On The Subject Of The Impending Energy Crisis.

[Matt Vandart]

I may have come across as holier than thou in the way I write things but that is mainly because I am pretty shit at getting what I mean across, put simply I am not very good at communicating.

People often get the wrong idea of what I am saying/writing because I am generally very blunt and almost completely lack the ability to empathize or forsee that my comments/views may cause harm or upset because mostly blunt comments/views do not piss me off at all. Anyone that knows me knows that, one of the problems and risks of internet discussions is this exact problem.

Not knowing the person behind the comment or their experiences.

I do not feel superior in anyway to anyone else, how can I? I am me you are you and everyone else is who they are. I have opinions (bordering on beliefs) on the modern idea of separation, which are not for this discussion, that pretty much inhibit the possibility of me feeling superior to others. Everyone has opinions based on their experience not mine. In my view everyone is equal and as such their opinions however bizzare they may seem to my way of thinking are equally valid and as such should be aired.

[1a2bcio8]

Interestingly (well, I say interestingly...) most of the people I knew who were involved in any way with philosophy at all were able to break out of the conventional 'socially contrained [way of] thinking' but leapt head first into their new, less mainstream's 'socially contrained thinking' without even really seeming to realise that they were doing it. Not applying that to you at all, it just amused me at the time - as well as making me decide to not pursue my interest in philosophy any further in an academic sense.

But knowing that surely you're in a better position not to fall into the same trap? You're always going to have a philosophy of some sort, consciously or otherwise, but exploring others can offer something a bit saner. I'm currently sitting with Buddhist philosophy but if something else that seems more rational, sane, etc. comes along I can potentially drop that. As it stands though I'm quite confident that Buddhism is offering me a potential well beyond the mainstream philosophy which is unfortunately filled with selfishness, greed and like Matt said, fear.

Interestingly though, with regard to Buddhism (and therefore meditation), it's a system which is set to go beyond itself. Its 'truth' or end is the breaking down of all philosophies so that one might see things how they are undistorted by the projections of our ideas onto our experience. The philosophy of Buddhism is a paradox in the sense that it says not to trust philosophy. In between that point and the common philosophy though is, I think, better and worse philosophies in terms of sanity and well being. But yeah, just blindly adopting another philosophy isn't neccesarily going to offer you anything better. It has to be considered.

And one more thing. Part of my subscription to Buddhism leads me to perceive self elevation as rather pointless and based on delusion. So I, at least try, not to do it because sat here at this moment it just seems silly. Kind've like what Matt is getting at above although I'd place it in the terms that there is really no such things as better or worse, which are really just conveniences of abstract reference. The reality they ultimately point to is not the same as the social abstraction we make about them.

edit: I gotta stop getting involved in all this stuff especially as I already said I'd stop. It's too energy consuming

Edited January 16, 2011 by Ben Rowlands

[Mark W]

It was more that they fell into the trap of reading but not learning. Well, more accurately, knowing but not understanding. It just led to a desire to get into the usual sort of posturing that they saw people they aspired to be like in the philosophy world doing, without really thinking about why they were doing it or thinking about what the things they now had in their heads meant. A little bit of knowledge being a bad thing in that case...

In the various studies I did I definitely felt that Buddhism was the most coherent system/school of thought, primarily because it was the only one that appeared to place all the emphasis on the practitioner rather than the original creator of it. I think if people got put off less by the reincarnation side of things and the stereotype of the dudes in orange sitting around that people would be able to 'get' what it's about more. It doesn't really fit into the conventional religion/spiritualism model that most people are taught about so I think it's just a little harder to accept.

[Matt Vandart]

It was more that they fell into the trap of reading but not learning. Well, more accurately, knowing but not understanding. It just led to a desire to get into the usual sort of posturing that they saw people they aspired to be like in the philosophy world doing, without really thinking about why they were doing it or thinking about what the things they now had in their heads meant. A little bit of knowledge being a bad thing in that case...

In the various studies I did I definitely felt that Buddhism was the most coherent system/school of thought, primarily because it was the only one that appeared to place all the emphasis on the practitioner rather than the original creator of it. I think if people got put off less by the reincarnation side of things and the stereotype of the dudes in orange sitting around that people would be able to 'get' what it's about more. It doesn't really fit into the conventional religion/spiritualism model that most people are taught about so I think it's just a little harder to accept.

[1a2bcio8]

It was more that they fell into the trap of reading but not learning. Well, more accurately, knowing but not understanding. It just led to a desire to get into the usual sort of posturing that they saw people they aspired to be like in the philosophy world doing, without really thinking about why they were doing it or thinking about what the things they now had in their heads meant. A little bit of knowledge being a bad thing in that case...

In the various studies I did I definitely felt that Buddhism was the most coherent system/school of thought, primarily because it was the only one that appeared to place all the emphasis on the practitioner rather than the original creator of it. I think if people got put off less by the reincarnation side of things and the stereotype of the dudes in orange sitting around that people would be able to 'get' what it's about more. It doesn't really fit into the conventional religion/spiritualism model that most people are taught about so I think it's just a little harder to accept.

Well, that makes me think the philosophies were being used, to a significant degree, for the purpose of pretension rather than a sincere insterest in understanding. You can, after all, have a philosophy like a sports car in a sense. There's a lot of that in the world of philosophy and probably academia in general. I know the current trend in universities is that they actually play a quite conservative role in developing ideas which are usually guarded to maintain somebodies position in the community. In that sense that if an idea fails the individuals who have commited themselves to it also fail. Shamefully that losses the better point of developing ideas and replaces it with a boring game of status.

Yeah, the reincarnation bit I can appreciate putting people off especially when they've come from dealing with the metaphysical god of Christianity. The thing is, when existing within such an awesome system of thought, I'm willing to allow it some potential. Although I just don't really think about it because doing so isn't that pertinent to the practice of getting rid of suffering. Perhaps I'll come across an experience that validates it and perhaps not. Whatever.

[Revolver]

This make buddhism sound interesting.

I'd like to know more.

I've read through this before - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism - and I find this to be very similar or the same as what I came up with myself.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Revolver

[Mark W]

Well, that makes me think the philosophies were being used, to a significant degree, for the purpose of pretension rather than a sincere insterest in understanding.

Which was my problem with it...

Although I just don't really think about it because doing so isn't that pertinent to the practice of getting rid of suffering.

Plus you basically don't need to, as such. I don't really see why there should be a problem with, to simplify it quite a bit, a 'pick 'n' mix' way of looking at it. If aspects of it help you to lead your life in a better way, or help you gain a better level of understanding about things, I don't really see why you have to accommodate it all if it's slightly at odds to what you think.

But yeah, that's not really about energy so there we go...

[1a2bcio8]

This make buddhism sound interesting.

I'd like to know more.

I'll give you a brief summary seeing as I'm compusively stuck posting stuff within this thread.

Basically the idea within Buddhism, as expounded the Buddha (awakened one), is that the conventional way of looking at the world will cause us to suffer. Basically we're a bit confused about the nature of the world and that leads us to become attached to various 'things' that are never permanent and at some point they break down causing us to suffer. The stuff that breaks down is us (death), bike parts, abilities and status (through old age) and so on. The solution within Buddhism is the acceptance of this fact through intuitively knowing it in each moment. This stops you getting attached to anything in the first place thus avoiding a sense of loss and then suffering because of it. Not being attached to another human being does't mean indifference though. In actual fact it allows you to love because this knowledge makes selfishness, greed, etc. not possible because they are seen to be based on a confusion will I will part elaborate on below.

Basically part of the problem of suffering is the fact that through language and constantly refering to temporary forms (person, bike, etc.), with an unchanging, word gives the impression that it is permanent. Thus calling me Ben all the time gives the impression that there is something fixed about me (an essence, unchanging quality, soul, etc.) that exists through the fact that within my lifetime all the atoms of my body will have been replaced several times. I am a process and different in each moment as is the rest of the world. There is nothing permanent yet we forget this and take it as such and we do all sorts of crazy things as a consequence. And then we suffer. When we know this in the deepest possible sense, greed becomes pointless, as does fear and so on. There is nothing to have and there noself that can have anyway. There is nothing to fear and noself to be harmed anyway. There are just transient processes; the understanding of which is infinitely rewarding.

I hope that's an alright intro and I hope I haven't put you off through being incoherrent or verbose. Too many drugs atm. I recommend reading "The Foundations of Buddhism" by Rupert Gethin for the most lucid introductory account of Buddhism that I've read. He was actually my lecturer and meditation teacher at uni. Awesome guy and it shows within the book.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Ben Rowlands

[Matt Vandart]

I have a way of looking at it all that mixes Buddhism and Quantum mechanics which can actually explain the idea (to me at any rate) of reincarnation in terms more of energy (vibration) recycling rather than actually being 'born again' in the way people mostly perceive reincarnation.

I see no need to prescribe to a particular philosophy as such but have developed my own, admittedly I have picked out ideas from my own interest in religions/philosophies and quantum mechanics/cosmology and the learning about such (I certainly would not say I have studied religion or philosophy in an academic sense).

I have also used personal experiences to refine my view on the universe and my place in it and that of the other stuff.

Basically my current conclusions/views point to everything being a mass of energy which is slowly (or quickly, this depends on your view of time) scattering.

Being as heat is a indicator of how much activity or vibration there is going on inside matter on a particle level and the universes' energy (vibration) is scattering, leading to everything eventually ending up at the same temperature when this energy (vibration) that we are registering or measuring as heat reaches its most scattered possible sate the vibration will stop, everything will be still.

What happens then I have not dealt with yet.

However this runs parallel with an Idea that came to me once of what the soul is.

If we are made up purely of energy (vibration) which current thinking suggests (matter and energy are the same thing) then a soul may be energy /vibration) also. If we prescribe to the belief that only humans have souls and the human race is made up of a limited amount of the available energy (as energy in the universe is finite, much of it is locked up in matter other than human beings) then this energy (soul) is being spread more thinly amongst us, generation after generation, possibly explaining why modern man is very much more souless than ancient man.

I am taking soul in the above statement to be the thing that makes me and you different beings (parts of the same mass of energy) not the soul given to by 'the lord god almighty'

[1a2bcio8]

Plus you basically don't need to, as such. I don't really see why there should be a problem with, to simplify it quite a bit, a 'pick 'n' mix' way of looking at it. If aspects of it help you to lead your life in a better way, or help you gain a better level of understanding about things, I don't really see why you have to accommodate it all if it's slightly at odds to what you think.

But yeah, that's not really about energy so there we go...

Sure and that's part of the reason I will argue for Christianity when many people want to disregard it completely. Yet even if there is some nonsense (and there is within Buddhism) there's lots of good with Christianity. Christ was a decent man, probably a mystic, who was up for the equality of women, the giving of love, etc. It's another problem of language but people always confuse parts with wholes.

I think this does have something to do with energy in the sense of "what are we doing about?". Although it's not entirely direct, these types of ideas will inform the type of direct action you take. Buddhism is about compassion and through that we then consider future generations, etc. and make movements toward some supportive action. You might find this a weak argument though

[Mark W]

If we are made up purely of energy (vibration) which current thinking suggests (matter and energy are the same thing) then a soul may be energy /vibration) also. If we prescribe to the belief that only humans have souls and the human race is made up of a limited amount of the available energy (as energy in the universe is finite, much of it is locked up in matter other than human beings) then this energy (soul) is being spread more thinly amongst us, generation after generation, possibly explaining why modern man is very much more souless than ancient man.

I am taking soul in the above statement to be the thing that makes me and you different beings (parts of the same mass of energy) not the soul given to by 'the lord god almighty'

Although I don't get why you'd necessarily subscribe to that first bit, especially bearing in mind the second. We're not really any different from any other sentient living thing in realistic terms. Our cats used to have very different personalities and acted completely differently but were still cats, in the same way you and I are different and act differently but we're still humans...

Buddhism is about compassion and through that we then consider future generations, etc. and make movements toward some supportive action. You might find this a weak argument though

Sort of, but only in the sense that consideration of other's potential future plight is only a small step in beginning to want to take some form of preventative action, which is also only a small step towards that happening, which is also a very small step towards the world making a change. I'm aware it's a step that needs to be made, but I don't think the reverence it's given really matches up to the size of the role it plays.

[Revolver]

I'll give you a brief summary seeing as I'm compusively stuck posting stuff within this thread.

Basically the idea within Buddhism, as expounded the Buddha (awakened one), is that the conventional way of looking at the world will cause us to suffer. Basically we're a bit confused about the nature of the world and that leads us to become attached to various 'things' that are never permanent and at some point they break down causing us to suffer. The stuff that breaks down is us (death), bike parts, abilities and status (through old age) and so on. The solution within Buddhism is the acceptance of this fact through intuitively knowing it in each moment. This stops you getting attached in the first place to then have to lose what you've become attached to. Not being attached to another human being does't mean indifference though. In actual fact it allows you to love because this knowledge makes selfishness, greed, etc. not possible because they are seen to follow from a lack of insight about the way the world works.

Part of this problem is the fact that through language and constantly refering to temporary forms (person, bike, etc.), with an unchanging, word gives the impression that it is permanent. Thus calling me Ben all the time gives the impression that there is something fixed about me (an essence, unchanging quality, soul, etc.) that exists through the fact that within my lifetime all the atoms of my body will have been replaced several times. I am a process and different in each moment as is the rest of the world. There is nothing permanent yet we forget this and take it as such and we do all sorts of crazy things as a consequence. And then we suffer.

I hope that's an alright intro and I hope I haven't put you off through being incoherrent or verbose. Too many drugs atm. I recommend reading "The Foundations of Buddhism" by Rupert Gethin for the most lucid introductory account of Buddhism that I've read. He was actually my lecturer and meditation teacher at uni. Awesome guy and it shows within the book.

Hmm..

So you should accept that nothing is forever and to avoid allowing yourself to become affected by it when it inevitably ends, when all along you knew it would end, and you allowed yourself to become deluded that it might be otherwise.

That seems like a pretty sensible way to live your life.

My system seems to work on a level below that.. Rather than seeing through and understanding that, as a reason not to become affected, you should not become affected because allowing yourself to become consumed by negative emotions is unproductive, and is pointless when you have a choice over how you feel, and you may as well choose to feel positive, which you enjoy, than negative, which you do not.

Throw in some degree of 'for the greater good' and you've got pretty much how I think.

[1a2bcio8]

Sort of, but only in the sense that consideration of other's potential future plight is only a small step in beginning to want to take some form of preventative action, which is also only a small step towards that happening, which is also a very small step towards the world making a change. I'm aware it's a step that needs to be made, but I don't think the reverence it's given really matches up to the size of the role it plays.

I think we will have to disagree there. I kind've feel that the type of attitude I associate with Buddhism, but obviously isn't just limited to it, is a substantial foundation for action. It's certainly something, that if absent, would mean inaction. No doubt it's not an end in itself though. Although if we all enjoyed looking at the flowers in the park rather than driving 4x4s, watching our big screen tvs, etc. the situation might be a bit different aside from any conscious action

[Matt Vandart]

I like it.

I don't personally prescribe to the idea that humans are the only beings that have souls but there is a difference between humans and most animals/plants.

That difference is not easily explained but can be seen in the fact that humans generally support the existence of non productive humans such as the old and infirm, something that is not massively apparent in other animals. This could be the luxury of our available 'spare' energy but archaeological evidence shows that very primitive man did the same when available energy was much more scarce.

The only way I can explain this is that there is something unselfish within the human animal that is not generally present in most other animals this is what I would refer to as possibly a 'soul'.

Taking the examples of cats. Observed study has shown that old and infirm non productive lions are either driven from the pride or killed outright however long they have been a member of that pride. Lions have a similar energy system as what our hunter gatherer ancestors would have had before agriculture.

You could of course argue that the old and experienced had the knowledge needed in their heads and a such were productive but that does not explain infirm or disabled (non productive) which were also supported.

[Mark W]

It's certainly something, that if absent, would mean inaction.

Yeah, that's sort of what I meant with this:

I'm aware it's a step that needs to be made...

...but at the same time I think that just having empathy for others (be it at present or in the future) isn't the main thing and shouldn't really be the main focus. It's a catalyst of sorts for definite, but I don't see it as being massively functional in the scheme of things. To give a sort of example, I'm aware of the issue and aware that my actions will impinge on others, but to make any significant difference ideally I'd have to quit my current job and try and find some other form of occupation locally, change my diet significantly (in terms of buying foods with less transport costs/air-miles), etc. THOSE are the big things that need to be done, whereas the empathy for others is in practical terms relatively minor. I also think you can feel a sense of responsibility or duty to change, whilst not really having to be empathic.

[1a2bcio8]

Hmm..

So you should accept that nothing is forever and to avoid allowing yourself to become affected by it when it inevitably ends, when all along you knew it would end, and you allowed yourself to become deluded that it might be otherwise.

That seems like a pretty sensible way to live your life.

My system seems to work on a level below that.. Rather than seeing through and understanding that, as a reason not to become affected, you should not become affected because allowing yourself to become consumed by negative emotions is unproductive, and is pointless when you have a choice over how you feel, and you may as well choose to feel positive, which you enjoy, than negative, which you do not.

Throw in some degree of 'for the greater good' and you've got pretty much how I think.

I really like you summary; it's spot on. Very succinct as well.

And with reference to your philosophy it makes sense. I think I probably need to take follow that sort of thinking a bit more. I'm not sure about how much you always have a choice of how you feel in a given moment but I think in a general sense of how you approach life you can really shape how you feel by how you behave and think about things. But I do think you have a choice about acceptance which is what I think you are kind've saying and Buddhism is also about this. The world is the way it is and that needs to be accepted and you're wasting your time fuming over that which you can't control. In a primary sense aside from humans the universe is exactly how it should be. Clearly I need to take that advice given my emotional response in this thread. Although acceptance doesn't mean indifference.

[Mark W]

Taking the examples of cats. Observed study has shown that old and infirm non productive lions are either driven from the pride or killed outright however long they have been a member of that pride. Lions have a similar energy system as what our hunter gatherer ancestors would have had before agriculture.

The whole pride system is massively different to how human society operates though, and I can see the reasons for what lions do in many ways. I don't think it makes them selfish in that it's an instinctive or innate thing rather than a "f**k you, buddy!" sort of way. Similarly, you only have to see the care home abuse cases that show up quite regularly in the news, the way that there's a massive percentage of the elderly who barely ever see anyone else, the way that there are elderly people who die in their homes every winter because they can't afford to pay for their heating, etc. to show that we don't all look after the elder members of our 'tribe'.

The only way I can explain this is that there is something unselfish within the human animal that is not generally present in most other animals this is what I would refer to as possibly a 'soul'.

Again, I don't really see that as being a soul, I think it's more of a perception of value which doesn't necessarily have anything spiritual related to it. Different species have different methods of dealing with the injured, the sick, the elderly, etc., but I don't see their methods as being on a spectrum with "soul" on one end and "heartless bastards" on the other.

[1a2bcio8]

Actually Mark you said "small step"

I think it's really fundamental though. Those examples you are giving become easy if our empathy follows from really feeling compassion, love, blah blah, etc. Those sorts of feelings offer us a strong centre whereby it becomes easy to do things for others even if they involve the sacrifice of our diet, car, whatever. I make this statement from certain experiences I've had that I mentioned earlier.

Anyway, I can't continue. My thought process is f**ked and I'm having to read lines over and over to get anywhere with them.

[Matt Vandart]

You haven't 'instructed', but describing people as 'brainwashed', 'strung along', etc., isn't exactly describing others in a favourable light, and most of the time in these sorts of posts you appear to be speaking as though everyone's beneath you because you're so 'aware' of these problems that are going along. However, as you just admitted, you're still a consumer (even if you aren't spending as much of your apparent wealth as you say you could do, you're still actively going out and spending it on things that aren't necessary which is a fairly big 'I am a consumer' kind of action to perform), and as you also said your carbon footprint and all that other sort of shit relating to consumption of oil in all it's forms as a result of your job (which I seem to remember you saying you hated, yet you still do - for the money you don't seem to want to use?) isn't exactly great. Essentially, what I'm getting at is that I find it a bit rich that you're acting in what seems to be a fairly self-righteous/holier than thou way, yet you're still doing exactly the same things that you're accusing others of. I don't understand how simply having the awareness that what you're doing is 'bad' makes doing it any better than someone who's unaware doing the same thing. Knowing that your actions are 'negative' doesn't in any way change the fact that they ARE 'negative', and if you're still going about doing them whilst fully aware that they're negative seems almost worse to me than someone who's blissfully ignorant of what they're doing.

Yeah, that's sort of what I meant with this:

...but at the same time I think that just having empathy for others (be it at present or in the future) isn't the main thing and shouldn't really be the main focus. It's a catalyst of sorts for definite, but I don't see it as being massively functional in the scheme of things. To give a sort of example, I'm aware of the issue and aware that my actions will impinge on others, but to make any significant difference ideally I'd have to quit my current job and try and find some other form of occupation locally, change my diet significantly (in terms of buying foods with less transport costs/air-miles), etc. THOSE are the big things that need to be done, whereas the empathy for others is in practical terms relatively minor. I also think you can feel a sense of responsibility or duty to change, whilst not really having to be empathic.

Also on the point of the elderly in modern society that is a directly associated with modern society you dont have to look that far back to see the care of the elderly and in fact value of the elderly being very different. Care homes are relatively new.

Primitive Human tribes would have been much more like lion prides, it can have been no other way if you believe in evolution, again one cannot compare modern man socially with the primitive man. (taking primitive in the real sense of the word).

Edited January 17, 2011 by Matt Vandart

[Mark W]

I think it's really fundamental though. Those examples you are giving become easy if our empathy follows from really feeling compassion, love, blah blah, etc. Those sorts of feelings offer us a strong centre whereby it becomes easy to do things for others even if they involve the sacrifice of our diet, car, whatever. I make this statement from certain experiences I've had that I mentioned earlier.

I wouldn't describe those examples as easy in that in a very much practical sense they definitely wouldn't be, and that's what's going to shape how things pan out. That's what I was alluding to when I said I didn't really rate them all that much in the scheme of things. I guess we look at things from different viewpoints though...

I wasn't saying anything about what you do in your life or what I do in my life with the original thing you quoted, that was me talking about my perception of you on here from the way you were speaking about other people (hence the sentence just after the bit you highlighted in bold).

Also on the point of the elderly in modern society that is a directly associated with modern society you dont have to look that far back to see the care of the elderly and in fact value of the elderly being very different. Care homes are relatively new.

Primitive Human tribes would have been much more like lion prides, it can have been no other way if you believe in evolution, again one cannot compare modern man socially with the primitive man. (taking primitive in the real sense of the word).

So does that mean that modern humans have less of a soul than primitive humans?

EDIT: Not to mention if we were as inherently unselfish as you're trying to suggest we wouldn't be in this situation where we've poisoned the entire world and are rapidly depleting it's reserves which in turn lead to problems that this thread was started because of...

[Matt Vandart]

I think it is a possibility yes.

It would go some way to explaining why humans dominate the world whereas lions do not.

Something had to be that driving force and I don't believe it was purely intellect.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Matt Vandart

[Revolver]

I'm not sure about how much you always have a choice of how you feel in a given moment

I admit, it can be very difficult to change feelings that are already motion.

It is much the same as other things. The negative emotion, sadness, anger, is a tide that will sweep you away if you let it. But if you apply effort in the right places, you can stop such a thing before it gets difficult to control, and turn the tide in your favour.

[Mark W]

I think it is a possibility yes.

It would go some way to explaining why humans dominate the world whereas lions do not.

Something had to be that driving force and I don't believe it was purely intellect.

That opposable thumb probably came in pretty handy, I'd imagine. No pun intended...

[Matt Vandart]

That opposable thumb probably came in pretty handy, I'd imagine. No pun intended...

Yes the thumb is very handy.

[munkee]

I'll give you a brief summary seeing as I'm compusively stuck posting stuff within this thread.

Basically the idea within Buddhism, as expounded the Buddha (awakened one), is that the conventional way of looking at the world will cause us to suffer. Basically we're a bit confused about the nature of the world and that leads us to become attached to various 'things' that are never permanent and at some point they break down causing us to suffer. The stuff that breaks down is us (death), bike parts, abilities and status (through old age) and so on. The solution within Buddhism is the acceptance of this fact through intuitively knowing it in each moment. This stops you getting attached to anything in the first place thus avoiding a sense of loss and then suffering because of it. Not being attached to another human being does't mean indifference though. In actual fact it allows you to love because this knowledge makes selfishness, greed, etc. not possible because they are seen to be based on a confusion will I will part elaborate on below.

Ben I have to say I relate to most of this but I would never put it under a name as Buddhism etc. I rarely get attached to anything, bar family and my gf. Everything else is just a material that is used to get on with my life. I guess what I am saying is I expect a lot of people out there can relate to a lot of the views of Buddhism and other religious streams but don't actually care or wish to know what this is. I would call myself a realist. I take everything with a bucket of salt and I know within my life what matters to keep me happy and that truly is only the two things I stated in my first sentence. Money, motivation etc etc is all a "nice to have" or "wish to have" but f**k it.. If I had neither I'm still breathing and I still have what I hold closest.