The Banality of Evil OR the Evil of Banality

[djinn]

Would the game of awakening be the holy grail of game developers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_combat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
A difference in the two may be seen.
With a computer-drive game, an app,
Turing Tests could be supplied and applied.
If the player, the monk or nun, or wanna-be awakened so-called
individual, were to think of a machine as different than a guru then
a snag, burr or hang-up might arise.
In you and not-you, or you and the world, mode,
this potential problem does not occur.

Is that your game plan?

No. Not today.
I don't usually play in such a way.
You are you and others are others, normally.
I don't tend to lump all people, places and things together and reckon
with them as a singular not-me, world.
It is as likely for me to think I am the world,
and that you are not other than me.
And that we are both as hands, eyes,
ears and mouths of the world while being being in it.
My game plan tends to have many levels and layers and lines upon lines
to read between and among, when reading in to and out of it while
playing.

I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of evil
in this world.
Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
banality of evil. http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The
Then I found the criticism of the idea,
that can be called, tongue in cheek,
the evil of banality.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
the_evil_of_banality.single.html
This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism, corruption,
etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to think about
starting on the game, in the first place.
I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of callous
people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.

Evil strikes me as a particularly Manichean concept and not one much
entertained by Buddhism. If a behaviour can be characaterised as
callous, does it say any more to go on and call it evil as well? Do you
have a guiding definition of evil? A game would need one.
Whatever that makes people suffer.

just their voluntary viewpoints.
want to stop suffering? just change
how you view things.

one man grieves a flood and yet another
man's garden down stream was nourished
by the very same flood.

[Sanford M. Manley]

Even a prostitute might be
doing better than me already!;)

A whore with flatulence is a prostitoot.

[djinn]

Even a prostitute might be
doing better than me already!;)
A whore with flatulence is a prostitoot.

and a whore with a runny nose is full.

[djinn]

Post by djinn

Would the game of awakening be the holy grail of game developers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_combat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
A difference in the two may be seen.
With a computer-drive game, an app,
Turing Tests could be supplied and applied.
If the player, the monk or nun, or wanna-be awakened so-called
individual, were to think of a machine as different than a guru
then a snag, burr or hang-up might arise.
In you and not-you, or you and the world, mode,
this potential problem does not occur.

Is that your game plan?

No. Not today.
I don't usually play in such a way.
You are you and others are others, normally.
I don't tend to lump all people, places and things together and
reckon with them as a singular not-me, world.
It is as likely for me to think I am the world,
and that you are not other than me.
And that we are both as hands, eyes,
ears and mouths of the world while being being in it.
My game plan tends to have many levels and layers and lines upon
lines to read between and among, when reading in to and out of it
while playing.

I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of evil
in this world.
Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
banality of evil. http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The
Then I found the criticism of the idea,
that can be called, tongue in cheek,
the evil of banality.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
the_evil_of_banality.single.html
This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism, corruption,
etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to think about
starting on the game, in the first place.
I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of callous
people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.

Evil strikes me as a particularly Manichean concept and not one much
entertained by Buddhism. If a behaviour can be characaterised as
callous, does it say any more to go on and call it evil as well? Do you
have a guiding definition of evil? A game would need one.
Whatever that makes people suffer.

just their voluntary viewpoints.
want to stop suffering? just change how you view things.
one man grieves a flood and yet another man's garden down stream was
nourished by the very same flood.

Case by case, always.
If I suffer a little less
while writing the game,
that would be good enough for me.
But I would like at least one other person
to suffer less by playing the game.
Even a prostitute might be
doing better than me already! ;)

```````````````````````````````````````

one's story has an infinite potential for misery.
instead of attempting to facilitate the endless
possibilities, it is much easier to just relinquish
identification with the story.

[liaM]

Post by djinn

Post by djinn

Would the game of awakening be the holy grail of game developers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_combat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
A difference in the two may be seen.
With a computer-drive game, an app,
Turing Tests could be supplied and applied.
If the player, the monk or nun, or wanna-be awakened so-called
individual, were to think of a machine as different than a guru
then a snag, burr or hang-up might arise.
In you and not-you, or you and the world, mode,
this potential problem does not occur.

Is that your game plan?

No. Not today.
I don't usually play in such a way.
You are you and others are others, normally.
I don't tend to lump all people, places and things together and
reckon with them as a singular not-me, world.
It is as likely for me to think I am the world,
and that you are not other than me.
And that we are both as hands, eyes,
ears and mouths of the world while being being in it.
My game plan tends to have many levels and layers and lines upon
lines to read between and among, when reading in to and out of it
while playing.

I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of evil
in this world.
Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
banality of evil. http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The
Then I found the criticism of the idea,
that can be called, tongue in cheek,
the evil of banality.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
the_evil_of_banality.single.html
This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism, corruption,
etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to think about
starting on the game, in the first place.
I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of callous
people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.

Evil strikes me as a particularly Manichean concept and not one much
entertained by Buddhism. If a behaviour can be characaterised as
callous, does it say any more to go on and call it evil as well? Do
you have a guiding definition of evil? A game would need one.
Whatever that makes people suffer.

just their voluntary viewpoints.
want to stop suffering? just change how you view things.
one man grieves a flood and yet another man's garden down stream was
nourished by the very same flood.

Case by case, always.
If I suffer a little less while writing the game,
that would be good enough for me.
But I would like at least one other person to suffer less by playing the
game.
Even a prostitute might be doing better than me already! ;)
```````````````````````````````````````
one's story has an infinite potential for misery.
instead of attempting to facilitate the endless possibilities, it is
much easier to just relinquish identification with the story.

There are many ways to tell the story.
Not saying anything would be one way.
But for whose benefit?
Why did the Buddha open his big mouth?

Haven't you noticed ?
It takes two to tango

No need to conjure benefits..
take heed you nutcase

[liaM]

Post by liaM

Post by djinn

Post by djinn

Would the game of awakening be the holy grail of game developers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_combat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
A difference in the two may be seen.
With a computer-drive game, an app,
Turing Tests could be supplied and applied.
If the player, the monk or nun, or wanna-be awakened so-called
individual, were to think of a machine as different than a guru
then a snag, burr or hang-up might arise.
In you and not-you, or you and the world, mode,
this potential problem does not occur.

Is that your game plan?

No. Not today.
I don't usually play in such a way.
You are you and others are others, normally.
I don't tend to lump all people, places and things together and
reckon with them as a singular not-me, world.
It is as likely for me to think I am the world,
and that you are not other than me.
And that we are both as hands, eyes,
ears and mouths of the world while being being in it.
My game plan tends to have many levels and layers and lines upon
lines to read between and among, when reading in to and out of it
while playing.

I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of
evil in this world.
Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
banality of evil. http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The
Then I found the criticism of the idea,
that can be called, tongue in cheek,
the evil of banality.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
the_evil_of_banality.single.html
This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism, corruption,
etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to think
about starting on the game, in the first place.
I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of
callous people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.

Evil strikes me as a particularly Manichean concept and not one much
entertained by Buddhism. If a behaviour can be characaterised as
callous, does it say any more to go on and call it evil as well? Do
you have a guiding definition of evil? A game would need one.
Whatever that makes people suffer.

just their voluntary viewpoints.
want to stop suffering? just change how you view things.
one man grieves a flood and yet another man's garden down stream was
nourished by the very same flood.

Case by case, always.
If I suffer a little less while writing the game,
that would be good enough for me.
But I would like at least one other person to suffer less by playing
the game.
Even a prostitute might be doing better than me already! ;)
```````````````````````````````````````
one's story has an infinite potential for misery.
instead of attempting to facilitate the endless possibilities, it is
much easier to just relinquish identification with the story.

There are many ways to tell the story.
Not saying anything would be one way. But for whose benefit?
Why did the Buddha open his big mouth?

Haven't you noticed ?
It takes two to tango
No need to conjure benefits.. take heed you nutcase

Never wrote a diary for the benefit of others?

"
Are you unaware how often "doing good" produces the exact opposite?
Instead, think of not doing. "Doing" means getting stuck.
"Not doing" allows movement. In movement, the agility is there to avoid
bad karmas. The converse, alas, stalled, stalling, stuck on "doing
good" attracts to itself more of the same, stultifying, mind numbing
karmas that agglutinate social phenomena such a bible belt thumpers,
the Tea Party, etc. A mind focused on "doing good" is a mind wearing
blinders.

[liaM]

Post by liaM

Post by liaM

Post by djinn

Post by djinn

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 01:14:30 -0000 (UTC), oxtail

Would the game of awakening be the holy grail of game
developers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_combat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
A difference in the two may be seen.
With a computer-drive game, an app,
Turing Tests could be supplied and applied.
If the player, the monk or nun, or wanna-be awakened so-called
individual, were to think of a machine as different than a
guru then a snag, burr or hang-up might arise.
In you and not-you, or you and the world, mode,
this potential problem does not occur.

Is that your game plan?

No. Not today.
I don't usually play in such a way.
You are you and others are others, normally.
I don't tend to lump all people, places and things together and
reckon with them as a singular not-me, world.
It is as likely for me to think I am the world,
and that you are not other than me.
And that we are both as hands, eyes,
ears and mouths of the world while being being in it.
My game plan tends to have many levels and layers and lines upon
lines to read between and among, when reading in to and out of
it while playing.

I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of
evil in this world.
Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
banality of evil.
http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The
Then I found the criticism of the idea,
that can be called, tongue in cheek,
the evil of banality.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
the_evil_of_banality.single.html
This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism, corruption,
etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to think
about starting on the game, in the first place.
I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of
callous people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.

Evil strikes me as a particularly Manichean concept and not one
much entertained by Buddhism. If a behaviour can be characaterised
as callous, does it say any more to go on and call it evil as
well? Do you have a guiding definition of evil? A game would need
one.
Whatever that makes people suffer.

just their voluntary viewpoints.
want to stop suffering? just change how you view things.
one man grieves a flood and yet another man's garden down stream
was nourished by the very same flood.

Case by case, always.
If I suffer a little less while writing the game,
that would be good enough for me.
But I would like at least one other person to suffer less by playing
the game.
Even a prostitute might be doing better than me already! ;)
```````````````````````````````````````
one's story has an infinite potential for misery.
instead of attempting to facilitate the endless possibilities, it is
much easier to just relinquish identification with the story.

There are many ways to tell the story.
Not saying anything would be one way. But for whose benefit?
Why did the Buddha open his big mouth?

Haven't you noticed ?
It takes two to tango
No need to conjure benefits.. take heed you nutcase

Never wrote a diary for the benefit of others?

"
Are you unaware how often "doing good" produces the exact opposite?
Instead, think of not doing. "Doing" means getting stuck.
"Not doing" allows movement. In movement, the agility is there to avoid
bad karmas. The converse, alas, stalled, stalling, stuck on "doing
good" attracts to itself more of the same, stultifying, mind numbing
karmas that agglutinate social phenomena such a bible belt thumpers, the
Tea Party, etc. A mind focused on "doing good" is a mind wearing
blinders.

Regret having children?

Regret is a negative mental state. What's going on, Oxtail? Where's
your buddhism?

[noname]

Post by liaM

Post by liaM

Post by liaM

Post by djinn

Post by djinn

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 01:14:30 -0000 (UTC), oxtail

Would the game of awakening be the holy grail of game
developers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_combat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
A difference in the two may be seen.
With a computer-drive game, an app,
Turing Tests could be supplied and applied.
If the player, the monk or nun, or wanna-be awakened
so-called individual, were to think of a machine as
different than a guru then a snag, burr or hang-up might
arise.
In you and not-you, or you and the world, mode,
this potential problem does not occur.

Is that your game plan?

No. Not today.
I don't usually play in such a way.
You are you and others are others, normally.
I don't tend to lump all people, places and things together
and reckon with them as a singular not-me, world.
It is as likely for me to think I am the world,
and that you are not other than me.
And that we are both as hands, eyes,
ears and mouths of the world while being being in it.
My game plan tends to have many levels and layers and lines
upon lines to read between and among, when reading in to and
out of it while playing.

I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the
issue of evil in this world.
Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of
the banality of evil.
http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The
Then I found the criticism of the idea,
that can be called, tongue in cheek,
the evil of banality.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
the_evil_of_banality.single.html
This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism, corruption,
etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to
think about starting on the game, in the first place.
I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives
of callous people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical
schemers.

Evil strikes me as a particularly Manichean concept and not
one much entertained by Buddhism. If a behaviour can be
characaterised as callous, does it say any more to go on and
call it evil as well? Do you have a guiding definition of
evil? A game would need one.
Whatever that makes people suffer.

just their voluntary viewpoints.
want to stop suffering? just change how you view things.
one man grieves a flood and yet another man's garden down
stream was nourished by the very same flood.

Case by case, always.
If I suffer a little less while writing the game,
that would be good enough for me.
But I would like at least one other person to suffer less by
playing the game.
Even a prostitute might be doing better than me already! ;)
```````````````````````````````````````
one's story has an infinite potential for misery.
instead of attempting to facilitate the endless possibilities,
it is much easier to just relinquish identification with the
story.

There are many ways to tell the story.
Not saying anything would be one way. But for whose benefit?
Why did the Buddha open his big mouth?

Haven't you noticed ?
It takes two to tango
No need to conjure benefits.. take heed you nutcase

Never wrote a diary for the benefit of others?

"
Are you unaware how often "doing good" produces the exact opposite?
Instead, think of not doing. "Doing" means getting stuck.
"Not doing" allows movement. In movement, the agility is there to avoid
bad karmas. The converse, alas, stalled, stalling, stuck on "doing
good" attracts to itself more of the same, stultifying, mind numbing
karmas that agglutinate social phenomena such a bible belt thumpers,
the Tea Party, etc. A mind focused on "doing good" is a mind wearing
blinders.

Regret having children?

Regret is a negative mental state. What's going on, Oxtail? Where's
your buddhism?

He's been captured by an idea. He's going to write a game that will
enlighten the world. He'll get over it after a while, but until then
he's owned by the belief that he must do good for others, whether anyone
wants it done or not. The idea that you can show others the Way, when
they cannot find it from the clues that constantly surround them, is a
strong one, it captures with the touch of a spider's web, and breaking
it requires that one become what he cannot teach others to be; it's an
opportunity, don't take it away from him, you'll just end up getting it
all over yourself. imo.

[{:-])))]

Post by noname
He's been captured by an idea.

Which is better than being possessed
by an idea that possesses one.

In his game,
perhaps there is an avatar,
able to free those who choose to be.

Who are called to be chosen
by the game within the game who
have been captured
by an idea.

The player playing is able to see
others in the game who are playing
and who are not the player
obviously and yet are
only real within
the game.

Turing is one of those
who chose to test the players
to see if they could see who is real
and who is thought to be
all in the game.

Ideas, in the game, have minds
of their own and are programmed
to capture those and one knows
who they are and which are
an illusion produced within
the game within games.

[liaM]

For example, they probably cannot choose to "kill them all"
simply because that option is not present.

Then it will surely not be a game worth playing.

When using the "kill them all" option a remnant always remains.
What if the player, the end-user, although choosing to show his wrath
and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his
wrath prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches
of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in
advance for glory ...

I do think that power over others shifts what might otherwise just be
social transgression into the realm of evil. Not just political power,
but the power of the adult over the child, or the priest over the
congregant.

This doctrine of the banality of evil is concerned about
the evil that is clearly so bad as to be universally condemnable.
But its validity is being questioned and I tend to agree that
the pure evil concerned cannot be caused by mere banality.
I'm more interested in the mundane or incipient evil
easily caused by the banality like indifference, callousness, etc.
It might not cause genocide but it would drag everyone
down to the level of its perpetrators' misery,
unless we are fully aware of the danger.
IMHO it is an integral part of being awakened.
Have you seen a life ruined by the mere banality?
Either one's own or that of others?

Here again I wonder about you, Oxtail, seemingly so
ignorant of the buddhist canon concerning evil.
And you say you are serious about buddhism.

[Sanford M. Manley]

Post by liaM
Here again I wonder about you, Oxtail, seemingly so
ignorant of the buddhist canon concerning evil.
And you say you are serious about buddhism.

You gotta be careful of that Buddhist cannon.
When it fires you could get hurt.

[Sanford M. Manley]

You just think you think clearly,
but Chan/Seon/Zen is much bigger than you think.
You cannot decide things without understanding them.
I will be ignoring you until you start with exposition
of what you think I'm doing here.

Wrong again Zippy! Trying to understand is the first mistake
in the process of understanding!

[Nobody in Particular]

For example, they probably cannot choose to "kill them all"
simply because that option is not present.

Then it will surely not be a game worth playing.

When using the "kill them all" option a remnant always remains.
What if the player, the end-user, although choosing to show his wrath
and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his
wrath prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the
riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he
prepared in advance for glory ...

I do think that power over others shifts what might otherwise just be
social transgression into the realm of evil. Not just political power,
but the power of the adult over the child, or the priest over the
congregant.

This doctrine of the banality of evil is concerned about the evil that
is clearly so bad as to be universally condemnable. But its validity is
being questioned and I tend to agree that the pure evil concerned
cannot be caused by mere banality.
I'm more interested in the mundane or incipient evil easily caused by
the banality like indifference, callousness, etc.
It might not cause genocide but it would drag everyone down to the
level of its perpetrators' misery,
unless we are fully aware of the danger.
IMHO it is an integral part of being awakened.
Have you seen a life ruined by the mere banality?
Either one's own or that of others?

Here again I wonder about you, Oxtail, seemingly so ignorant of the
buddhist canon concerning evil. And you say you are serious about
buddhism.

You just think you think clearly,
but Chan/Seon/Zen is much bigger than you think.
You cannot decide things without understanding them.
I will be ignoring you until you start with exposition
of what you think I'm doing here.

It's very clear what you're doing here.
You crave getting worshiped as the Great Buddhist Sage, and have no time
for those who do not cater to that craving.

[Julian]

Post by liaM

For example, they probably cannot choose to "kill them all"
simply because that option is not present.

Then it will surely not be a game worth playing.

When using the "kill them all" option a remnant always remains.
What if the player, the end-user, although choosing to show his wrath
and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his
wrath prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches
of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in
advance for glory ...

I do think that power over others shifts what might otherwise just be
social transgression into the realm of evil. Not just political power,
but the power of the adult over the child, or the priest over the
congregant.

This doctrine of the banality of evil is concerned about
the evil that is clearly so bad as to be universally condemnable.
But its validity is being questioned and I tend to agree that
the pure evil concerned cannot be caused by mere banality.
I'm more interested in the mundane or incipient evil
easily caused by the banality like indifference, callousness, etc.
It might not cause genocide but it would drag everyone
down to the level of its perpetrators' misery,
unless we are fully aware of the danger.
IMHO it is an integral part of being awakened.
Have you seen a life ruined by the mere banality?
Either one's own or that of others?

Here again I wonder about you, Oxtail, seemingly so
ignorant of the buddhist canon concerning evil.
And you say you are serious about buddhism.

Serious about destroying it with his rotten morality.
He's always sounded, to me, like the worst sort
of pontificating god squad. He probably, at this moment,
waiting outside an abortion clinic with a gun. If not
you'll find him loitering, with bad intent, outside
some school gates with a bag of candy.

[liaM]

For example, they probably cannot choose to "kill them all"
simply because that option is not present.

Then it will surely not be a game worth playing.

When using the "kill them all" option a remnant always remains.
What if the player, the end-user, although choosing to show his wrath
and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his
wrath prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the
riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he
prepared in advance for glory ...

I do think that power over others shifts what might otherwise just be
social transgression into the realm of evil. Not just political power,
but the power of the adult over the child, or the priest over the
congregant.

This doctrine of the banality of evil is concerned about the evil that
is clearly so bad as to be universally condemnable. But its validity is
being questioned and I tend to agree that the pure evil concerned
cannot be caused by mere banality.
I'm more interested in the mundane or incipient evil easily caused by
the banality like indifference, callousness, etc.
It might not cause genocide but it would drag everyone down to the
level of its perpetrators' misery,
unless we are fully aware of the danger.
IMHO it is an integral part of being awakened.
Have you seen a life ruined by the mere banality?
Either one's own or that of others?

Here again I wonder about you, Oxtail, seemingly so ignorant of the
buddhist canon concerning evil. And you say you are serious about
buddhism.

You just think you think clearly,
but Chan/Seon/Zen is much bigger than you think.
You cannot decide things without understanding them.
I will be ignoring you until you start with exposition
of what you think I'm doing here.

An interesting challenge, as presently I have only suppositions
concerning your intentions here. I'll be watching. (My bet is
you will depart this newsgroup within 3-4 weeks, as presently
absfg or alt.zen is bereft of the type of correspondents you liked to
chew on in the past.)

A+

[oxtail]

Post by noname
He's been captured by an idea. He's going to write a game that will
enlighten the world. He'll get over it after a while, but until then
he's owned by the belief that he must do good for others, whether anyone
wants it done or not. The idea that you can show others the Way, when
they cannot find it from the clues that constantly surround them, is a
strong one, it captures with the touch of a spider's web, and breaking
it requires that one become what he cannot teach others to be; it's an
opportunity, don't take it away from him, you'll just end up getting it
all over yourself. imo.

Just another way of "doing nothing",
that is, of practicing just another way of
living in the way of the awakened.

Have you heard of Ren'Py?
http://www.renpy.org/

[djinn]

Post by djinn

Post by djinn

Would the game of awakening be the holy grail of game
developers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_combat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
A difference in the two may be seen.
With a computer-drive game, an app,
Turing Tests could be supplied and applied.
If the player, the monk or nun, or wanna-be awakened so-called
individual, were to think of a machine as different than a guru
then a snag, burr or hang-up might arise.
In you and not-you, or you and the world, mode,
this potential problem does not occur.

Is that your game plan?

No. Not today.
I don't usually play in such a way.
You are you and others are others, normally.
I don't tend to lump all people, places and things together and
reckon with them as a singular not-me, world.
It is as likely for me to think I am the world,
and that you are not other than me.
And that we are both as hands, eyes,
ears and mouths of the world while being being in it.
My game plan tends to have many levels and layers and lines upon
lines to read between and among, when reading in to and out of it
while playing.

I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of evil
in this world.
Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
banality of evil. http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The
Then I found the criticism of the idea,
that can be called, tongue in cheek,
the evil of banality.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
the_evil_of_banality.single.html
This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism,
corruption,
etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to think about
starting on the game, in the first place.
I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of callous
people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.

Evil strikes me as a particularly Manichean concept and not one much
entertained by Buddhism. If a behaviour can be characaterised as
callous, does it say any more to go on and call it evil as well? Do
you have a guiding definition of evil? A game would need one.
Whatever that makes people suffer.

just their voluntary viewpoints.
want to stop suffering? just change how you view things.
one man grieves a flood and yet another man's garden down stream was
nourished by the very same flood.

Case by case, always.
If I suffer a little less while writing the game,
that would be good enough for me.
But I would like at least one other person to suffer less by playing the
game.
Even a prostitute might be doing better than me already! ;)
```````````````````````````````````````
one's story has an infinite potential for misery.
instead of attempting to facilitate the endless possibilities, it is
much easier to just relinquish identification with the story.

There are many ways to tell the story.
Not saying anything would be one way.
But for whose benefit?
Why did the Buddha open his big mouth?

``````````````````

initially, with an awakening experience,
one wants to share with everyone their big
discovery, but oftentimes, one finds that words
cannot convey what one has found.

[Wilson]

If it does not pain you,
you are off the hook.
I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
Talking about "doing nothing" might be
a good game for some of them.

Do events cause suffering?

[noname]

Post by Wilson

If it does not pain you,
you are off the hook.
I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
Talking about "doing nothing" might be
a good game for some of them.

Do events cause suffering?

No, they just manifest it; the cause is elsewhere.

[liaM]

Post by Wilson
Do events cause suffering?

Try reading some buddhism... !

[{:-])))]

Post by liaM

Post by Wilson
Do events cause suffering?

Try reading some buddhism... !

With Buddhism, desire is suffering?

If so, then it may be asked,
what is the cause of desire?

To do away with suffering,
one might do away with desire.

Problem solved.

To get rid of causes
one could use another paradigm.

Seeing as how there is not-two,
no cause leading to an effect,
one may realize how events are.

When touching a hot stove, eventually,
one's finger may begin to burn
as the event unfolds.

It might be thought, and said, the stove
is what causes the burn, or the touch,
or someone who induced one to
touch the stove previously
was the cause.

As long as one continues to touch
the hot stove with one's finger
heat might be said to cause
what is felt as suffering.

Another paradigm may suggest
how the touching and the stove and
the heat and everything else involved
are not involved in causality at all.

There are not separate things.
There is only the one who suffers.
It was not caused. It simply was.

And is, as long as one touches
and continues to touch
a hot stove.

Now then, when
one removes one's finger and
suffering continues as the burn burns,
perhaps one has learned something.

- in the process

[{:-])))]

Post by Wilson
Do events cause suffering?

Thinking about events may induce suffering.

A causal factor might be said to be
that without which a thing is not the thing.

Suppose a fire destroys a home,
with all of one's sentimental priceless items
and one suffers as what is called
the result of the fire.

It can be asked if the fire caused suffering.

And it may be answered, if there was no fire
then there would not have been the suffering.

One might ask of all the other factors,
which, when multiplied, produced suffering.

If one was never born,
if one did not have the home,
nor the items in the home, then
each could be cited as being a cause.

Indefinite articles might make all of the
difference between a and an
in terms of causality.

[oxtail]

Post by Wilson

If it does not pain you,
you are off the hook.
I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
Talking about "doing nothing" might be a good game for some of them.

Do events cause suffering?

If you let them.

Yes oxtail, I know that approach, but it does not work. Nobody can
become an impenetrable fortress against suffering, in order to become
such a thing one must desire it very strongly, which is a Catch-22.
You cannot avoid suffering by pretending, by "not letting" events bring
suffering.
You avoid suffering by not reaching out for it in the first place,
through your own desire, desire that cannot exist without the suffering
made possible by its non-fulfillment.
Some people plan their lives, they expect things to go this way or that,
and when things go otherwise they suffer disappointment. The awakened
are sometimes surprised but never disappointed.

Case by case, always.
I was talking about a way for him to follow.
My way would be more like
learning to enjoy suffering as it is.
Yours might be similar,
but I'm not as dogmatic as you are,
even for the way to think about the issue.
Be like water, if you can.

[oxtail]

Post by djinn

Post by Wilson
Do events cause suffering?

If you let them.

Do you think everyone has an option?
If one's child dies, is it so simple as to simply not let the grief
and loss affect one's emotions?
Ways are ways, says TTC 1.1 and yet, ... ... ... .

Case by case, always.
I usually seem to have many options.
If not, there might be nothing much to think about.

Thinking, I might like to think, causes small amounts of chemicals to be
released between nerve cells in the brain.
Some of these chemicals cause the brain to be happy.
Thinking happy thoughts causes chemicals to be released, synaptically,
as electricity leaps between neurons.
Electricity causes happy thoughts to dance among neurons causing them to
be happy as happy thoughts are thought.

Embrace the moment.
Don't just think about it;
but just do it.
That is, be happy,
without the need to think about it.
Good luck.

[Wilson]

Post by Wilson

If it does not pain you,
you are off the hook.
I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
Talking about "doing nothing" might be a good game for some of them.

Do events cause suffering?

If you let them.

Ah, so it *is* personal choice that causes suffering, not events.

Good.

So if you follow that out, there is nothing to change outside of yourself.

Take that and run with it.

[Wilson]

Post by Wilson

Post by Wilson

If it does not pain you,
you are off the hook.
I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
Talking about "doing nothing" might be a good game for some of them.

Do events cause suffering?

If you let them.

Ah, so it *is* personal choice that causes suffering, not events.
Good.
So if you follow that out, there is nothing to change outside of yourself.
Take that and run with it.

Either or?
What happened to "neither nor",
not to mention the level of emptiness?

Whoa! Are we categorizing levels of emptiness now? Why didn't no one
tell me?

[djinn]

Post by Wilson

Post by Wilson

Post by Wilson

If it does not pain you,
you are off the hook.
I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
Talking about "doing nothing" might be a good game for some of
them.

Do events cause suffering?

If you let them.

Ah, so it *is* personal choice that causes suffering, not events.
Good.
So if you follow that out, there is nothing to change outside of
yourself.
Take that and run with it.

Either or?
What happened to "neither nor",
not to mention the level of emptiness?

Whoa! Are we categorizing levels of emptiness now? Why didn't no one
tell me?
There are no levels of emptiness;
probably just levels of understanding of emptiness.

understanding emptiness may
just prevent you from being it

[Sanford M. Manley]

Post by Wilson
Whoa! Are we categorizing levels of emptiness now? Why didn't no one
tell me?

Very simple Grasshopper...

There is emptiness... then there is MORE empty than emptiness.
In other words, IT SUCKS.

[Wilson]

Post by Sanford M. Manley

Post by Wilson
Whoa! Are we categorizing levels of emptiness now? Why didn't no one
tell me?

Very simple Grasshopper...
There is emptiness... then there is MORE empty than emptiness.
In other words, IT SUCKS.

You're emptier than I am.

There.

Take that.

[Sanford M. Manley]

Post by Wilson

Post by Sanford M. Manley

Post by Wilson
Whoa! Are we categorizing levels of emptiness now? Why didn't no one
tell me?

Very simple Grasshopper...
There is emptiness... then there is MORE empty than emptiness.
In other words, IT SUCKS.

You're emptier than I am.
There.
Take that.

Now now...I don't suck unless you pay.

[{:-])))]

Post by Wilson

Post by Sanford M. Manley

Post by Wilson
Whoa! Are we categorizing levels of emptiness now?
Why didn't no one tell me?

Very simple Grasshopper...
There is emptiness... then there is MORE empty than emptiness.
In other words, IT SUCKS.

You're emptier than I am.
There.
Take that.

Empty words on an empty screen.

An empty screen appears
out of and on an even emptier one
that was before it appeared to be
in front of one's gaze as one grazes
the surfaces of emptiness.

A boat floats on an empty ocean
while within the sea fish swim at ease
through its emptiness without a notion.

Air is empty to birds in flight.
Tao are empty for those with sight
to see things in different ways.

[oxtail]

I prefer to give at least three options.
But, though unrealistic to implement in a game,
we usually have many more options;
according to the Buddhist logic,
Either, or, neither, nor,
either or neither, not either nor neither,
non of the above.

And, prehaps,
when not thinking where does suffering go?
If the game offerred a distraction and one were to become aware of how
being distracted is linked to how one happens to suffer how would that
help how suffering is now gone for now and then.

Time heals everything.
Our body heals itself.
Embrace your suffering;
and doze on it when bored.

[Kitty P]

I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of evil
in this world.
Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
banality of evil. http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The

Can you sum it up in a sentence?
The link didn't work for me.

Just Google for it.

Then I found the criticism of the idea,
that can be called, tongue in cheek,
the evil of banality.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
the_evil_of_banality.single.html

What did you get out of it?
I didn't read the article.

Just read the last paragraph.

People are a strange species of animal.
They think and act in most interesting ways.
As individuals and as groups, tribes, nations, etc.

Good point.
"Moral Man, Immoral Society".

This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism, corruption,
etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to think about
starting on the game, in the first place.
I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of callous
people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.

Since there appears to me to be little to do about practically all of
the problems I find in terms of getting terribly involved in what I see
as being terrible, I am mostly unconcerned at large in terms of
active-action.
No matter how much I reflect and callous I tend to be in doing nothing.
Too much reality pains me.
And there's all too much of it going on in reality.
Also, I'm lazy.
Looking for what's wrong on Earth,
I can find plenty of trouble. And so I ask myself, why would I want to
look for trouble?
Trying to fix the world breaks the world.

If it does not pain you,
you are off the hook.
I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
Talking about "doing nothing" might be
a good game for some of them.

Treating reality as sacred, as being not-10k-things, not-two,
technically,
affords me a great luxury to marvel at what others see as evil and good.
There is m'ore than enuf two go round.

What "two"? ;)
Does it pain you even not to think about them?
---------------

I read this whole thread and think that your game is a delightful idea. It
has already sparked no end of insights for some (or should if they looked
closely at what they wrote) just talking about it.
The creative process does that when it's successful.

This probably won't help - but it's about creating. I created a game (in
this case a board game) for one of my graduate final thesis projects, to
explain a complex process that needed an easier way to teach how to
incorporate creative subjectivity and objective concepts. It was a lot of
fun and easy to defend since I just had the committee play the game. It's a
perfect way to get concepts across - and nudging the creative side of the
brain is probably something people who are rigid in their Buddhist
practices could use.

Since I feel that evil is just a concept name we put on things we don't
understand, I think your game would be something useful for me to question
my own concepts.

[Kitty P]

Post by Kitty P

I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of
evil in this world.
Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
banality of evil. http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The

Can you sum it up in a sentence?
The link didn't work for me.

Just Google for it.

Then I found the criticism of the idea,
that can be called, tongue in cheek,
the evil of banality.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
the_evil_of_banality.single.html

What did you get out of it?
I didn't read the article.

Just read the last paragraph.

People are a strange species of animal.
They think and act in most interesting ways.
As individuals and as groups, tribes, nations, etc.

Good point.
"Moral Man, Immoral Society".

This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism,
corruption, etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to
think about starting on the game, in the first place.
I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of
callous people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.

Since there appears to me to be little to do about practically all of
the problems I find in terms of getting terribly involved in what I
see as being terrible, I am mostly unconcerned at large in terms of
active-action.
No matter how much I reflect and callous I tend to be in doing
nothing.
Too much reality pains me.
And there's all too much of it going on in reality.
Also, I'm lazy.
Looking for what's wrong on Earth,
I can find plenty of trouble. And so I ask myself, why would I want
to look for trouble?
Trying to fix the world breaks the world.

If it does not pain you,
you are off the hook.
I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
Talking about "doing nothing" might be a good game for some of them.

Treating reality as sacred, as being not-10k-things, not-two,
technically,
affords me a great luxury to marvel at what others see as evil and
good.
There is m'ore than enuf two go round.

What "two"? ;)
Does it pain you even not to think about them?
---------------
I read this whole thread and think that your game is a delightful
idea. It has already sparked no end of insights for some (or should if
they looked closely at what they wrote) just talking about it.
The creative process does that when it's successful.
This probably won't help - but it's about creating. I created a game
(in this case a board game) for one of my graduate final thesis
projects, to explain a complex process that needed an easier way to
teach how to incorporate creative subjectivity and objective
concepts. It was a lot of fun and easy to defend since I just had the
committee play the game. It's a perfect way to get concepts across -
and nudging the creative side of the brain is probably something
people who are rigid in their Buddhist practices could use.
Since I feel that evil is just a concept name we put on things we
don't understand, I think your game would be something useful for me
to question my own concepts.

Thanks.
There are so many ways I can follow.
The easiest way would be to hang the whole game on a sensational crime
story.
But knowing myself, I would go on and on,
with inept generalizations as valid choices,
until most players get bored enough to give up.

"To Arendt’s mind, Eichmann willingly did his part to organize the
Holocaust — and an instrumental part it was — out of neither anti-
semitism nor pure malice, but out of a non-ideological, entirely more
prosaic combination of careerism and obedience."
http://www.openculture.com/2013/01/

hannah_arendts_original_articles_on_the_banality_of_evil_in_the_inew_yorkeri_archive.html

"Banality refers to Eichmann as a character: his way of speaking, his
use of clichés and stock phrases applicable to any situation and
supported by the Amtsprache (officialese), which he still admitted in
1961 was the only language he knew. Secondly, his motives were also
banal: ordinary, trite and intrinsically non-criminal. That is, he was
ready to do anything to advance in the Nazi bureaucratic grades."
http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The

I'm most interested in the mechanisms of self-rationalization most
decent people use to cover up their banality.
I believe the Buddha knew all about them.

If the Buddha didn't know all about them there was some amazing shit
going on, because the mechanisms are simple and obvious and it's all
about desire.
The motor that drives banal evil is the faulty belief that material
reality is all there is.
Every part of banal evil derives from that belief, because given that
belief, humankind lives in a box of fixed size and the rats must combat
one another for the limited supply of food, more viciously as population
increases, more subtly as technology increases. Sufficiently starved
rats will do anything for food, and sufficiently oppressed humans will
follow any orders, no matter how insane, if they promise survival and
hint at surplus.
Nobody reading this has ever spent two instants in the same universe.
Every choice we make steers us through the multiverse and lands us in
the universe we have chosen, the "next" universe, the universe of the
next instant.
If our choices are driven by the desire to be upwardly mobile and
succeed in the eyes of those in power over us, the next universe may be
one that includes being the guest of honor at a war-crimes trial.
If, instead of doing the accepted expedient thing to remain on the fast
path to power and more food, we do what is right, the next universe may
be one in which the war for power has been lost and we are freed from
the death box.
The multiverse is not fixed, it is self-inventing. Right-action invents
right universes, and the converse remains as an exercise for the
student.
It is as though some God decreed, "do right, or eat shit and die", and
made that a basic law of the universe.
People choose, it's easy; choose, people.
I think evil is about desire as well - but also sometimes about
neurological issues in the brain. For instance, someone without
conscience is described in psychological terms, but it's probably just a
difference in brain function. In those cases, I would be fascinated to
see if something like a game could be effective in changing those
patterns or help in some way develop a new function not unlike some of
the new technologies that most likely are developing new neuron paths
around ones that are self or outwardly destructive.
I like the idea of a crime for a game though. But since I don't think
evil exists in a vacuum I would have a structure that I don't think is
where you (oxtail) are going. If I did it, there could be a crime for
each different kinds of evil to not get bogged down with trying to
investigate a wide variety of things in one story. If trying to
communicate with folks who grew up in a Judeo-Christian heritage, one
crime for each of the 7 deadly sins might make an interesting structure
that would be flexible enough to have questions that are more like
koans. (pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth with the
definition of failing to act when one should)
But Banality is my middle name sometimes heh Kitty

What is clear is that
I'm not going for a murder mystery,
in spite of Dostoevsky and Agatha Christie.
I do need to utilize some generalizations and structures
to maintain a semblance of playability.
But my main objective is to help myself and players
to awaken to the banality of our existence.
----------------

It's a great concept. Some of us are lucky enough to have sangha members
who just tell us heh

[Ned]

Post by Kitty P
What is clear is that
I'm not going for a murder mystery,
in spite of Dostoevsky and Agatha Christie.
I do need to utilize some generalizations and structures
to maintain a semblance of playability.
But my main objective is to help myself and players
to awaken to the banality of our existence.
----------------
It's a great concept. Some of us are lucky enough to have sangha members
who just tell us heh

Fer sure. And failing that, just drop by absfg. Abasements are us!

Ned

[daletx]

Post by Ned

Post by Kitty P
What is clear is that
I'm not going for a murder mystery,
in spite of Dostoevsky and Agatha Christie.
I do need to utilize some generalizations and structures
to maintain a semblance of playability.
But my main objective is to help myself and players
to awaken to the banality of our existence.
----------------
It's a great concept. Some of us are lucky enough to have sangha members
who just tell us heh

Fer sure. And failing that, just drop by absfg. Abasements are us!
Ned

Not me. Ground's too hard around here for abasement...

DT

[Ned Ludd]

Post by daletx

Post by Ned

Post by Kitty P
What is clear is that
I'm not going for a murder mystery,
in spite of Dostoevsky and Agatha Christie.
I do need to utilize some generalizations and structures
to maintain a semblance of playability.
But my main objective is to help myself and players
to awaken to the banality of our existence.
----------------
It's a great concept. Some of us are lucky enough to have sangha members
who just tell us heh

Fer sure. And failing that, just drop by absfg. Abasements are us!
Ned

Not me. Ground's too hard around here for abasement...
DT

That makes me feel so abased. In fact, I'd call it a micro-aggression.

Where do I file for compensation?

Ned

[Sanford M. Manley]

Post by Ned Ludd
That makes me feel so abased. In fact, I'd call it a micro-aggression.
Where do I file for compensation?

I would say that many micro-aggressions are almost subconscious.
I took a short video course at my new employer and I actually learned
something. Something as small as saying hello to some people and
not others can be noticeable.

Therefore, I have been practicing micro-appreciation and
micro-loving people. They seem to notice.

[Ned Ludd]

Post by Sanford M. Manley

Post by Ned Ludd
That makes me feel so abased. In fact, I'd call it a micro-aggression.
Where do I file for compensation?

I would say that many micro-aggressions are almost subconscious.
I took a short video course at my new employer and I actually learned
something. Something as small as saying hello to some people and
not others can be noticeable.
Therefore, I have been practicing micro-appreciation and
micro-loving people. They seem to notice.
--
Sanford

OMG! And it's just in time for V-day! (Feb. 14th)

Let's make a poster for "micro-appreciation".

Ned

[Sanford M. Manley]

Post by Ned Ludd
OMG! And it's just in time for V-day! (Feb. 14th)
Let's make a poster for "micro-appreciation".

Of course, then there is macro-appreciation:

She: You...you just ejaculated on me!
He: Well, I like you!

[Ned Ludd]

Post by Sanford M. Manley

Post by Ned Ludd
OMG! And it's just in time for V-day! (Feb. 14th)
Let's make a poster for "micro-appreciation".

She: You...you just ejaculated on me!
He: Well, I like you!
--
Sanford

Truly, ejaculating on some people and not others can be noticeable.

Ned

[Sanford M. Manley]

Good for you.
You noticed that they notice.
The awakened are supposed to be all knowing,
quite possibly in that sense.

I thought you said you were ignoring me.

[x]

Post by Sanford M. Manley

Good for you.
You noticed that they notice.
The awakened are supposed to be all knowing,
quite possibly in that sense.

I thought you said you were ignoring me.

he tends to ignore himself (self flagellation?).

[{:-])))]

Post by x

Post by Sanford M. Manley

Good for you.
You noticed that they notice.
The awakened are supposed to be all knowing,
quite possibly in that sense.

I thought you said you were ignoring me.

he tends to ignore himself (self flagellation?).

A pastor was preaching about giving
and pointed out how Jesus was watching
while people gave their offererings to the temple.

The pastor said Jesus knew their hearts,
and how many hairs were on their heads.

I wondered, why would Jesus watch people
if he knew everything and was all knowing?

Are the awakened supposed to be all knowing
and not all powerful nor everywhere all at once?

What if the awakened one fell asleep
and forgot about being all knowing
or being as each and every one
while dreaming of being
every thing.

[{:-])))]

Post by Sanford M. Manley

Good for you.
You noticed that they notice.
The awakened are supposed to be all knowing,
quite possibly in that sense.

I thought you said you were ignoring me.

He can't help himself.
Ignore what he said about ignoring you.

Recently I was awakened
and left no footprints in the park.

http://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap27

Yesterday, some soft sand was on the trail,
and I, reflecting on leaving no tracks,
pondered how, leaving no tracks,
does not a sage make.

Then, clobbering my foot on a stone,
as if to confirm my suspicion.

[{:-])))]

Post by Sanford M. Manley
I took a short video course at my new employer and I actually learned
something. Something as small as saying hello to some people and
not others can be noticeable.
Therefore, I have been practicing micro-appreciation and
micro-loving people. They seem to notice.

Way to go!

Jogging down the trail, yesterday morning,
there happened to be a smile on my face.

A hiker, on the way up, said,
thanks for the smile!

Appreciation can be a boon.

Today I shall appreciate beer.
For it is a ritual I do enjoy.

Celebrate life.
And work.

Cheers!

[Kitty P]

Post by Ned Ludd
That makes me feel so abased. In fact, I'd call it a micro-aggression.
Where do I file for compensation?

I would say that many micro-aggressions are almost subconscious.
I took a short video course at my new employer and I actually learned
something. Something as small as saying hello to some people and
not others can be noticeable.

Therefore, I have been practicing micro-appreciation and
micro-loving people. They seem to notice.

Sanford
_______________________-

Nice about the job. I like the idea of micro-appreciation. When I had to
work with people I used to fake being nice to everyone until I finally
actually felt it though. I saw it as a social mask...but in a good way,
because if I didn't, I would have hit them over the head with something.
Sometimes I just thought about pony whips. I'm much better now snort

[Nobody in Particular]

Post by Sanford M. Manley

Post by Ned Ludd
That makes me feel so abased. In fact, I'd call it a micro-aggression.
Where do I file for compensation?

I would say that many micro-aggressions are almost subconscious.
I took a short video course at my new employer and I actually learned
something. Something as small as saying hello to some people and
not others can be noticeable.
Therefore, I have been practicing micro-appreciation and
micro-loving people. They seem to notice.
Sanford
_______________________-
Nice about the job. I like the idea of micro-appreciation. When I had
to work with people I used to fake being nice to everyone until I
finally actually felt it though. I saw it as a social mask...but in a
good way, because if I didn't, I would have hit them over the head with
something. Sometimes I just thought about pony whips. I'm much better
now snort

A friend of mine, when asked, "How are you?" replies: "Well, let me tell
you. Pull up a chair..."

[oxtail]

2016-02-08
A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life

1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering
about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell the
story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a private
person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in the
generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics. Hence, I
have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.

1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life.
1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life and
how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people who
ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at the
moment.

Basically these are the perspectives of the following:
1a. philosopher/ethicist
1b. investigator
1c. victim
1d. perpetrator
1e. religious seeker

Any other options?

[{:-])))]

Post by oxtail
2016-02-08
A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering
about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell the
story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a private
person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in the
generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics. Hence, I
have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life.
1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life and
how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people who
ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at the
moment.
1a. philosopher/ethicist
1b. investigator
1c. victim
1d. perpetrator
1e. religious seeker
Any other options?

I like happy endings ever after.

1a. Concerning the evil of moo.
1b. My people are bred for food.
1c. The butcher, the consumer, etc.
1d. They saw my family as being good.
1e. We are all that remains of star dust gone.

As my family did on the range did roam,
where the deer and the antelope were at home,
we trampled the grass as we grazed and
all the bugs there beyond our gaze.

When it was brought to our attention,
how bugs have their own families, we didn't care.
Nor did we when the two-legged men-folk trapped us
and herded us into their wide open lairs.

Eventually they came with their mallets
swinging over their heads, then mechanized brutality,
we were slaughtered in their houses. They killed
without conscience, as we trampled bugs.
They chopped us, ground round us,
and made into their burgers.

Would I turn the tables on them?
And make them blades of grass?
And chew them and ruminate?
And fart them out my ass?

Are we not all of carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen?
Of water and methane passing as gas?

Everyone likes a good one.
Happily ever after.

[oxtail]

Post by {:-])))

2016-02-08 A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering
about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell
the story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a
private person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in
the generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics.
Hence, I have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life.
1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life and
how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people who
ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at the
moment.
1a. philosopher/ethicist 1b. investigator 1c. victim 1d. perpetrator 1e.
religious seeker
Any other options?

I like happy endings ever after.
1a. Concerning the evil of moo.
1b. My people are bred for food.
1c. The butcher, the consumer, etc.
1d. They saw my family as being good.
1e. We are all that remains of star dust gone.
As my family did on the range did roam,
where the deer and the antelope were at home,
we trampled the grass as we grazed and all the bugs there beyond our
gaze.
When it was brought to our attention,
how bugs have their own families, we didn't care. Nor did we when the
two-legged men-folk trapped us and herded us into their wide open lairs.
Eventually they came with their mallets swinging over their heads, then
mechanized brutality,
we were slaughtered in their houses. They killed without conscience, as
we trampled bugs.
They chopped us, ground round us,
and made into their burgers.
Would I turn the tables on them?
And make them blades of grass?
And chew them and ruminate?
And fart them out my ass?
Are we not all of carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen?
Of water and methane passing as gas?
Everyone likes a good one.
Happily ever after.

You seem to have lost your respect
for your fellow human beings.
Have you lost your dog or something?

[{:-])))]

Post by oxtail
You seem to have lost your respect
for your fellow human beings.
Have you lost your dog or something?

I thought the game dealt with bane.

Some people think it's natural for humans
to put a collar on someone and take them out
for a walk on a leash.

Would you treat your mother or wife like that?

If people put collars on themselves
and then act like sophisticated animals
why blame them for doing what's natural?

If, in your culture, you treat your dog
according to your culture, is that wrong?

What makes what you think is unnatural?

If you think it's natural for your group,
tribe or nation, to eat cows, horses, dogs,
shrimp or some other animal and is a boon,
or if you think it's a bane, is it?

Are you not a victim of your culture?

[brian mitchell]

Post by oxtail
2016-02-08
A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering
about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell the
story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a private
person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in the
generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics. Hence, I
have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life.
1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life and
how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people who
ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at the
moment.
1a. philosopher/ethicist
1b. investigator
1c. victim
1d. perpetrator
1e. religious seeker
Any other options?

I'm not getting your 'perpetrator' perspective. It seems too close to
the victim perspective. Perhaps you could say more about this
creature?

[oxtail]

Post by brian mitchell

2016-02-08 A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering
about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell
the story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a
private person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in
the generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics.
Hence, I have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life.
1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life and
how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people who
ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at the
moment.
1a. philosopher/ethicist 1b. investigator 1c. victim 1d. perpetrator 1e.
religious seeker
Any other options?

I'm not getting your 'perpetrator' perspective. It seems too close to
the victim perspective. Perhaps you could say more about this creature?

My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender
who finally killed an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person
would rationalize his action.
Not sure whether anyone would actually select this option.
But there might be some masochists prone to false confessions.
Still I'm definitely interested in the mechanism of rationalization.
I will research some sutras for inspiration.
Any help would be appreciated.
Where are you, Tang?

[brian mitchell]

Post by oxtail

Post by brian mitchell

2016-02-08 A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering
about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell
the story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a
private person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in
the generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics.
Hence, I have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life.
1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life and
how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people who
ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at the
moment.
1a. philosopher/ethicist 1b. investigator 1c. victim 1d. perpetrator 1e.
religious seeker
Any other options?

I'm not getting your 'perpetrator' perspective. It seems too close to
the victim perspective. Perhaps you could say more about this creature?

My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender
who finally killed an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person
would rationalize his action...

The universal way of making oneself right is to make the other wrong.
This is what blame is: making wrong. Actually there are four main ways
of denying responsibility: blame, justification, minimisation and
obliviousness. Rationalisations could take any of the first three
forms but not the last.

That said, you've picked a particularly passive form of bad behaviour.
There is a satisfying pleasure in perpetrating intentional hurt. The
delight of being cruel and seeing the effect of one's cruelty on the
sufferer. Have you never felt it?

Post by oxtail
Not sure whether anyone would actually select this option.
But there might be some masochists prone to false confessions.
Still I'm definitely interested in the mechanism of rationalization.
I will research some sutras for inspiration.
Any help would be appreciated.
Where are you, Tang?

[oxtail]

Post by brian mitchell

Post by brian mitchell

2016-02-08 A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering
about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell
the story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a
private person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in
the generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics.
Hence, I have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life.
1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life
and how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people
who ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at
the moment.
1a. philosopher/ethicist 1b. investigator 1c. victim 1d. perpetrator 1e.
religious seeker
Any other options?

I'm not getting your 'perpetrator' perspective. It seems too close to
the victim perspective. Perhaps you could say more about this creature?

My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally killed
an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize his
action...

The universal way of making oneself right is to make the other wrong.
This is what blame is: making wrong. Actually there are four main ways
of denying responsibility: blame, justification, minimisation and
obliviousness. Rationalisations could take any of the first three forms
but not the last.
That said, you've picked a particularly passive form of bad behaviour.
There is a satisfying pleasure in perpetrating intentional hurt. The
delight of being cruel and seeing the effect of one's cruelty on the
sufferer. Have you never felt it?

Very seldom.
Such intentional evil is not my concern here.
The underlying theme is the evil of banality.
I'm afraid mere callousness and incompetence
might explain more crimes than intentional evil can.

As for obliviousness, I think that must be suppression.
Just a type of unconscious rationalization.
I'm just putting down ideas as they occur to me.
They will get organized by and by,
if I persist on it for months at least.

[{:-])))]

Post by oxtail
My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender
who finally killed an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person
would rationalize his action.

It's called the disease of alcohol addiction.

One such way to rationalize it is the allergy model.
Or the genetic predisposition paradigm.

Being out of control, unable to have just one drink,
the sufferer of the disease of alcoholism
denies being an alcoholic.

Having had that first drink, one wants another.
Having run out of alcohol, one goes for more.
No matter how drunk, one drives.

Getting into the red truck, drunk,
not even thinking about being able to drive,
proceeds to drive to the store.

Not seeing the little boy, nor the little boy the truck,
the eyes of the drunk follow the bouncing ball.

The drunk rationalizes that the boy was unseen,
that he just ran out from between the cars.

That it was not his fault.

And, in various ways, there was no fault.

The drunk should have known better.

Yet that was impossible because the brain
of the one who suffers from alcoholism
is not able to know any better
after the first drink.

[oxtail]

Post by {:-])))

My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally killed
an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize his
action.

It's called the disease of alcohol addiction.
One such way to rationalize it is the allergy model.
Or the genetic predisposition paradigm.
Being out of control, unable to have just one drink, the sufferer of the
disease of alcoholism denies being an alcoholic.
Having had that first drink, one wants another.
Having run out of alcohol, one goes for more.
No matter how drunk, one drives.
Getting into the red truck, drunk,
not even thinking about being able to drive,
proceeds to drive to the store.
Not seeing the little boy, nor the little boy the truck,
the eyes of the drunk follow the bouncing ball.
The drunk rationalizes that the boy was unseen,
that he just ran out from between the cars.
That it was not his fault.
And, in various ways, there was no fault.
The drunk should have known better.
Yet that was impossible because the brain of the one who suffers from
alcoholism is not able to know any better after the first drink.

Nice fable.
But I prefer a parable or a bunch of hasty generalizations.
Any idea how we can turn it into a game?
Or at least into an interactive fiction?

[brian mitchell]

Post by oxtail

Post by {:-])))

My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally killed
an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize his
action.

It's called the disease of alcohol addiction.
One such way to rationalize it is the allergy model.
Or the genetic predisposition paradigm.
Being out of control, unable to have just one drink, the sufferer of the
disease of alcoholism denies being an alcoholic.
Having had that first drink, one wants another.
Having run out of alcohol, one goes for more.
No matter how drunk, one drives.
Getting into the red truck, drunk,
not even thinking about being able to drive,
proceeds to drive to the store.
Not seeing the little boy, nor the little boy the truck,
the eyes of the drunk follow the bouncing ball.
The drunk rationalizes that the boy was unseen,
that he just ran out from between the cars.
That it was not his fault.
And, in various ways, there was no fault.
The drunk should have known better.
Yet that was impossible because the brain of the one who suffers from
alcoholism is not able to know any better after the first drink.

Nice fable.
But I prefer a parable or a bunch of hasty generalizations.
Any idea how we can turn it into a game?
Or at least into an interactive fiction?

What do you want to be the goal of the game? What would constitute a
"win" and what a "lose"?

[oxtail]

Post by brian mitchell

Post by oxtail

Post by {:-])))

My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally
killed an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize
his action.

It's called the disease of alcohol addiction.
One such way to rationalize it is the allergy model.
Or the genetic predisposition paradigm.
Being out of control, unable to have just one drink, the sufferer of
the disease of alcoholism denies being an alcoholic.
Having had that first drink, one wants another.
Having run out of alcohol, one goes for more.
No matter how drunk, one drives.
Getting into the red truck, drunk,
not even thinking about being able to drive,
proceeds to drive to the store.
Not seeing the little boy, nor the little boy the truck,
the eyes of the drunk follow the bouncing ball.
The drunk rationalizes that the boy was unseen,
that he just ran out from between the cars.
That it was not his fault.
And, in various ways, there was no fault.
The drunk should have known better.
Yet that was impossible because the brain of the one who suffers from
alcoholism is not able to know any better after the first drink.

Nice fable.
But I prefer a parable or a bunch of hasty generalizations.
Any idea how we can turn it into a game?
Or at least into an interactive fiction?

What do you want to be the goal of the game? What would constitute a
"win" and what a "lose"?

You win by finding the narrative
that is satisfactory to you.
If you cannot win in the game,
you can always write it out yourself.

If I play the game myself,
I would expect to find a decent exposition
of many ways mere banality causes suffering.
I expect most players will be satisfied
if they can find a scenario that resonates
with their life experience.

[{:-])))]

Post by oxtail

Post by brian mitchell
What do you want to be the goal of the game? What would constitute a
"win" and what a "lose"?

You win by finding the narrative
that is satisfactory to you.
If you cannot win in the game,
you can always write it out yourself.
If I play the game myself,
I would expect to find a decent exposition
of many ways mere banality causes suffering.
I expect most players will be satisfied
if they can find a scenario that resonates
with their life experience.

I'm reminded of a story
wherein a woman's child died and
she goes to see the Buddha for comfort.

The Buddha told her to go visit others
and see if she could find anyone
who had not suffered discomfort.

Knowing how suffering is pervasive
might help to ease the cause of being ill at ease
for those who find comfort in the suffering of others.

Watching the news can bring the world inside
of one's house and head at times.

Garbage in garbage out is another story.

For me, a win is to stop suffering.
To be at ease and at peace.

Seeing as how there is no stopping
without there being starting points.

Along the way, at a rest stop, there one
may find concession stands, mechanized,
and at times, at more compassionate ones,
people who serve coffee to help keep
those on the road awake.

Life, seen as moving
a long stretch of suffering
may be viewed from inside the vehicle.

Until the ride has come to a complete stop.

Arms and legs, it is suggested, are best
kept inside the vehicle.

Keeping one's eyes on oneself
might not be a good idea at all times.

Keeping one's eyes on the road, stopping
and starting points.

[oxtail]

Post by brian mitchell
What do you want to be the goal of the game? What would constitute a
"win" and what a "lose"?

You win by finding the narrative that is satisfactory to you.
If you cannot win in the game,
you can always write it out yourself.
If I play the game myself,
I would expect to find a decent exposition of many ways mere banality
causes suffering.
I expect most players will be satisfied if they can find a scenario that
resonates with their life experience.

I'm reminded of a story wherein a woman's child died and she goes to see
the Buddha for comfort.
The Buddha told her to go visit others and see if she could find anyone
who had not suffered discomfort.
Knowing how suffering is pervasive might help to ease the cause of being
ill at ease for those who find comfort in the suffering of others.
Watching the news can bring the world inside of one's house and head at
times.
Garbage in garbage out is another story.
For me, a win is to stop suffering.
To be at ease and at peace.
Seeing as how there is no stopping without there being starting points.
Along the way, at a rest stop, there one may find concession stands,
mechanized,
and at times, at more compassionate ones,
people who serve coffee to help keep those on the road awake.
Life, seen as moving a long stretch of suffering may be viewed from
inside the vehicle.
Until the ride has come to a complete stop.
Arms and legs, it is suggested, are best kept inside the vehicle.
Keeping one's eyes on oneself might not be a good idea at all times.
Keeping one's eyes on the road, stopping and starting points.

Isn't it too early to be rambling? ;)

[{:-])))]

Post by oxtail

Keeping one's eyes on the road, stopping and starting points.

Isn't it too early to be rambling? ;)

As a kid, there was a Nash sitting
off the driveway near the orange grove.

Perhaps it shaped my thinking.

We called it the upside-down bathtub.

The name, Rambler, rings a bell.

[brian mitchell]

Post by {:-])))

Post by oxtail

Keeping one's eyes on the road, stopping and starting points.

Isn't it too early to be rambling? ;)

As a kid, there was a Nash sitting
off the driveway near the orange grove.
Perhaps it shaped my thinking.
We called it the upside-down bathtub.
The name, Rambler, rings a bell.

[{:-])))]

Post by brian mitchell
http://youtu.be/enqNl7tdLR4

Lotsa fun car songs. Thanks!

Motor vehicles, the bane of a life.

One time they paved paradise.

[liaM]

Post by oxtail

Post by brian mitchell

Post by oxtail

Post by {:-])))

My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally
killed an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize
his action.

It's called the disease of alcohol addiction.
One such way to rationalize it is the allergy model.
Or the genetic predisposition paradigm.
Being out of control, unable to have just one drink, the sufferer of
the disease of alcoholism denies being an alcoholic.
Having had that first drink, one wants another.
Having run out of alcohol, one goes for more.
No matter how drunk, one drives.
Getting into the red truck, drunk,
not even thinking about being able to drive,
proceeds to drive to the store.
Not seeing the little boy, nor the little boy the truck,
the eyes of the drunk follow the bouncing ball.
The drunk rationalizes that the boy was unseen,
that he just ran out from between the cars.
That it was not his fault.
And, in various ways, there was no fault.
The drunk should have known better.
Yet that was impossible because the brain of the one who suffers from
alcoholism is not able to know any better after the first drink.

Nice fable.
But I prefer a parable or a bunch of hasty generalizations.
Any idea how we can turn it into a game?
Or at least into an interactive fiction?

What do you want to be the goal of the game? What would constitute a
"win" and what a "lose"?

You win by finding the narrative
that is satisfactory to you.
If you cannot win in the game,
you can always write it out yourself.
If I play the game myself,
I would expect to find a decent exposition
of many ways mere banality causes suffering.
I expect most players will be satisfied
if they can find a scenario that resonates
with their life experience.

No doubt the stories have a moral. No doubt, the same for all.

[{:-])))]

Post by oxtail
...
I prefer a parable or a bunch of hasty generalizations.
Any idea how we can turn it into a game?
Or at least into an interactive fiction?

The idea machine appears to be out of ideas.

If any more crop up, I'll send you a harvest.

[Nobody in Particular]

Post by oxtail

Post by {:-])))

My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally killed
an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize his
action.

It's called the disease of alcohol addiction.
One such way to rationalize it is the allergy model.
Or the genetic predisposition paradigm.
Being out of control, unable to have just one drink, the sufferer of the
disease of alcoholism denies being an alcoholic.
Having had that first drink, one wants another.
Having run out of alcohol, one goes for more.
No matter how drunk, one drives.
Getting into the red truck, drunk,
not even thinking about being able to drive,
proceeds to drive to the store.
Not seeing the little boy, nor the little boy the truck,
the eyes of the drunk follow the bouncing ball.
The drunk rationalizes that the boy was unseen,
that he just ran out from between the cars.
That it was not his fault.
And, in various ways, there was no fault.
The drunk should have known better.
Yet that was impossible because the brain of the one who suffers from
alcoholism is not able to know any better after the first drink.

Nice fable.
But I prefer a parable or a bunch of hasty generalizations.
Any idea how we can turn it into a game?
Or at least into an interactive fiction?

You asked a reasonable question.
Your question was answered very clearly.
You sneer at the answer.

There is ignorance, and then there is stupidity.

[oxtail]

I would rather do a game for ethicists.

Morality, as artificial as it is, is natural enough for your species.

That sure sounds like a moral judgment.

[{:-])))]

Post by oxtail

I would rather do a game for ethicists.

Morality, as artificial as it is, is natural enough for your species.

That sure sounds like a moral judgment.

You mentioned something as being unnatural.

You also suggested how some things are.

Natural for your species.

Other species may do artificial things.

Using their beaks or claws or other tools.

I don't know if they write them down.

Nor up their chains of command.

Other species may be seen.

To have their moral codes.

And be as ethical as yours.

Perhaps, even, oddly, even more.

[oxtail]

Humans have evolved to eat and digest meat.

And to make war.
To live in cities, made of concrete and steel.
To scrape the sky with tall buildings,
as if such things were natural.

We also have evolved out of eating other humans.

Physically at least.

If someone is not sure about that,
he deserves to perish, one way or another.

To feed off other people, to stab them in the back while climbing a
ladder,
tends to corporate naturalism.

Some people might have evolved to have enough empathy to know whether
fish are happy or not.
But probably not enough for shrimps. ;)

I don't mind eating them.
Such a form of evil is banal for me.
Tearing their legs off isn't too bad.
It ripping off their heads that gets me.

Have you ever fished with live bait?

[{:-])))]

Post by oxtail
Have you ever fished with live bait?

Fishing is evil as far as I can determine.
Chopping off their heads. Gutting them.

Eating fish is perfectly fine however.

I've never caught a chicken with bare hands,
nor wrung its neck nor plucked its feathers.

That's entirely evil.

Eating chicken, not so much. However.

I've never fed a cow with hay
not hit one over the head and slaughtered
its parents nor its children, for that is evil.

Ground beef is my favorite food
how ever it is cooked.