Occidental and Oriental Philosophies

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Sure, there’s actually one in english: http://www.koningsoord.org/en/01_ol_gemeenschap.htm It appears that their sense of community is mostly confined to the community of nuns within the monestary. They do offer retreats to civilians though; to introduce them to the life of a monk/nun.

I don’t doubt your word Pat, but I guess it depends on how you define happiness. How do you define what’s happiness for you?

Actually, I’m usally happy [to be] by myself in isolation, but I’m an introvert. I don’t know what it’s like for extroverted people.

If a religion or philosophy does not lead to some form of happiness or contendness, or if it doesn’t alleviate suffering in some way; what good is it?

[/quote]

Their tenets are:
bear one another�¢??s weaknesses with the greatest patience,
obey one another,

not to seek your own advantage, but rather what is good for the other.

They live in solitude but serve the community. So it’s not an isolated life it’s a life of service. It is through service that the greatest joy is attained.

That’s what I figured.

Happiness is a feeling of joy. I am at most joy when I serve and my life is at peace, I am at peace I and my family is doing well and my possessions are well and not in need of repair.
[/quote]

The community is their convent and they aid the outside world by prayer. That’s all they do, except for acting as a retreat for the curious.

My joy is fresh air and a clear mind. That makes me happy.
[/quote]

What about a big hit of DMT?

[ephrem]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Cortes,

I can’t help but to feel disappointed by your perception of my posts, but allow me to elucidate:

If, in the quest to transcend all suffering, you create what amounts to a vast, empty universe unto yourself, and actually succeed in your endeavors, haven’t you just become, at best, a god of nothing?

You don’t transcend suffering: as long as there is a physical manifestation of you there’ll be suffering. The only thing that might happen is that value is no longer attached to said suffering. Secondly, there’s no solid “you” that can become a god of nothing.

“You” are an temporary apparition of the senses.

When I hear eph talking about reaching a point where you essentially remove yourself from emotional attachment to other humans, or infer positively that one could lose a close relative and essentially (to my ears) not care, or remove oneself from care, if you prefer, that sounds like a philosophy I want nothing to do with.

That’s not what I said at all Cortes. I believe my words are clear enough to convey the message I meant to convey without ambiguety.

How can we have an open and honest debate if you filter my words through your preconceptions in such a way that distorts the meaning of those words?

[/quote]

I thought you might say so, hence all the caveats. One more time, I honestly would like to understand what you mean.

Here is the post that I was referring to:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Deep seated attachments like the bond you might have with a loved one or a family member, they are part of you and therefore part of life. Clinging to those attachments results in having a harder time accepting the fact of death.

People die, you will grieve, accept death and move on living. The difference might be that the phases of sorrow, grief and acceptance follow each other in quick succession instead of it being drawn out over a long period of time.

In any case, emotions, feelings, anything that arises as a result of simply being alive, that’s not the problem. Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start. [/quote]

The final paragraph, particularly the part I bolded, is the part I am apparently not getting.

I’m even squinting my eyes real hard right now but it’s still not changing too much for me. Is it supposed to pop out like one of those magic-eye 3D poster thingies?

I’m messing with you. But seriously, you mind explaining that last paragraph to me in non enlightened dumb western guy terms?
[/quote]

“To love is to let-go”

You can’t hold on to a moment but we tend to cling to memories in the hope of reliving them at one point in time. A person dies and you are not able to let-go of the wish to have that person in your life again. You’ll be consumed by sorrow.

Through study and realisation one may find out the truth about self/ego, and eastern philosophy focusses on self/ego as the way to truth and happiness. Due to the “properties” of self, positive and negative peak-experiences stay at the forefront of our consciousness.

This means that by holding on to those peak-experiences you are building self through attachments, which is the opposite of the buddhist path. Instead, when these experiences and the subsequent emotions/feelings occur, you experience them in the moment but, as the moment passes, you do not attach value/importance to these experiences.

That does not mean you don’t feel or don’t care.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The community is their convent and they aid the outside world by prayer. That’s all they do, except for acting as a retreat for the curious.

My joy is fresh air and a clear mind. That makes me happy.
[/quote]

What about a big hit of DMT?
[/quote]

I’ve come to the conclusion that DMT is not my cup of tea (:

[ephrem]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

A detachment to the “material world” occurred for me in a very personal way when my grandmother died. I can share the story if you’d like. The lesson was life changing, and it had nothing to do with the actual death. [/quote]

Please do.[/quote]

The Reader’s Digest version is as follows:

My grandparents lived in a very small town in MA, one of the many small towns built around the textile industry of their time, and that town became smaller still when those businesses shrank and disappeared. They were married for over 50 years. Lived in the same house. Never owned a car. Went to Church and did banking and such every weekend by cab. Groceries and milk delivered. Lived on Social Security when I was in elementary school and visited every summer. Scrounged all year long to save maybe $40 in addition to the $$ my parents gave when I spent the summer so I’d have a little extra for entertainment and such. Lived a very modest life is the picture I’m painting.

I’m in my early 30’s when my grandmother passed. Grandfather had passed years earlier. At the funeral and after, I was inconsolable. She was like my mother. Here I was, in the middle of my then career, chasing an office, a title, the next promotion, the salary, the next car, the next “shiny object”. In fact, it was my toxic job that I left in a panic and raced 3 hours breaking every traffic law imaginable to make it to her deathbed right before she passed. I made it by no more than 20 minutes before she took her last breath.

I was making more money at the time than they ever made in their lives. I could literally lose that $40-50 they scrounged all year long to save for my benefit as a kid (a sacrafice I didn’t fully appreciate until that moment) and not even know it was gone out of my pocket. I never even bothered to balance my checkbook and they saved every nickel. I drove a flashy BMW M3. I had all the trappings of “being on the rise”. And as I looked around the house after the funeral, it was filled with so many people from all over town, including family, that just loved my grandmother. People I had never met, but knew of me, her grandson. And in that instant, I realized she was indeed “rich”, and it was I who was “poor”. She married and buried her husband in that modest home. Never brought any shame to herself or her family. Raised a son and daughter. And hosted a beloved grandson every summer, in spite of the financial strain. They had nothing, but never told me no.

I had an epiphany that day…a “what the fuck am I chasing?” moment that forever changed me and I shared my thoughts with my uncle, and he agreed. By any reasonable measure of wealth, they were “poor”. The house, although paid for, was modest - it seemed so much larger when I was a kid. When she passed, there was very little, if any savings. The only asset was the house and it’s contents. And the memories.

I didn’t stop “chasing” that day. I’m competitive, it’s my nature. But from that moment forward, material things - car, size of house, whatever, didn’t mean shit to me. From that point forward, I considered major purchases carefully, to make sure my heart wanted it, and not my ego. I don’t live in a small town like they did, and cultivating the kind of relationships she had is a difficult thing to do in our modern world. But it made me appreciate those in my life more. And to value those relationships fully.

I went back to that house last year. It’s empty now. For sale. I looked through the windows and reminisced…and shed some tears. Even thinking of her now, after all these years, brings a tear, a sniffle, a quivering lip and a deep breath or three. I went to the backyard where I used to practice “pitching” rocks against a rock wall some of those summers. That rock wall was now walled off with landscaping railroad ties. I reached behind, and took a rock from that wall that I keep with me at my home…a piece of my real “home”. I’d take the whole house with me if I could.

There are many “McMansions” in our world today, but very few “homes”.

That’s my story. [/quote]

Thank you BG, for sharing this.

We are defined by the people around us; for better or for worse. It’s easy to lose sight of what’s important, trying to stay afloat in these ‘modern’ times.

Again, thanks.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I just don’t feel the need to purge myself of things to be happy. I am happy with things. Second, I understand and accept that my life can change and my whole world can be taken from me in the blink of an eye.
But living simply isn’t an exclusively eastern tenet, Christianity does to admire the simple life, free of possessions. There is no assertion though that you have to to be happy.

I am willing to bet if you gave up everything and lived a good clean buddhist life, you would be no happier. [/quote]

I don’t think I would be happier, that’s true. But that’s because I have no things of real value except my house, and that’s mostly the bank’s property still.[/quote]

So circling back around to the opinion I put forth earlier. After discussing the tenets of eastern philosophy, it seems mainly based on a moral philosophy of self edification. It seems that most of us agree that it’s tenets and if I dare say it’s dogmas are not necessary to meet the ends it claims to provide, provided you follow it’s prescriptions. Meditation, deep thought and truths are not exclusive to Eastern philosophy, it just doesn’t back up it’s truths. It kinda hopes it’s right, but just what’s been brought up has been woefully unconvincing. I certainly have not been convinced at any level that it’s even beneficial to know except as an exercise of history. Upon reflection and deep thought, I don’t see any value in it provided you have a substituted for seeking wisdom. I still believe it’s inferior in a multitude of ways. It’s truths are far from universal and absolute and it’s path is intrinsically tied in with religion were as in the west we can differentiate and or meld together.

I say Western philosophy is superior, more advanced and more mature than eastern philosophy. We have singular and absolute principles. We not only have truths but arguments to back up the truths and why it’s true and we know the difference between correlation and necessity.
I see Eastern philosophy as shallow, lower level and vague at best. It can tell us something about existence and reality, but not much, and nothing compelling.

I want somebody to prove me wrong. I propose the challenge to convince me that Eastern philosophy not only has value, but it better than it’s western counter part. So far, it’s not thrilling, but nice. uneventful and not very fulfilling.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The community is their convent and they aid the outside world by prayer. That’s all they do, except for acting as a retreat for the curious.

My joy is fresh air and a clear mind. That makes me happy.
[/quote]

What about a big hit of DMT?
[/quote]

I’ve come to the conclusion that DMT is not my cup of tea (:
[/quote]

Acid’s better.

[Cortes]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The community is their convent and they aid the outside world by prayer. That’s all they do, except for acting as a retreat for the curious.

My joy is fresh air and a clear mind. That makes me happy.
[/quote]

What about a big hit of DMT?
[/quote]

I’ve come to the conclusion that DMT is not my cup of tea (:
[/quote]

Acid’s better.
[/quote]

I haven’t done acid since I was 19 or 20 years old but I did quite a bit of it during my formative years (first dropped at 16, believe it or not). I loved it every single time, and, though I would not recommend it to most people, I think it is one of the few drugs that, when used appropriately, truly can have a net positive effect upon one’s life.

Even at 16, I was interested in the self-discovery and mystical aspect of the drug (I had just watched Oliver Stone’s excellent “The Doors” and fallen into complete infatuation with Jim Morrison), of breaking down the wall of the subconscious and consciously accessing it, analyzing and acting upon it. I remember writing in the desperate need to record the wisdom I was receiving (only to read what I’d written the next day and say wtf?

I would love to do it again if I had any clue where to secure it. It’s not exactly a street corner drug and I’m not even sure if I could get ahold of any if I knew a guy who knew a guy who knew where to get some stuff, here in Japan.

Sorry, not trying to take this thread somewhere else, but when you talk about the self at the level we are discussing, I think acid is actually probably pretty close to the topic at hand.

[Cortes]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

A detachment to the “material world” occurred for me in a very personal way when my grandmother died. I can share the story if you’d like. The lesson was life changing, and it had nothing to do with the actual death. [/quote]

Please do.[/quote]

The Reader’s Digest version is as follows:

My grandparents lived in a very small town in MA, one of the many small towns built around the textile industry of their time, and that town became smaller still when those businesses shrank and disappeared. They were married for over 50 years. Lived in the same house. Never owned a car. Went to Church and did banking and such every weekend by cab. Groceries and milk delivered. Lived on Social Security when I was in elementary school and visited every summer. Scrounged all year long to save maybe $40 in addition to the $$ my parents gave when I spent the summer so I’d have a little extra for entertainment and such. Lived a very modest life is the picture I’m painting.

I’m in my early 30’s when my grandmother passed. Grandfather had passed years earlier. At the funeral and after, I was inconsolable. She was like my mother. Here I was, in the middle of my then career, chasing an office, a title, the next promotion, the salary, the next car, the next “shiny object”. In fact, it was my toxic job that I left in a panic and raced 3 hours breaking every traffic law imaginable to make it to her deathbed right before she passed. I made it by no more than 20 minutes before she took her last breath.

I was making more money at the time than they ever made in their lives. I could literally lose that $40-50 they scrounged all year long to save for my benefit as a kid (a sacrafice I didn’t fully appreciate until that moment) and not even know it was gone out of my pocket. I never even bothered to balance my checkbook and they saved every nickel. I drove a flashy BMW M3. I had all the trappings of “being on the rise”. And as I looked around the house after the funeral, it was filled with so many people from all over town, including family, that just loved my grandmother. People I had never met, but knew of me, her grandson. And in that instant, I realized she was indeed “rich”, and it was I who was “poor”. She married and buried her husband in that modest home. Never brought any shame to herself or her family. Raised a son and daughter. And hosted a beloved grandson every summer, in spite of the financial strain. They had nothing, but never told me no.

I had an epiphany that day…a “what the fuck am I chasing?” moment that forever changed me and I shared my thoughts with my uncle, and he agreed. By any reasonable measure of wealth, they were “poor”. The house, although paid for, was modest - it seemed so much larger when I was a kid. When she passed, there was very little, if any savings. The only asset was the house and it’s contents. And the memories.

I didn’t stop “chasing” that day. I’m competitive, it’s my nature. But from that moment forward, material things - car, size of house, whatever, didn’t mean shit to me. From that point forward, I considered major purchases carefully, to make sure my heart wanted it, and not my ego. I don’t live in a small town like they did, and cultivating the kind of relationships she had is a difficult thing to do in our modern world. But it made me appreciate those in my life more. And to value those relationships fully.

I went back to that house last year. It’s empty now. For sale. I looked through the windows and reminisced…and shed some tears. Even thinking of her now, after all these years, brings a tear, a sniffle, a quivering lip and a deep breath or three. I went to the backyard where I used to practice “pitching” rocks against a rock wall some of those summers. That rock wall was now walled off with landscaping railroad ties. I reached behind, and took a rock from that wall that I keep with me at my home…a piece of my real “home”. I’d take the whole house with me if I could.

There are many “McMansions” in our world today, but very few “homes”.

That’s my story. [/quote]

Thank you very much for sharing that, BG, sincerely.

I tried typing something in response but kept deleting and starting over.

I need to stop and think for a bit.

[Cortes]

I’ll respond to you later tonight, too, eph. I think we’ve been thinking along different tracks, hence my confusion.

I’m immensely enjoying this thread, for what that’s worth.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I just don’t feel the need to purge myself of things to be happy. I am happy with things. Second, I understand and accept that my life can change and my whole world can be taken from me in the blink of an eye.
But living simply isn’t an exclusively eastern tenet, Christianity does to admire the simple life, free of possessions. There is no assertion though that you have to to be happy.

I am willing to bet if you gave up everything and lived a good clean buddhist life, you would be no happier. [/quote]

I don’t think I would be happier, that’s true. But that’s because I have no things of real value except my house, and that’s mostly the bank’s property still.[/quote]

So circling back around to the opinion I put forth earlier. After discussing the tenets of eastern philosophy, it seems mainly based on a moral philosophy of self edification. It seems that most of us agree that it’s tenets and if I dare say it’s dogmas are not necessary to meet the ends it claims to provide, provided you follow it’s prescriptions. Meditation, deep thought and truths are not exclusive to Eastern philosophy, it just doesn’t back up it’s truths. It kinda hopes it’s right, but just what’s been brought up has been woefully unconvincing. I certainly have not been convinced at any level that it’s even beneficial to know except as an exercise of history. Upon reflection and deep thought, I don’t see any value in it provided you have a substituted for seeking wisdom. I still believe it’s inferior in a multitude of ways. It’s truths are far from universal and absolute and it’s path is intrinsically tied in with religion were as in the west we can differentiate and or meld together.

I say Western philosophy is superior, more advanced and more mature than eastern philosophy. We have singular and absolute principles. We not only have truths but arguments to back up the truths and why it’s true and we know the difference between correlation and necessity.
I see Eastern philosophy as shallow, lower level and vague at best. It can tell us something about existence and reality, but not much, and nothing compelling.

I want somebody to prove me wrong. I propose the challenge to convince me that Eastern philosophy not only has value, but it better than it’s western counter part. So far, it’s not thrilling, but nice. uneventful and not very fulfilling.[/quote]

There is no self to edify, pat. This is the most important aspect you can’t seem to grasp. I think that is why you prefer western philosophy, because it doesn’t rattle the self-made cage of ego.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The community is their convent and they aid the outside world by prayer. That’s all they do, except for acting as a retreat for the curious.

My joy is fresh air and a clear mind. That makes me happy.
[/quote]

What about a big hit of DMT?
[/quote]

I’ve come to the conclusion that DMT is not my cup of tea (:
[/quote]

Acid’s better.
[/quote]

Yep.

[ephrem]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The community is their convent and they aid the outside world by prayer. That’s all they do, except for acting as a retreat for the curious.

My joy is fresh air and a clear mind. That makes me happy.
[/quote]

What about a big hit of DMT?
[/quote]

I’ve come to the conclusion that DMT is not my cup of tea (:
[/quote]

Acid’s better.
[/quote]

I haven’t done acid since I was 19 or 20 years old but I did quite a bit of it during my formative years (first dropped at 16, believe it or not). I loved it every single time, and, though I would not recommend it to most people, I think it is one of the few drugs that, when used appropriately, truly can have a net positive effect upon one’s life.

Even at 16, I was interested in the self-discovery and mystical aspect of the drug (I had just watched Oliver Stone’s excellent “The Doors” and fallen into complete infatuation with Jim Morrison), of breaking down the wall of the subconscious and consciously accessing it, analyzing and acting upon it. I remember writing in the desperate need to record the wisdom I was receiving (only to read what I’d written the next day and say wtf?

I would love to do it again if I had any clue where to secure it. It’s not exactly a street corner drug and I’m not even sure if I could get ahold of any if I knew a guy who knew a guy who knew where to get some stuff, here in Japan.

Sorry, not trying to take this thread somewhere else, but when you talk about the self at the level we are discussing, I think acid is actually probably pretty close to the topic at hand.
[/quote]

Very interesting Cortes, love to chat more about this subject aswell.

[Cortes]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

There is no self to edify, pat. This is the most important aspect you can’t seem to grasp. I think that is why you prefer western philosophy, because it doesn’t rattle the self-made cage of ego.

[/quote]

I think this is where I was getting hung up before, and perhaps I am starting to understand what you are getting at.

I’m certainly not saying I agree, but it is an interesting topic to explore. Even if you don’t concede the absence of self, I think it would be edifying to explore a topic that western civilization tends to take for granted. Hmmm…reminds me of another topic that we’ve been tossing back and forth for months now, doesn’t it?

I’ll think about it a bit more and post back after work.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]kamui wrote:

while the West was not content until every other place on earth was named after them and followed their ways, the East tried to seclude themselves (after pounding on their neighbors) from the “regressive” ways of the rest of the world. I’m mostly referring to China here.

let’s try a less romanticized version :

While the West was not content until every other place on earth was named after them and followed their ways, the East tried to rebuild itself after the mongolian invasions.

If the East has been more peaceful than the West, it may not be because of Buddha, Kung Fuzi or Laozi or the feminine virtues of the Mings but because of Genghis. It’s pretty hard to be a successful imperialist when you are a victim of imperialism yourself.[/quote]

There were several points that I wanted to point out, but this was the major projection.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I think I am going to throw shit in the pot and piss in the cheerios. I think that not only is eastern thought not superior, I find it inferior. I think it’s weak and way behind western philosophy. Why? Because Eastern philosophy is statement philosophy. It makes a conclusion, but doesn’t give you any background. You have to figure out why its true. Further, if you think it’s incorrect, you are wrong because you haven’t thought about it enough. Hog-fucking-wash.

(…)

Western philosophy is more advanced, better laid out and conceived. It think it’s way superior. [/quote]

I can’t quite remember who it was that made a similar arguement against Eastern philosophy as it was a couple of years ago, but the eight fold path is quite straightforward: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html which start at the The Four Noble Truths: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

You may not be spoonfed and told, “this is it”, but to claim superiority is a bold one, to say the least.
[/quote]

Buddhism stands for a simplification of the mind and a reliance on the most indestructible ideas; Christianity stands for a simplification of the heart and a reliance on the most indestructible sentiments. The greater Christian insistence upon personal deity and immortality is not, we fancy, the cause so much as the effect of this essential trend towards an ancient passion and pathos as the power that most nearly rends the veil from the nature of things. Both creeds grope after the same secret sun, but Buddhism dreams of its light and Christianity of its heat.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]ironcross wrote:
This thread displays a very weak understanding of true benefits of both Eastern and Wester philosophy. I want to address numerous misconceptions above, such as all Eastern philosophy having the same background and The strength of Western philosophy being that it’s all laid out, but I need much more time than I have for the next couple days. I hope someone comes along and brings up a few of my points before I get back to this.[/quote]

I suppose by Western philosophy you mean that which came from the Church. If that is in fact the case, the philosophy holds a paradox in which both the Red Army and the Buddhist monk can attack.

Not only does Western philosophy tell us to turn the other cheek, it tells us to sell our mantel and buy a sword. Western philosophy produced, at the same time, the most blood thirsty crusader but the meekest of monks.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And the closed-mindedness of PWI never fails to show itself. I KNOW GAL is a waste of time. I KNOW SAMA is a cesspool. But PWI is an insidious booby-trap. On the surface, it looks like a perfectly good place to discuss “meaty” subjects. But once inside, it’s no less a waste of time or a cesspool than the others.

There is a reason polite people refuse to discuss religion or politics. This is the ant farm that proves the wisdom. [/quote]

It’s because they are controlled by the tyranny of niceness. The only things that are worth discussing are religion and politics anyway.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
If you really want to make him nuts, why don’t you outline all the “teachings of Jesus” that have their roots in Buddhism or Eastern thought? That will make his head implode :)[/quote]

Except his teachings don’t. I mean sure you can be intellectually dishonest and try and show they do, but ultimately the two philosophies are two different philosophies though they have commonalities.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
“To love is to let-go”

You can’t hold on to a moment but we tend to cling to memories in the hope of reliving them at one point in time. A person dies and you are not able to let-go of the wish to have that person in your life again. You’ll be consumed by sorrow.

Through study and realisation one may find out the truth about self/ego, and eastern philosophy focusses on self/ego as the way to truth and happiness. Due to the “properties” of self, positive and negative peak-experiences stay at the forefront of our consciousness.

This means that by holding on to those peak-experiences you are building self through attachments, which is the opposite of the buddhist path. Instead, when these experiences and the subsequent emotions/feelings occur, you experience them in the moment but, as the moment passes, you do not attach value/importance to these experiences.

That does not mean you don’t feel or don’t care. [/quote]

This is in fact what is most clear between Buddhism and Christianity. The clearest example of what you talk about is the art in which it depicts these two philosophies. In that of the most “perverse and hideous picture of mediaeval asceticism” the eyes of the Saints are slammed open as they are focused at something that is not themselves. The picture of a buddhist monk are closed because they look within. They are self-centered, self-satisfied in their own denial of self.

This is because the Christian looks at God outside of himself, and the Buddhist inside of himself. This saves the Christian, which modern man deems an inferior quality, from spiritual pride.

[ephrem]

Brother Chris wrote: They are self-centered, self-satisfied in their own denial of self.

For some I don’t doubt that’s the case, but as a rule this statement is bullshit.