equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Some topics tend to get heated and go off track in unwholesome ways quite quickly. The "hot topics" sub-forum is a place where such topics may be moved so that each post must be manually approved by moderator before it will become visible to members.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by binocular »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:18 amYes, I certainly agree with the first quoted paragraph. Wearing a mask is easy and I will be doing so. With regard to the equanimity, I tend to differ on the second bit. I guess I should strive for equanimity towards dangerous drivers (they're just heedless; their boss has given them a tight schedule; etc.) but I find it difficult because most people deemed competent to drive should be able to see how obviously dangerous it is.
But they don't; and many even find it outrageous to be made to think about such things.
If most people get away intact with dangerous driving, then how can it still rightfully be called dangerous?
In the case of those not wearing masks, though, there is more scope for genuine confusion, due to changed messages from the government, and a justified belief that - as they have been told - the benefits are merely marginal.
There are so many factors to consider that the matter is too complex for a simple answer. Similar as in driving.

With the masks: if they are worn properly, then there are benefits. But considering that most people don't wear them properly, and that it is not realistically possible to make them wear them properly, the benefits are marginal. So what recommendation should the government give?

Most of the time when people drive, regardless of how they drive, no collisions happen. Does that make any kind of driving okay? How to explain this to people, how to motivate them to drive safely?

It's the complexity of the matter that is relevant here. Unless one has developed a whole philosophy of safety and precaution and is willing to consider many factors at once, the matter is pretty much undecidable rationally, so people go by gut feeling (sometimes disguised as "rational reasoning").

I have noticed that people usually need to reach a certain age, have certain life experience when they begin to appreciate safety and precaution, without being anxious about it.

I have also noticed that esp. younger people cannot even imagine thinking about safety and precaution without this making them anxious.

For this reason, I find it much easier to have compassion for the barefaces. If they stopped and thought about it, I don't think many of them would genuinely think they were harming anyone.
Thus making them kammically innocent?

- - -
mikenz66 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:04 amHowever, my main reason for drawing a parallel is that I don't see how requiring someone to wear a mask, wear a seatbelt, drive at less than the speed limit, etc, (or not go naked for that matter) is some sort of heinous violation of rights. They are all in the category of minor inconvenience.
Road rage says otherwise.
As for equanimity for people not wearing masks, it seems to me to be the same issue as equanimity for people speeding or engaging in various other annoying or dangerous behaviours.

What adds insult to injury is that kammically, they might get away with it, while you end up in a wheelchair.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by Bundokji »

binocular wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:14 pm I'm trying to establish whether you're holding the position "my s**t don't stink", ie. a sense of superiority. Because deeming oneself superior, perfect and pure seems to underlie many people's aversion to wearing masks, or pretty much any other sanitary restriction, like the aversion to washing their hands after using the toilette.
Focusing on the risks is sometimes just a deflection.

Perfect hygiene isn't possible, and isn't even expected.
It's when people flat out refuse to make sanitary efforts in public spaces that shows that what is actually going on is a revolt against society, a conscious breech of the social contract. Anarchism. The closet anarchist is just hiding behind "risk analysis" and "reasonable level of sanitary measures".
In fact, i am arguing quite the opposite. We are full of shit hence we need to learn how to live with ourselves and our vulnerabilities without imposing guilt on each other. Those who insist on wearing masks are trying to protect their "pure health" from being infected, expecting others to change their behavior according to their pure and more accurate perception of risk.

Those who believe wearing masks is necessary can always do so! They can also avoid going out if they want to or avoid interacting and keeping a distance with those who do not wear masks if they believe its too risky.

There are many forms of social contracts, but it is always more desirable to allow freedom for the biggest number of citizens in a world where no one has a monopoly over the truth.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by Mr Man »

Bundokji wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:31 pm Those who insist on wearing masks are trying to protect their "pure health" from being infected, expecting others to change their behavior according to their pure and more accurate perception of risk.
I don't think people "insist" on wearing masks, they just wear them. Often I imagine people wear them because they think it is the right thing to do and are following guidance of those who are perceived to be more knowledgeable, rather than some idea of protecting their "pure health".
Bundokji wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:31 pm Those who believe wearing masks is necessary can always do so! They can also avoid going out if they want to or avoid interacting and keeping a distance with those who do not wear masks if they believe its too risky.
You could reverse that those who do not wish to wear mask can stay at home and not try to enter places where a mask is required
Bundokji wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:31 pm There are many forms of social contracts, but it is always more desirable to allow freedom for the biggest number of citizens in a world where no one has a monopoly over the truth.
In a country like the UK where the elected govt has made it mandatory to wear a mask in shops etc. And the social contract is to respect the state and this is accepted by the majority of the citizens would your reasoning conclude that the way to allow the desirable outcome of freedom for the biggest number of citizens is to follow the rules on masks even if you personally disapprove? People would have the freedom to go about their business without the irritation caused by rule breakers who possibly put unnecessary strain put on shared resources like state health services.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by Sam Vara »

binocular wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:36 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:18 amYes, I certainly agree with the first quoted paragraph. Wearing a mask is easy and I will be doing so. With regard to the equanimity, I tend to differ on the second bit. I guess I should strive for equanimity towards dangerous drivers (they're just heedless; their boss has given them a tight schedule; etc.) but I find it difficult because most people deemed competent to drive should be able to see how obviously dangerous it is.
But they don't; and many even find it outrageous to be made to think about such things.
If most people get away intact with dangerous driving, then how can it still rightfully be called dangerous?
In the case of those not wearing masks, though, there is more scope for genuine confusion, due to changed messages from the government, and a justified belief that - as they have been told - the benefits are merely marginal.
There are so many factors to consider that the matter is too complex for a simple answer. Similar as in driving.

With the masks: if they are worn properly, then there are benefits. But considering that most people don't wear them properly, and that it is not realistically possible to make them wear them properly, the benefits are marginal. So what recommendation should the government give?

Most of the time when people drive, regardless of how they drive, no collisions happen. Does that make any kind of driving okay? How to explain this to people, how to motivate them to drive safely?

It's the complexity of the matter that is relevant here. Unless one has developed a whole philosophy of safety and precaution and is willing to consider many factors at once, the matter is pretty much undecidable rationally, so people go by gut feeling (sometimes disguised as "rational reasoning").

I have noticed that people usually need to reach a certain age, have certain life experience when they begin to appreciate safety and precaution, without being anxious about it.

I have also noticed that esp. younger people cannot even imagine thinking about safety and precaution without this making them anxious.
It's probably best just to cultivate the general mental quality of equanimity. Then one might find that it extends to whatever people and situations that one turns one's mind towards. One might wrangle oneself into believing that some situations should be observed in that way because people are blameless, but that just pushes the problem into a different area.
Thus making them kammically innocent?
I'm not sure what you mean here. But if someone makes an informed decision not to wear a mask because to the best of their knowledge their doing so does not harm anyone, then no dark kamma is made by that.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Post by robertk »

2507-MATT-PORTAL-WEB-P1.jpeg
2507-MATT-PORTAL-WEB-P1.jpeg (12.06 KiB) Viewed 23931 times
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Post by Sam Vara »

robertk wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:43 pm 2507-MATT-PORTAL-WEB-P1.jpeg
:jumping: Excellent! I overheard two sales staff in my local shop yesterday talking about their duties when masks became compulsory (today, in the UK). Their boss had apparently told them that there was likely to be very little trouble from the bareface mask-refusers, but to expect a lot more from the maskers who objected to their facial nakedness.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by Bundokji »

Mr Man wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:03 pm I don't think people "insist" on wearing masks, they just wear them. Often I imagine people wear them because they think it is the right thing to do and are following guidance of those who are perceived to be more knowledgeable, rather than some idea of protecting their "pure health".
This was in response to binocular's point about "sh*t does not stink". Even in Buddhism, terms such as "purify the mind"and "defilement" are used. In a pandemic, fear from getting infected or feelings of invincibility that binocular referred to can be described, metaphorically, as puritan. It is not unusual to use the mind language in Buddhist forum.

I agree that most of them are following the guidance of those who are perceived to be more knowledgeable, but on the other hand, it is a convenient way to shift responsibility considering that they gave them the authority through their own volition, so ultimately, they are still believing their own mind.
You could reverse that those who do not wish to wear mask can stay at home and not try to enter places where a mask is required
Indeed. I support private business owners decision to impose mask in their private property if they want to, but the discussion here, as i see it, is related to public property.
In a country like the UK where the elected govt has made it mandatory to wear a mask in shops etc. And the social contract is to respect the state and this is accepted by the majority of the citizens would your reasoning conclude that the way to allow the desirable outcome of freedom for the biggest number of citizens is to follow the rules on masks even if you personally disapprove? People would have the freedom to go about their business without the irritation caused by rule breakers who possibly put unnecessary strain put on shared resources like state health services.
Not in all social contracts governments decisions reflect public will, and even in democratically elected governments, not all decisions are necessarily popular unless they go through a referendum. We have democracies, such as Sweden, did not impose the wearing of masks in public places and they are also refer to science when rationalizing their decisions. In the case of the UK, not wearing a mask if imposed by law make not wearing one illegal but this has little to do with the validity of wearing masks or the debate about it. Humans construct laws and they can always change them hence the debate is ongoing.

Especially in western democracies, the government takes an equal stance among its citizens in issues related to beliefs and values focusing on the individual freedom of its citizens. For example, western democracies are often associated with secularism.

The pandemic presented decision makers with opposing values. While most humans value health, but they also value many other things, and this hierarchy of values differs among both individuals and groups. Imposing one value over all others has little to do with objective science and more to do with imposing one subjectivity over other subjectivities/values.

Humans have always been mortal and causing death and disease to each other both intentionally and non-intentionally, and yet, life never stops.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Post by manas »

My housemates are scared of 'the virus' (meme, psyop, whatever) so I promised to wear a muzzle (ie, face mask) when I go into shops. I was yelled at by my landlady for not being a believer. I'm going along with this bs out of concern for my landlady's state of mind (she really is scared and I want to ease her mind) so I wear the damn mask in shops, keep 'social distance' etc so long as I live in my current residence, although I know this entire thing is basically a massive psyop on most of Humanity by the power elite. I am ashamed to be making it harder for non-mask wearers by wearing one myself in shops, but it's the middle of Winter, and social harmony matters at this time - I need to keep the roof over my head. It's cold outside.
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by Mr Man »

Bundokji wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:08 pm Not in all social contracts governments decisions reflect public will, and even in democratically elected governments, not all decisions are necessarily popular unless they go through a referendum.
So you suggest that a referendum should be held rather than following Government advice? The elected government in the UK, which has a mandate to govern, feel there are valid reasons for wearing masks in certain situations including in some public spaces, if you were here do you comply? How do you allow "freedom for the biggest number" in this situation?

If people did comply with local regulations in the OPs local he would not suffer this particular irritation.
Last edited by Mr Man on Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dharmacorps
Posts: 2298
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Post by dharmacorps »

In many jurisdictions in the US where the virus is in higher case numbers such as my own county, the stores are required by law to refuse entry to anyone without a mask --they can be fined or shut down if they don't comply. They are not fining individuals yet although some places near here are starting to.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Post by DooDoot »

Mr Fauci - unmasked!
Attachments
Fauci no mask.jpg
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by Bundokji »

Mr Man wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:39 pm So you suggest that a referendum should be held rather than following Government advice? The elected government in the UK, which has a mandate to govern, feel there are valid reasons for wearing masks in certain situations including in some public spaces, if you were here do you comply? How do you allow "freedom for the biggest number" in this situation?

If people did comply with local regulations in the OPs local he would not suffer this particular irritation.
I am not suggesting that a referendum should be held to measure the popularity of every single decision, but rather emphasizing that by virtue of governments being elected that does not make all of their decisions popular or accurate reflection of the collective will.

If i were living in the UK, i would comply because breaking the law is not an ideal solution. However, i would not hide my personal preference that it is better to be voluntary in public places. I cant speak about other people though, and the individual apatite for risk might include breaking the law which is already happening all the time.

The issue is not only about freedom, but more about sustainability of which individual freedom is only one aspect. For example, people would be more cooperative if you require them to restrict their freedom for a limited short period of time, but less cooperative if you ask them to do it for years.

In general, the best way to allow freedom for the biggest number of people is to begin treating them as adults by making it voluntary. Sweden is a good example to follow in my opinion.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
DooDoot wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 8:30 pm Mr Fauci - unmasked!
Be sure to have equanimity for the doctor.

:sage:

Now it's time for everyone to get

:focus:

Most of what people are posting has nothing to do with the topic. Please remember that DWE exists if you wish to discuss the politics surrounding Coronavirus.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Post by salayatananirodha »

I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
Post Reply