, or what have ye. And that indulgence of our inherent sadism and bloodlust is really one of the places our internal awareness must seek and come to know much more thoroughly.

The question in the show, "The Good Place", is largely one of desert. Do they deserve to be in the good place or the bad place, and by what justification? That is the 'hypothesis question, so to speak. The inquiry into that question is a complex one, as how bad or good is any deed? Can one realise the error of their ways and change? Or are there essentially bad people - bad seeds, as it were? And so on.

It is complex. I think our assessment is personal but also collective, and of course we have internalised (normally) most of this dialogue or awareness. So, the issue of how bad or how good is ultimately a meeting or engagement of truth and awareness, both personally and collectively. If we understand our lives have meaning and value as a truth, then if we take a life, our awareness of context and intent (self-defense versus murder) are mitigating factors that allow us to live with what would otherwise be an unjustifiable abrogation of that truth -- for ourselves, to ourselves...and also within our collective experience. This also reflects the reality and ultimate transparency of interbeing, which we are largely only beginning to come to know.


Peace & blessings
7L

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello there Gem.


'Tis. However, it's a gray line between the hard-corel clear-cut villain or conniver getting [their] comeuppance, and the bloodlust and pleasure the mob derives from the hordes of innocents getting the guillotine, or what have ye. And that indulgence of our inherent sadism and bloodlust is really one of the places our internal awareness must seek and come to know much more thoroughly.

It is complex. I think our assessment is personal but also collective, and of course we have internalised (normally) most of this dialogue or awareness. So, the issue of how bad or how good is ultimately a meeting or engagement of truth and awareness, both personally and collectively. If we understand our lives have meaning and value as a truth, then if we take a life, our awareness of context and intent (self-defense versus murder) are mitigating factors that allow us to live with what would otherwise be an unjustifiable abrogation of that truth -- for ourselves, to ourselves...and also within our collective experience. This also reflects the reality and ultimate transparency of interbeing, which we are largely only beginning to come to know.


Peace & blessings
7L

There are a couple of axioms to consider. Axiom 1: there is virtue concurrent with a universal goodness, and deviation from that sublimity is degenerate. Axiom 2: all people have an inherent instinct for Axiom 1. Axiom 3: A person is an entity with free will and therefore deserves comeuppance.


Whether the first 2 axioms are true of not, they pertain to universal law, and as such, are outside an individual's choice. The third axiom posits free will as the fundamental criteria of individualism, and because free will means individual choice, a human being has just desert with respect to the fixed axioms, 1 and 2. That is the basis of judgment.


The entire framework is, therefore, a person knows 'goodness' subjectively, is empowered to chose between good and evil, and is deserving of pleasure or displeasure respectively (indeed, these outcomes would be resultant of inevitable universals). However, being compelled to act by desire for pleasure along with aversion to displeasure is seen as unwholesome since such desire and aversion propagates the purely selfish view that all events are acting on me - and hence I react to experiences with either craving and hatred to lesser or greater degree. However, if the experience affecting me causes me to react - which is also the compulsion to act - that defies the third Axiom, free-will. By extension, if I act to effect pleasure/avoid pain, I re-enter causality, which defies free will. Therefore, what we call free will implies nothing about acting, which is cause and effect in action/reaction unification.


In kammic law, will or volition is the cause of the kammic cycle. Will in this sense isn't only the desire to act (effect) and/or be acted upon (affected), that is, to experience sensation, but is also the more sublime notion of 'good-will vs. ill-will'. The latter fundamentally assumes axioms 1 and 2, forming an objective basis for morality in universal law.



Kammic law, however, does not posit an individual with free will. There is no third axiom in this paradigm. The kammic individual, called the santana, does not have any substance of enduring quality or entity - no 'identity' which endures from moment to moment. No one is there to cause an effect nor to be be affected. This resolves the individual causal-free-will dilemma of the typical Western paradigm (albeit at the expense of free will), and therefore, all notions of desert. The kammic paradigm thus does not allow for judgement even though it does involve consequences of sensation.


I'll have to come back later to describe 'cause and effect' (consequence) in context with kamma, because the thought I had for now has ended.