if you get an earworm you will have to pay royalties
812 karma · joined October 15, 2022
FAANG has trained them well. "Normal" people also use chatGPT & co. to ask mundane questions that qwen27b could easily answer (random trivia, writing emails, correcting translations etc), why do these simple requests need to be processed on a B300 on server on the other side of the planet? There is no reason.
And this being hackernews, I would expect people here to go against the grain in this regard...maybe even promote local llms to "normies".
"from a philosophical/psychological/physiological pov i think of them as sharing a lot of the characteristics of hardcore monks/yogis."
"warriors do not have the same goals as monks," "he is adapting their practices to his station in life."
So what philosphical qualities do they share? All I could glean from your comments is some idea of "egolessness" but if all you are referring with this is discipline, detachment, following orders, mental fortitude, then these submariners are really a lot less special than you made them seem initially.
A burglar and a locksmith share techniques, nobody would claim they share a philosophy.
Where did the person you are replying to even hint at that? I think this may be your own prejudice spilling out here.
> The billionares have their money in everything. They get a cut of everything. You're just changing who gets the cut.
Oh ok, I guess let's just accept this as is forever. Any attempt to try to improve this situation is futile and stupid (for example, as said, making it more difficult for them)
>What backs up all those decisions other than credible threat of violence?
I don't know, do you only act in fear of the threat of violence from the state? In democracies politicians are legitimized by their voters, what you are describing sounds more like an autocracy.
> but Anthropic created the playbook
I was pointing out who the copycat is in this context, did not think i would have to explain this
they blow air on the sea floor to dislodge clams, use their whiskers to locate them and and then suck them out of their shell. I did not know walruses survive mostly on clams before today.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0WZSBlCcVA
There will be? We're living in that culture.
I don't think I am, my initial comment was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning that a monk and a nuclear sub sailor share philosophical traits.
> I was pointing to how philosophies can be adapted to any purpose including warfare.
That is not quite what you did, or perhaps I misunderstood, but you said that nuclear sub sailors share philosophical, psychological and physiological characteristics with hardcore monks. I granted you the physiological part, and perhaps even the mental fortitude, but in no way do the two share a philosophy. And regardless, adapting a philosophy that fundamentally says "do not kill" (not "it's ok to kill under certain circumstances") for killing is inherently wrong action.
> No, i am not conflating them but pointing to parallels and similarities.
Sorry but you countered my arguments on wu wei by talking about hindu practices that have nothing to do with it, and a link to the wu wei wiki.
> Taoism and Buddhism did not merge into any one school
merged may be the wrong word, but buddhism was significantly influenced by taoism when it arrived to china, as well as confucianism to a lesser degree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism#Introduction_of_...
> "Wu Wei" is often translated as "effortless action"
Wu is literally a negation and Wei means acting. Further the famous saying 無為無不為 literally means "By not acting there is nothing left undone". Not acting here means effortless action only in that it describes a natural (therefore effortless) action. It means to act in accordance to ones nature, not to force yourself to do something against your nature (not sure how spending months in a nuclear sub to launch atomic bombs as a deterrent is in anyones nature but thats another point). A famous example: when Zhuangzi tells the story of being asked to become a counselor to the king, he did not simply go along because he was egoless and could do any action effortlessy, he told the kings emissaries to look at the turtle in the mud and asked whether that turtle is happier rolling in the mud or if it would be happier being used in the court for some ritual. Then he told the emisarries to go away and kick rocks, explaining that he also wants to roll in the mud. How does this apply in any way to egoless duty bound action? It's much closer to anarchical defiance of authority!
> That is a very simplistic and wrong reading of Buddhism.
It is meant to be simple, understandable by ignorant lay people and kings alike. There is a reason this is the very first precept, and by dismissing it and condoning the use of violence I think you are making a grave mistake, because you clearly are very literate but are missing the first, fundamental, inescapable teaching of the Buddha and trying to justify going against it. By the way the Boddhisatva in the ship fully acknowledges the karmic consequences of his actions, and accepts them, knowing they are unskillful. No wonder that story is of the Buddha before he was fully enlightened.
> A warrior faced with being killed or to kill can use this same egoless attitude to do his duty effectively.
Even if bandits should rip you apart limb by limb you should not have an ounce of anger or ill will towards them. How a soldier can perform his duties "egolessly" is another question, hate and dehumanization of the enemy is instilled into soldiers from the very beginning of their training. Soldiers need to be dehumanized and dehumanize the enemy to perform their duties. Why is it that so many come home broken, commit suicide etc, is that a life in accordance with the Dhamma or is it misery? And furthermore, assuming meditation practices can help them not come home broken, and continue killing "egolessly" (i doubt that is even possible unless one is a psychopath or otherwise mentally ill), what will be the karmic retribution? Rebirth in a higher plane because they reached deep levels of Samadhi or rebirth in a hell realm because they killed people? I think the latter is much more likely, both metaphorically and literally (meaning that even meditating soldiers will feel misery, and be reborn in hell if it exists - this is literally what the Buddha says happens to those who deal in arms and warfare, any modern pragmatic rationalization is just that).
> A Warrior is not trying to be a Monk/Yogi since their goals are different.
I never said they are trying to be, I pointed out the flaw in your comment that philosophically a nuclear sub sailor and a monk can not and should not be compared.
If meditation/concentration becomes a tool to make unethical work feel OK it's just self-deception, quite the opposite of "brushing the dust from the mirror".
If someone has a high degree of concentration, a strong mind, but uses it, for instance, to build a new type of hypersonic missile, that is wrong action and wrong livelihood and that carries its karmic consequences. From my understanding that person will not attain liberation, even though they may reach states of focus that come near to those of an attained monk...
Again i do not know enough about Hinduism and the concept of Adharma but I would dare to guess that the choice to use unconventional means to restore Dharma should also be rooted in profound wisdom, and not some abstract idea of "protecting my country" via mutually assured destruction
In your first paragraph you conflate hinduism, buddhism and taoism. I don't know enough about hinduism but I find the taosim/buddhism connection problematic. They are 2 different philosophies with different cosmologies and ethics, that did merge over the course of many centuries into chan and then zen buddhism, which has again another set of ethics (that may support your views on "righteous violence" slightly more). From my understanding Daoism is essentially amoral, it describes how to align yourself to nature, it doesn't prescribe moral duties. The Dao itself is not benevolent, it treats every thing and every being with the same indifference.
I think the main theme of the Dao De Jing is precisely Wu Wei, non action, spontaneity. The nature of the ruler could also include the use of violence "to maintain order" or the nature of the soldier to kill the enemy (although even in the Dao De Jing weapons are seen as ominous symbols and war as a last resort).
Buddhism, on the other hand, is much more aimed at teaching ethics. The first precept is to refrain from killing or harming any living being, which should be enough to end this discussion :)
You seem to conflate the "egolessness" of an attained monk to that of a dutiful sailor. If acting without ego were the main point of Buddhism then living such an egoless life where one can press a button to launch a trident missile could lead to nirvana. I find that unlikely. The main point (in Buddhism, not Daoism) is not to act egolessly, it is to act righteously. Buddhist ethical conduct is very clear on this: right action, right speech, and right livelihood. Working on a nuclear submarine, launching nuclear missiles, directly or indirectly, or for a perceived "good cause" is still wrong action and wrong livelihood.
> In the case of a nuclear sub, the practical reason is acting as a deterrent to support the ethical reason of protecting society which is acceptable to an individual moral sense.
The Buddha is very clear about the cycle of violence, and I am not sure what could describe it more poignantly than the absurdity of mutually assured destruction.
> you can take that same framework/discipline/practice and adapt it to your own chosen goal viz.
The fact that, for instance, zen buddhism was coopted by samurai does not mean that buddhism allows killing, it just means that a powerful ruling caste distorted spiritual teachings to maintain their power, this happened in every part of the world and at any time in history. And it's exactly what the Buddha warned against when teaching about right livelihood and right action.
> for mankind to flourish the negatives must be suppressed and the positives enhanced.
This, to me, shows a profound misunderstanding of taoist teachings. Nothing should be forced or suppressed, that is antithetical to wu wei or any idea of balance/equilibrium.
And I know you were referring to just the phyisical discomfort of nuclear submarine sailors, but that's the whole point, they may have some abilities that are close to those of a monk, like focus and concentration and adapation, but the wisdom is severely lacking. If you dedicate your life energy to work on a nuclear submarine, which has as its purpose to launch retaliatory strikes in an all out nuclear conflict, what does that say about your wisdom?
And wisdom is the main thing we should take away from all these teachings. The meditation, calmness, focus etc...those are all secondary products.
This is my understanding, and the gripe i have is with westerners using eastern philosophy to "improve their productivity" or "become better leaders", that is not the point and in my opinion close to blasphemy. And so is comparing soldiers to monks IMHO.