Is our civilization critically imbalanced? Could Yin-Yang help? (poll)
Is our civilization critically imbalanced? How could applying Yin-Yang concepts help?
(or ancient philosophy to the rescue?!?)
To define the terms of the questions
Civilization: our current world civilizations as a general whole. This is somewhat conceptual, owing to the fact that there a many separate cultures, countries, peoples, languages, etc. But here we are talking about the general, popular, industrial civilization which could be said to currently exist as a whole. (To me, western civilization no longer seems to be the most accurate term. But use that term if you would prefer.)
Imbalance(d): unstable, unsteady, unpredictable, and (perhaps most relevant for humans) unsustainable. Unsustainable (in relation to human relationships to the Earth) indicates that resources are being used or destroyed quicker than being replenished. There are perhaps many degrees of sustainability, a spectrum from the sustainable to the unsustainable. The question here is how close we are to being completely unsustainable. Thus precipitating a dramatic change of direction, to avoid the giant iceberg dead ahead (so to speak).
Yin-Yang: from Wikipedia:
[hide] [i]The Oxford English Dictionary defines:
yin (j?n) Also Yin, Yn. [Chinese y?n shade, feminine; the moon.]
a. In Chinese philosophy, the feminine or negative principle (characterized by dark, wetness, cold, passivity, disintegration, etc.) of the two opposing cosmic forces into which creative energy divides and whose fusion in physical matter brings the phenomenal world into being. Also attrib. or as adj., and transf. Cf. yang.
b. Comb., as yin-yang, the combination or fusion of the two cosmic forces; freq. attrib., esp. as yin-yang symbol, a circle divided by an S-shaped line into a dark and a light segment, representing respectively yin and yang, each containing a 'seed' of the other.
yang (jæ?) Also Yang. [Chinese yáng yang, sun, positive, male genitals.]
a. In Chinese philosophy, the masculine or positive principle (characterized by light, warmth, dryness, activity, etc.) of the two opposing cosmic forces into which creative energy divides and whose fusion in physical matter brings the phenomenal world into being. Also attrib. or as adj. Cf. yin. [/i][/hide]
Additional thoughts:
As part of the original philosophy, the natural balance and harmony of Yin and Yang can be altered by circumstance or by human actions.
Very generally, the ancient writings (as I understand) began with a poetic rendering of the cosmic forces at play: sun, moon, and Earth. Fire and water. The seasons. Later, a wealth of literature developed concerning the medical and personal applications of the traditional wisdom, such as TCM and feng shui.
This thread takes all of this into consideration. But the focus of the questions are a middle-ground between the cosmic and the personal: society / civilization. And how and why a society can be balanced or imbalanced. Sustainable or unsustainable.
Heres an article about misconceptions about Yin and Yang. And offers the corrections such as: Yin and Yang are not good vs evil (with poor sad beautiful Yin to be unfairly burdened with being called evil. Also, sorry Darth Vader... The power of the overly-Yang is probably more correct. Its just not as catchy as the Dark Side of the Force). Yin and Yang are not in conflict, nor are they absolute. They are relative to each other.
And importantly, they are primarily philosophical concepts and symbols. Any mystical or religious use is a personal choice and/or optional. Its doubtful that anyone would relegate the concept of Yin-Yang to woo-woo voodoo section of the library. Since, as is commonly known, the worldwide digital network is based on binary theory. Which was based largely on ancient Yin and Yang diagrams.
To which Id add that although Yin and Yang were first developed in ancient China, they are not limited to that time and place. Study of original meanings and texts are helpful of course. But for us here today, it seems necessary and critical to translate, interpret, imagine and re-imagine these concepts for our circumstances.
Answer the poll and give your feedback for a chance to win valuable prizes!
(or ancient philosophy to the rescue?!?)
To define the terms of the questions
Civilization: our current world civilizations as a general whole. This is somewhat conceptual, owing to the fact that there a many separate cultures, countries, peoples, languages, etc. But here we are talking about the general, popular, industrial civilization which could be said to currently exist as a whole. (To me, western civilization no longer seems to be the most accurate term. But use that term if you would prefer.)
Imbalance(d): unstable, unsteady, unpredictable, and (perhaps most relevant for humans) unsustainable. Unsustainable (in relation to human relationships to the Earth) indicates that resources are being used or destroyed quicker than being replenished. There are perhaps many degrees of sustainability, a spectrum from the sustainable to the unsustainable. The question here is how close we are to being completely unsustainable. Thus precipitating a dramatic change of direction, to avoid the giant iceberg dead ahead (so to speak).
Yin-Yang: from Wikipedia:
[hide] [i]The Oxford English Dictionary defines:
yin (j?n) Also Yin, Yn. [Chinese y?n shade, feminine; the moon.]
a. In Chinese philosophy, the feminine or negative principle (characterized by dark, wetness, cold, passivity, disintegration, etc.) of the two opposing cosmic forces into which creative energy divides and whose fusion in physical matter brings the phenomenal world into being. Also attrib. or as adj., and transf. Cf. yang.
b. Comb., as yin-yang, the combination or fusion of the two cosmic forces; freq. attrib., esp. as yin-yang symbol, a circle divided by an S-shaped line into a dark and a light segment, representing respectively yin and yang, each containing a 'seed' of the other.
yang (jæ?) Also Yang. [Chinese yáng yang, sun, positive, male genitals.]
a. In Chinese philosophy, the masculine or positive principle (characterized by light, warmth, dryness, activity, etc.) of the two opposing cosmic forces into which creative energy divides and whose fusion in physical matter brings the phenomenal world into being. Also attrib. or as adj. Cf. yin. [/i][/hide]
Additional thoughts:
As part of the original philosophy, the natural balance and harmony of Yin and Yang can be altered by circumstance or by human actions.
Very generally, the ancient writings (as I understand) began with a poetic rendering of the cosmic forces at play: sun, moon, and Earth. Fire and water. The seasons. Later, a wealth of literature developed concerning the medical and personal applications of the traditional wisdom, such as TCM and feng shui.
This thread takes all of this into consideration. But the focus of the questions are a middle-ground between the cosmic and the personal: society / civilization. And how and why a society can be balanced or imbalanced. Sustainable or unsustainable.
Heres an article about misconceptions about Yin and Yang. And offers the corrections such as: Yin and Yang are not good vs evil (with poor sad beautiful Yin to be unfairly burdened with being called evil. Also, sorry Darth Vader... The power of the overly-Yang is probably more correct. Its just not as catchy as the Dark Side of the Force). Yin and Yang are not in conflict, nor are they absolute. They are relative to each other.
And importantly, they are primarily philosophical concepts and symbols. Any mystical or religious use is a personal choice and/or optional. Its doubtful that anyone would relegate the concept of Yin-Yang to woo-woo voodoo section of the library. Since, as is commonly known, the worldwide digital network is based on binary theory. Which was based largely on ancient Yin and Yang diagrams.
To which Id add that although Yin and Yang were first developed in ancient China, they are not limited to that time and place. Study of original meanings and texts are helpful of course. But for us here today, it seems necessary and critical to translate, interpret, imagine and re-imagine these concepts for our circumstances.
Answer the poll and give your feedback for a chance to win valuable prizes!
Comments (146)
Maybe itll give me inspiration about exactly HOW the idea of Yin/Yang can help :chin:
Compared to the past this period of history is radically materialistic, and it is encouraged to everyone since childhood to be so.
Religion promised man to deliver happiness beyond materialism and not only failed but it exploited the people. So with 17th century enlightenment the west started shifting the balance to worshiping material goods and wealth and completely ignore religion.
What happened was just moving from one extreme to another as a form of reaction.
With this the whole civilization started to shift.
Individualistic virtues took the wheel of everyone's life, about money, relationships, career, health.
Basically the way this civilization views reality and life is completely fragmented, self-centered, one-dimensional and ultimately self-destructive.
P.s Iain McGilchrist makes a good case how we came to this point in his book Master and Emissary.
:up: Yes, well said! Thanks. That reminds me of a quote:
D. T. Suzuki, the eminent scholar of Zen Buddhism, one day made this sarcastic comment on the Christian tradition to his friends, American mythologist Joseph Campbell and psychoanalyst Carl Jung: Nature against Man, Man against Nature; God against Man, Man against God; God against Nature, Nature against God; very funny religion! (Daniel Odier)
Even though Suzuki is talking about Christianity in particular, it equally applies to the whole of Western Civilization, which seems to have a credo: We must beat the obstinate Earth into submission. Once we have mastered and conquered it, we will live like the kings we are! Of course, there are other strange peoples who are not going along with our plan. They are sitting on a gold/silver/coal/whatever mine and refuse to dig it up. Fools. We will take it to use as God and Nature intended.
Quoting TheMadMan
Thanks! Havent read that one. Looks interesting, about the two halves of the brain. I think our civilization suffers from schizophrenia (split mind).
Donald Trump Silvio Berlusconi, and Boris Johnson are three disgusting examples of the rash extremes chair contenders are willing to resort to.
See End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration By Peter Turchin. Just published today so haven't had time to steal his ideas.
:100: Just the book I would have mentioned.
You know, there is a mainstream idea that Christianity formed western culture but I think that is looking it upside down.
To my eyes its the other way around. It was the western "conquer the world" attitude inherited by paganism, kings and emperors, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the conquering hero myth that simply used selected christian dogma to their benefit.
In the 1st and 2nd century Christianity had a totally different spirit, it was more like Sufism, until Constantine the Great and the created church used christian beliefs modified to their preferences to control the masses and seize power.
"The people seem to embrace Christianity, we might as well use it to our benefit."
We can see this in how other forms of Christianity like Gnosticism were persecuted.
If you only look at Jesus' words it feels actually more like the eastern spirit than western.
To me the west looked more Judaic than Christian.
I voted other, because I think the idea that civilization should be a certain way is misguided. We invented civilization and keep on re-inventing it as we go along and as circumstances change... there's nothing like it that came before, no ideal model we can compare it to. So imbalanced compared to what? Some kind of imagined ideal balance? Nature perhaps? But nature isn't necessarily balanced either, sometimes it can reach temporary stable states for some duration, but that is by no means a given.
That said you can look at it and evaluate it from certain perspectives. And sustainability is probably not a bad one, because it is of particular importance to us as we rely on the civilization we are a part of. And then looking at your definition of unsustainability, maybe we should add critically to it, because probably no civilization since the dawn of civilization has been really sustainable. Any mineral or fossil fuels resource use is ultimately unsustainable by that definition because it typically takes millennia to replenish those.
And as a last caveat, sustainability is also a function of total population size because if you deplete your environment it helps if you can just move somewhere else. Hunting and gathering with 8 billion people on earth wouldn't be sustainable either.
So what I would say is that our civilization now is critically unsustainable mainly because we use way to much energy :
Most of this energy comes from fossil fuels, so it is finite by definition. Because we can extract them at a relatively low cost, energy is underpriced as long as this one-time endowment from the earth lasts. And because it is underpriced we were able to build our civilization around all kinds of processes that would otherwise be to wasteful and to costly. It also allowed us to artificially inflate world population to numbers that could not be reached otherwise, and can probably not be sustained without this.
All of this has had a number of by now well know adverse side-effects on the bio-sphere, but aside from that the issue for our civilization is that we have come to rely on this energy-surplus and probably cannot easily wean off of it as we run out. That's why I'd say it is critically unsustainable.
And if so, is it towards yin or Yang? This answer needs to be obvious, and I think it is obvious that there is and excess of yang in the culture; this is resulting in a climate rebalancing too much heat, too many fires, too much creative energy leads to more water, sea level rise, and eventually the drowning of coastal cities.
Google.
And the culture has difficulty coping because it responds with male energy to "do something about it" instead of bringing the passivity of doing less to bear.
Too much talking, not enough listening, too much creating, not enough sustaining, too much sun, not enough shade. too much artificial light, not enough darkness. Too much movement, not enough stillness, too much individual, not enough community.
Hmm, I would say it clarified and solidified intuitions that I had but were not very clear to me. Basically he shows how these intuitions actually have brain correlates and he used neuroscience to prove intuitions that people had down the ages.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Thanks for your reply.
Wait a minute lol. Who said anything about civilization being compelled to be any certain or particular way? Civilization can be whatever it wants. And it will be so. But if wed like to continue more than a century, we could consider respecting the laws of physics and biology. Being aware of all of the laws of nature, and following them. (Following all of them, not just those that are fun or make a profit).
The laws of nature do not change quickly, if at all. It is the circumstances of nature that change, often quickly. How could we live at all against the laws of nature?, one may ask. How indeed. Just because the consequences of living outside the law are delayed and not immediately felt, doesnt negate their existence.
And yes, there are many models to guide us! Thank goodness for that. People lived on this planet for over a million year without making it almost uninhabitable. Im counting any of the species named Homo, not just our current incarnation. Nature was their guide, and is our guide. In we fact we are nature, are entwined with all things and beings around us. We may ignore it, own it, or level it into a golf course vacation resort. But nature was good then as a model, and it still is. Its becoming clear that our culture, brilliant and knowledgeable in many regards, has something to learn from the cultures that survived millennia.
I think (to be fair) you meant this first paragraph to be a disclaimer perhaps, before you commented about sustainability. (Sorry if Im preaching to the choir, or even preaching at all. Not trying to write a manifesto lol. This is also a general statement and a reply to everyone in this thread :smile: ). Many feel that our current situation is dire. That seems to have been the consensus for many years. The differences in opinion mostly concern possible solutions. So any potential ideas must be considered. (Though any ideas that are a shameless grab at power masquerading as innovation can be immediately dismissed of course).
As the saying goes, if you want to get out of the box, first you have to think outside of the box. We in general have been repeating the same thinking and the same activities for centuries now. And here we are, so lucky to be living in such interesting times!
Let me add my own disclaimers. I totally approve of genuine science. Technology is somewhat different, because each created thing is different and has varied consequences. Questioning everything is part of science, perhaps the main part. We cant go backwards, of course. Hunting and gathering as practiced by peoples long ago is not generally an option for most now. We must go forward. But in what way?
Ancient wisdom is a cliché and a marketing ploy. Its very popular. It is allowed to exist for sale as long its not too questioning. I have a suspicion that this wisdom is definitely not taken seriously on the highest levels of power. I imagine that is thought of as quaint at best. (Even if some of the more clever leaders read The Art of War and The Tao Te Ching). But are they honestly missing something? Or just pretending? Are the rulers of today content and happy with the status quo, simply because they are the rulers? (Thats my guess, unfortunately. But if rulers, elected and otherwise, are not leading well, then such people are part of the problem and lose all credibility).
What if theres really and actually something from ancient / tribal cultures that can help on a large scale, as well as on a personal one? Even if I have great trouble even imagining the particular solution, the remedy appears coming from the past, from the simple people who came before us. I understand that we have a mistrust of anything seemingly tainted by being from primative people or by outdated mythology.
Of course, any partial solutions to be considered must be throughly examined and tested. Science all the way! (Hopefully disengaged from being under control by money). I say partial solutions because there isnt one big monolithic answer, Im willing to wager. A patchwork solution, borrowing anything that works from anywhere it can be found!
At this point, we might do well to re-examine absolutely everything. :flower:
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes it was meant as a sort of disclaimer or framing of how I think one can sensibly speak about these kind of things.
Our situation is dire, I agree with that. Where I usually disagree is not only concerning the possible solutions, but also with the typical analysis being given for our situation. There are these cultural pessimists today who blame our general culture, or see our problems as a result of a kind of moral failing of our societies/ the human species. While these things play their role no doubt, I think these are mostly downstream of the fact that we happened to unlock fossil fuels when we did. As a social species there is always the temptation to moralize everything and look for culprits to blame.
Quoting 0 thru 9
It's not my mistrust for the primitive, or any kind of feeling of superiority that makes me doubt the value of the ideas of these ancient cultures, it's just the acknowledgement that our circumstances are totally different now. I believe that our cultural ideas developed in tandem with the material circumstances we find ourselves in... that is, I don't think they are universal or fixed, but are mostly tailored to a certain time and circumstance. Today's world is globalized and high tech, and also more densely populated and ecologically damaged. This I would presume needs different answers than ideas that worked a couple of millennia ago.
But I'm totally on board with finding inspiration in or borrowing ideas from the past if they make sense now, sure why not.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Of course there are varying levels of understanding among leaders, as there is among people in general, but I think insofar they realize what's going on, they are rather clueless as to what they can do about it, and scared of the public backlash that is likely coming their way when things do go south. One shouldn't overestimate their individual power, they are always embedded in a party-political context wherein promises are made to their constituencies and stakeholders. Their problem is that, even if they wanted to, they probably couldn't implement the policies that would be a real solution to the problems we have because these typically don't have enough political support.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
:smile: :up: Thanks for your reply. Id agree with those statements.
Do you have a favorite book / author that has tackled this extremely broad subject? (you know, core cultural beliefs, potential global catastrophe, a vision of the future, etc). Non-fiction or fictional even a movie qualifies as literature (Ill go out on a limb there lol).
Personally, The Lord of the Rings (books and movies) continues to impress me as a critique of modern culture, and a dramatization of parallel ideas in action. (Or something like that, all in wizard, hobbit, and elf costume, of course). What that amounts to who knows?
Lord of the Rings is good, I definitely enjoyed the movies, but as a philosophy it is ultimately maybe a bit reactionary.
There's a ton about this. But maybe Charles C Mann, the wizards and the prophets. It's an interesting read if you want to understand two very opposing attitudes vis-a-vis progress and technology, and how they shaped different aspects of our world and the environmental movement.
Or maybe Nate Hagens specifically for this topic, he has a youtube channel and podcast that tries to look at all aspects of our current predicament and it's fairly easy to digest.
:100: :up: Meanwhile, the general public becomes less and less able to do anything substantial in protest. And we become more and more angry and divided. And thats just the family dinners!
Quoting BC
Sounds juicy and dramatic! Thank you for the suggestion. :smile:
Suzuki represents nondualism. 'Long and short define each other' is a typical non-dualist statement. The principle is that opposites only exist in relation to each other - which you also see in the ying-yang icon, although nondualism proper mainly developed in India and was imported into China with Buddhism.
Nondualism a very subtle philosophical attitude, not generally well-represented in Western philosophy, although you can find it if you know what you're looking for (see Nondualism in Western Thought, Greg Goode, free .pdf copy provided.) I've been studying it pretty well all my adult life in one form or another - I first encountered the Teachings of Ramana Maharishi, then Krishnamurti, then read many Buddhist texts, which are basically anchored in the non-dualist tradition. They arise from meditative awareness, samadhi, which is the rare and elusive state of self-transcendence.
As far as McGilchrist is concerned, I noticed his book Master and Emissary a few years ago - must admit I haven't read it, but read reviews and abstracts and listened to a couple of his talks. On the front page of his website, you read Our talent for division, for seeing the parts, is of staggering importance second only to our capacity to transcend it, in order to see the whole. It's that 'holistic vision' that is missing in Western culture, although not altogether, there are individuals and schools of thought that see it. And it is becoming more part of mainstream culture - it's one of the legacies of the 60's generation.
I went to the very first Science and Nonduality conference, in 2009, in San Rafael, near San Francisco (you can find their website here https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/). Also attended a few subsequent conferences, it's become a regular fixture. They now have hundreds of recorded lectures on youtube. There's a ton of material out there now - too much, in fact! It's like getting a glass of water from a fire hydrant. Nevertheless, much great material to discover and explore.
Maybe there's some substance in what you say but I'm not convinced our woes are a matter of 'balance' as such. Balance ( a more even distribution) seems too symmetrical, too neat a category to resolve the global issues we face. We live in a culture with distorted values and concomitant behaviours in numerous domains. To ask for balance IMO may not really address the problems. You could equality posit that what we need is a commitment to political transformation or a 'return to nature' crusade.
Any one of us can posit that the real problem is how capitalism operates and the urgent need for people to care more for others. But would balance be a substantive solution, or is it more about changing who we are, what we believe and who is in charge? Is wanting less of some things and more of other things about balance (in the colloquial, conversationalist sense, perhaps)? Not sure if it is at a deeper level.
:up: Yes, thank you. I think Jesuss words and teachings were conveying a paradoxical, mystical, and non-dualistic message in about the simplest way possible so his listeners could understand.
Agape, (the selfless infinite love that humans can potentially realize) is a radical and profound idea. I sometimes wonder what parables he would come up with concerning the world today.
Somehow the message got obscured (if not lost) by the politics, power, and popes. Fortunately, the spirit of love and compassion and wisdom is available for those who seek it.
:100: Oh yes, definitely too much Yang. You are correct. Climate change / global warming fits right into that diagnosis. Such as imbalance affects everything and everyone, even before the chronic global symptoms manifest.
Although too much Yang energy is warlike and overly macho and can lead to a stagnant patriarchy, males are hurt by it too. They are taught to be less than half of the being that they really are and can fully be. This may not be as apparent as the damage done to the more obvious Yin people: women, children, etc. Many men wander the Earth like lonely hollow wraiths.
:100: :up: Thanks for that! Couldnt have said it better myself, so I wont try lol. If nondualism were wine, we could use a drink right about now. Maybe 5 drinks.
A snippet of this insanity Locked into ourselves completely and always. Hermetically sealed in the most maddening of echo chambers: our own minds. Other people fade into solipsistic fragments of our imagination, since they cant be real. And where they oppose us, they must be fought and defeated! (one deludedly thinks).
Stop the dueling is a first step beyond dualism. Then one may see there are no hard and absolute boundaries between ourselves and anyone/anything/everything else. The cracks in ones worldview offer a chance to escape the prison.
Thanks for your reply. Yes, my suggestion is an speculative attempt using imagination to ascertain the foundational ideas of our culture. Thoroughly examining the invisible tracks that the (metaphorical) train of our civilization runs, so to speak. And see where the tracks are blocked or damaged. And speculate on repairs, improvements, or alternatives. This is primarily on an idea level, and concerns the flow of energy. Any and all energy in any form. Energy is matter is money is food is energy on and on.
Another metaphor Before the construction of a skyscraper begins, it is all ideas. Ideas in minds and on paper and computers. Drawings, numbers, calculations The paper and computer are material, but the core is mental vision.
You mentioned the problems of how capitalism operates. Capitalism involves goods, services, and money. Money is in circulation, like the blood in a person. If the efficiency of the current circulation of money were evaluated by a doctor, the doctor would say that the circulatory system is extremely unhealthy. And they might say the civilizations circulatory organs are so blocked that a heart attack is imminent. The doctor goes on with the bad news. The immune, digestive, and neurological systems are also strained to the point of collapse.
My theory is that those who own the world are like someone boozing and eating themselves to death. Even when they agree with the doctors words, they refuse to change. Absolutely obstinate until moved by force or death.
Dozens of critical symptoms. Is there one cause? Two? Nine? Of course Im not sure. This is all very vague. Any attempt at a big picture is going to be somewhat sketchy and vague by nature. What Im mostly sure of is that there are critical imbalances (or illogical elements or unsustainably or unquenchable greed or ) present, and that there is still a little time left to act.
As long as one is still alive and the world is not entirely a smoking garbage heap, there is still at least a little time.
Thanks for your message. Ill check out Mann and Hagens. :clap:
Ok, Ill bite lol Just for fun how is the philosophy of LOTR reactionary? (I take that term to mean wishing to maintain a status quo or return to a previous condition). Perhaps Tolkiens depiction of a devolving world where nothing is what once was? (Ahh the good old days! :halo: :sparkle: )
I guess when the regular folk have a deficiency of money and respect, and a surplus of chores, headaches, and blame, then everyone will wish to be elite. :wink:
It has become a virtueless cult of power. Everything is understood through power. Everything revolves around power. Everything may be sacrificed for the sake of power.
Critically imbalanced, yes. In the sense that chimpanzee society works on the same principles.
Please elaborate! (Assuming you mean the actual game-plan real politic of WC? And not the countless philosophies that have sprouted from within and often opposed to western civilization?)
Quoting Tzeentch
Power here = hard power? Lawyers, guns and money? (so to speak. As opposed to the concept of soft power which relies on influence. Cooperation and convincing, rather than coercion.)
Quoting Tzeentch
Agreed! :100:
Quoting Tzeentch
Wait a minute you wouldnt bad mouth my ancestors, would you??? :grin: :monkey:
What I mean is that concepts of Yin and Yang presuppose some form of sophistication.
It's hard to describe the behavior of apes through a concept like Yin and Yang (at least in the context of this discussion).
One could try, though. Does ignorance belong with Yin or with Yang? I think it belongs with neither, hence my previous remark.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes, but also science, politics, (what goes for) western philosophy has no other purpose than to further the pursuit of power. So both soft power and hard power.
Power for the sake of power, with no moral groundedness whatsoever. That's the axiom of what one might generalize as "western civilization". It's the language of Washington, of Brussels, of Davos and WEF, BlackRock, the central banks, etc.
The West has turned into a giant Nietzschean jungle.
Yes this yearning for the good old days sums it up pretty much. Tolkien was coming from a world wherein Britain was the dominant world power, a perceived Victorian golden age... all of that was rapidly changing with the onset of world war one. He was also a devout Catholic in a time where the the faith was waning more and more after the dead of God. I think his writings can be seen as a manifestation of his wishes to go back to a pre-modern time, to some kind of idyllic place of authentic living (countryside England) isolated from the rest of the world that was marching on to its doom (the Shire vs Mordor).
Alas one cannot go back, but ultimately only move on, through, to something beyond.... to something new. In that sense his critique of the modern probably still stands, but his imagined solution may be of little consequence.
I think Im understanding your point. I could blather on, but Ill let that noted Yin-Yang master Lao Tzu substitute in response because he blathers quite nicely.
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 27 (translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English)
A good walker leaves no tracks;
A good speaker makes no slips;
A good reckoner needs no tally.
A good door need no lock,
Yet no one can open it.
Good binding requires no knots, Yet no one can loosen it.
Therefore the sage takes care of all men
And abandons no one.
He takes care of all things
And abandons nothing.
This is called "following the light."
What is a good man?
A teacher of a bad man.
What is a bad man?
A good man's charge.
If the teacher is not respected,
And the pupil not cared for,
Confusion will arise, however clever one is.
This is the crux of mystery.
Quoting Tzeentch
Id say theres some dissenting writers in the West thankfully. The post-structuralists, existentialists, and marxists offer various criticism of elements in WC. One day the seeds of wisdom of all the insightful radicals may sprout for the benefit of all. They came not to praise or bury civilization, but to save it from its own strength. At least, this is the faint flickering hope of the weary.
Quoting Tzeentch
The misunderstanding of Darwin and the dumbing down into just win baby! and the winner takes all is at the core of our mission and misery. It is our mission because we are trained from birth to dominate and conquer nature and each other. Misery because despite the glorious achievements, there is usually some dark shadow around every triumph, leaving a few clear helpful inventions amid the many hollow and toxic victories.
Virtuous people won't support corrupt leaders. And virtuous leaders won't abuse their power. To a society, the virtue of its people is truly more precious than gold.
Sadly, western society is way past that point on both fronts. And once that genie is out of the bottle who will take the power away from the corrupt, powerful elite?
Thanks for your reply! :up:
My take on the LOTR and its possible implications for us It seems to be that thinking precedes doing. Humans have many instinctual behaviors, but they are outnumbered by our many learned behaviors. Somehow, we as a civilization have come to a point where we allow and encourage treating the Earth like a limitless bank account. Take whatever resources that will make somebody some money. Because Progress! Progress! Progress! And thus teach this unconsciously to our children. (Hopefully climate change and other crises are making us rethink everything).
We cannot go back, but we can look back. Hopefully, something critical is learned.
The sustainable golden rule: Whatever we do to the Earth and to others, we do to ourselves.
In our quest for a better life (whatever that may entail) we best remember that. Tolkien had the hero not grabbing the power, but throwing it away! Unheard of! Because that power was against that sustainable rule. It was power over the Earth and others, not power with them. Subjugation and domination was the Rings one absolute power. This is a game where the only winning move is not to play.
To those who say but there is no other way!, Id suggest that if no other way currently exists, then we must build it. For what the Ring represents in our actual reality is the ultimate addiction which gives a temporary high followed by complete destruction. So throw that Ring into the fire! :fire:
Ok. I don't think pursuing progress is some whimsical arbitrary decision we made at some point, and we then consequently "somehow" came to this point. Progress is where circumstance took us as tribes came into competition in a gradually more densely populated world.... the ones that were more advanced were generally the ones that persisted.
So what I think is missing in your story is why we came to teach these particular ideas to our children in the first place. I'd say because they made sense in their circumstances... it was progress or perish probably.
Also, I don't think learned behaviour is a bug, but rather a feature of human beings. As eusocial language using mammals, we need a process of acculturation to unlock our full potential. That's why we have an atypical long period until full adulthood, because our instincts are underdetermined and insufficient by themselves to function.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes the hero is Christ, turning the other cheek... surrendering power and therefor also life. We did try that for a while, in the West - as the only civilization on earth mind you - we had this inversion of values at the centre of our civilization.... and then we proceeded and conquered the world. So much for renouncing power!
It doesn't work because this is against the instincts... even if we are taught to think that, we cannot help but do otherwise regardless. So I wouldn't put my hopes on people throwing away power en masse. We already had Christianity for a couple of millennia and we are where we are anyway... Maybe we should try something else lest hitting ourselves on the same stone becomes fatal.
Virtually everything mankind does revolves around power, or illusions thereof. Technological advances, economic planning, social engineering, politics, and obviously things like war and conflict.
A lot of this is directly motivated by a drive for power, or indirectly through a prisoner's dilemma: "If I don't do it, the other guy will and surpass me in power (and subsequently oppress me)."
Thus, everyone is forced into this wheel of abuse and exploitation.
As long as there is even a single person who desires power or security at the expense of others, that wheel will keep turning.
There are many who believe they can stop the wheel from turning through the same methods by which it turns. This is perhaps one of the most dangerous illusions of all. "Peace" through control - the central fallacy of states. Fighting fire with fire only finds 'success' after the entire house has burned down.
For the individual, the only way out of this wheel is by relinqusihing their desire for power (ego), and their desire for security (life).
Only if one acknowledges there are things more important than one's ego and one's life, will they be able to pursue a genuine goal of peace and coexistence. Without that, it's simply impossible. Without that, one will fall prey to delusions born of one's contradictory beliefs; the crusaders, "do-gooders", ideologues, etc.
This is a typical dynamic. Because, as a lingering effect of religion, man is still aware that their desire for power is inherently undesirable and the cause of most, if not all, of man's trouble. So it hides in the subconscious under a facade of good intentions, where it's arguably even more malicious because of its hidden nature.
It's no coincidence that Frodo is a Hobbit. Hobbits are content with a simple life (suggesting a lack of ego), and have no aptitude nor desire for violence (suggesting a lack of convulsively clinging to life).
I know this narrative that claims the real issue is that Western culture is to much out to control or out to dominate nature, whereas ideally we should look more to be a part of and live in harmony with nature (like indigenous people used to do for instance).
All of this is somewhere tied to the notion that we as human beings hold a special place in the world and are not really part of nature (Ironically this setting humanity apart from nature is also part of the Christian tradition, but that's maybe besides the point here).
I think all of this is true to some extend. What I would say, and the point I want to make, is that this is only part of the story that focuses solely on the cultural aspects as if these are the prime cause.... and consequently, if we want to solve our problems we should aim to change this culture. This is what I object to. I claim that it's not the culture that needs to change in the first place, but the incentives, the circumstances... and then culture would follow along.
To make this a bit more tangible an example can help maybe. Take for instance the large scale mono-culture farmer vs the regenerative farmer. The latter is what we should do to improve our soils, preserve bio-diversity, procedure healthier food and sequester CO2 at the same time. At this point we kind of know this, or at least anyone who wants to know it, knows it. Yet very few go that route. At the end of the day, I don't think the main driver for this kind of behavior are our cultural values, but rather the fact that it just makes more sense in our current context to do large scale mono-culture. Because oil and gas, energy in general, has been dirt cheap for a couple of centuries, we can afford to fuel big machines to work large swats of land, we can afford to procedure in large quantities and drive food-surplus around all over the world and we can afford to use huge amounts of fertilizer made from natural gas etc etc...
What would tip the scales in favour of regenerative agriculture is energy prices going up, that is material conditions changing, not merely a cultural change.
:smile: Thanks very much for your thoughtful replies, theyre much appreciated!
Without any replies, this discussion becomes just me talking to myself lol.
Speaking of which, I have a running debate in my head.
One side is deeply pessimistic.
Not about life or existence, but about the tenets and foundations of our civilization.
Almost a desire to start civilization over, while keeping knowledge gained through history.
(This is just a fantasy, of course. But it reflects the state of mind).
The other side of my mental debate is more moderate, tweaking or adjusting this or that aspect of our culture in my mind to make things better.
Am I correct to say that youre closer to this moderate viewpoint, rather than the radical one?
(Sorry, only two polar choices. Vanilla or chocolate lol).
If so, please convince me that this once glorious looking civilization is not rotting at the roots, and has been hollowed out by greedy termites who manipulate global markets.
(Obviously, there are many individual parts of our culture which are good, and still work).
Your comments so far are a good and well-reasoned start.
But unfortunately I (though not suffering from depression anymore) remain leaning towards the deeply pessimistic and skeptical.
So please help me, @ChatteringMonkey (and anyone else) convince me not to go radical!
(Non-violent radical, of course :flower: ).
No, I think you should go radical ;-), but not in the typical way perhaps.
I don't think little tweaks will do it. Climate change, bio-diversity loss and related issues will not be solved with little tweaks to the system. Our entire global economy is set up around cheap fossil fuels. Swapping those out for processes that wouldn't have this negative impact, essentially means re-inventing the whole system. Regular politics cannot go there because there are always vested interests that stand to lose to much from that amount of change.
That's also the reason I'm not that high on the type of radical activism, or revolutionaries, that demands all kinds of drastic changes to be implemented, not because I don't think we should do them, but because I just don't think it will work. As a whole we will generally not decide to sacrifice short term tangible conveniences for some relatively far off intangible good. We are bad at long term planning, but reasonably good at short term reactive action. And so that is what I think will happen, because these problems ideally demand relatively long term planning and action, we will be late in solving them.
So where does that leave us one might ask :-)? I think some kind of crisis, or multiple crisis, will force our civilization to change. That is both the bad and the good news I suppose. Change will come, but probably not in the way we would draw it up.
What I do, is try to come to terms with that, manage my expectations, and try to develop some general skills that might be useful in a variety of uncertain circumstance. That is something I can do something about. To illustrate this maybe, one can look at this whole history as a gigantic failure of humanity to live up to some kind of ideal moral standard, what we could have done otherwise in some imagined counterfactual world etc etc... and eventually become a misanthrope. Or one can look at this bizarre history of a naked ape coming out of the savanna and consider it half a miracle that we even got this far. No other species voluntarily avoids overshoot either and eventually runs against the limits of its ecosystem when it has overcome its competition... we are not that different. The latter perspective is a bit more humbling and less judgement it seems to me.
Anyway, maybe this is not exactly what you were looking for, but it's what I got. And yes, it's by no means an easy thing to deal with, take care.
Cite an example of a "civilization" which was not unbalanced.
:flower: Thanks for your post!
(I hope you dont mind the formatting.
Im trying for a less block of text look to the post. It was discussed here).
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Definitely, developing and using what are still called alternative sources of energy the main sources is huge, though Im on the fence about nuclear energy.
I read about plants using nuclear waste as fuel, which is great.
You may be very correct about an entire new system needed to implement new energies.
But the skeptic/cynic in me wonders what kind of calamity it would take to dislodge the elite.
(By which I mean the robber barons and tycoon tyrants).
Would have to be a heck of an upheaval to separate that dog from his bone!
I probably could easier envision agonizingly slow adaptation of bio-fuels as long as they are profitable for corporations and their elected pals.
Difficult to say really, at least for me.
Well, Im not an activist really more into the ideas and thinking that underlies everything we do.
You know that point where a roof cant take another layer of tiles and needs a complete teardown?
It feels like civilization is at that point, but first comes a re-evaluation of ideas, traditions, and habits.
Then comes the practical manifestation of those ideas that are deemed sustainable, worthy, etc.
I wonder if we were raised on a steady diet of bullshit, about who we are and what is possible.
If not bullshit, then we are metaphorically feeding on a mixture of gourmet food and broken glass.
(And besides the metaphor, the standard diet offered to humanity wouldnt nourish a rat).
Welcome to the machine, my child may you ride the glorious contraption to the heavens!
(Try not to get in the way of the machine though because it crushes everything in its path).
Every culture molds its young to fit in with the group, whole or tribe.
Which is fine and natural, unless the culture happens to be close to insanity.
The average person follows their orders with body exhausted, mind confused, and heart aching.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yes.
Unfortunately, you may be right about more crises forcing the change traumatically.
I hope theres a surprise happy ending somehow.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Im not completely convinced by the arguments listed here sorry to say.
We could and should develop all our potential, and be positive amid the storms.
Desparate times call for a cool head, and a warm heart.
Not sword-swinging warriors who take no prisoners (another toxic role were taught).
I dont view history as gigantic failure of humanity, and the phrase ideal moral standard is somewhat problematic, in my opinion.
Of course, becoming misanthropic is a sign that something is dreadfully wrong.
I theorize that when one tries to follow the contradictory, toxic, and impossible advice and standards of our civilization, instead of training the mind with clear awareness and vision, we will live in something akin to what TS Eliot called The Waste Land.
The waste land is here now (Im not the first to say), where the good are uncertain, and the bad filled with energy and are ready to battle.
But I agree with you that humans are not completely different from animals in every way.
Thinking that we are the center of all is one of our main misjudgments (human exceptionalism).
Humans at the top of the universal pyramid is as misguided as a flat earth as the center of all.
Its time for humans to belatedly rejoin the family tree of nature.
Thanks for your reply. :smile:
Im most familiar with our current civilization naturally, and even so it still makes my head spin.
But as an example of a balanced civilization, Id offer the Australian Aborigines.
65,000 years of continuing existence in the same place is a damn fine record.
If we are wise, wed learn as much as possible from them, despite differences in technology.
Starting with the cool didgeridoo, since its impossible to be uptight and domineering while listening to one.
Their culture (before European colonization) was radically different than ours.
A fair question.
As mentioned above, the fact that theyve existed for countless millennia is reason for investigation.
They live simply, so its probably easier to sustain their existence.
We live in more complex environments, so its more difficult.
If it proves to be indeed non-sustainable, then obviously adjustments are necessary to make it so.
These are not simply human laws our civilization as a whole keeps violating with gusto (although it does break many of its own laws too).
These are the laws of nature: energy, biology, physics, gravity, toxicology, animal populations (of which we but one), and so on.
If we were able to see which of our habits, traditions, and technologies were tending towards the sustainable, and which were not, then that would be an excellent start.
But with vested interests everywhere, that is extremely difficult or likely impossible.
If someone doesnt get paid, generally they cant afford to survive.
If getting paid means selling toxic food, medicines, or information then that will happen over and over again.
Round and round we go, locked in a loop with diminishing returns.
Our civilization has a terrible record concerning living alongside cultures with different priorities.
Our actual doctrine is if we need it, we will take it.
So much for neighborliness, lawfulness, and the golden rule (all esteemed parts of society).
If our culture can at least begin to imagine how to stand on its own two feet in its own space and be sustainable, and not need the entire planet, along with precious minerals from outer space, that would be a good first step.
Nuclear energy is fine. The waste is not that big of a problem, certainly not compared to other issues we have with carbon emissions. The only downside with nuclear is that it is hard to build... it's expensive, needs a lot of skilled people and takes a while. Because of that we couldn't really built them fast enough - even if we wanted to - to phase out fossil fuels in time to stop further warming.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Well there will always be elites, right. The question is what kind of elites. Now they are able to float over and between nations and communities because of our globalized world. They can go "shopping" with different governments to get the best tax deals, etc... and are completely unmoored from any particular community because of the sheer scale of things. Globalization like we have it today, might be one of the things that has to go... and then, yes who knows what will happen.
Quoting 0 thru 9
We certainly are raised on a steady diet of bullshit, but then that isn't new exactly... since the dawn of civilization ideologies have been created to serve as propaganda for the ruling class. This is maybe a bit of a tangent, but it's not that surprising nor will it change any time soon I'd think, because it seems that reason has developed as a means to justify ourselves to our peers... or put another way rather than truth or reason strictu sensu, 'rationalization' is what we seem to be geared for.
Quoting 0 thru 9
It's a fine line. It seems to me we do need a culture, some kind of group that share a story and we feel a part of... but then it can easily flip to dehumanization and aggression because of in-group out-group dynamics. This is also one of the things we dropped the ball on in the West.
Quoting 0 thru 9
There's no ending I would say ;-).
Quoting 0 thru 9
Framing things in term of good and bad is a moral way of looking at it. That's fine, if you want... I'm just saying one can take different perspectives on these things, and also be just as (partially) right. The things is, any story we are going to tell ourselves about the totality of this vast amount of things that have happened in history, always has to be focusing on a few aspects and leaving out the majority of things not focused on... it's necessary only partial, a perspective.
Quoting 0 thru 9
And I'd say, even in this misjudgment we are probably not exceptional. Doesn't every organism think itself to be the most important thing?
For me, 0 thru 9, this example stretches the notion of 'civilization' into incoherence.
:up: Yes, that is a large part of the situation.
Its as though as relatively small group of power-hungry beavers have dammed the river almost completely, and only a trickle of water comes out on our side.
The circulation of energy and resources is anemic and slow.
But all is well with the system; we must stay the course and bite the bullet!
The invisible hand of the market is giving us the finger.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Oh yes reason has devolved into a myriad of rationalizations.
I hope / think the pieces may be falling into place regarding this and your previous comment about the elites.
It is a desperate hope for a last minute reprieve, for sure.
We have access to more information than ever, if we want it and sort through the piles of words.
We can communicate almost instantly with info, video, etc.
The elites want us fighting against each other instead of confronting them, and we oblige them.
Everyone is there little niche, defending their turf as the parasites suck the last of our blood and the life of the Earth.
We can change our course away from disaster by putting on trial those leading us there.
The time for casual empire building is over.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I didnt intend to frame the situation in stark terms of good and bad, because thats too simplistic.
Yin and Yang are much more subtle, as is that study of the Way of Life, the Tao Te Ching.
That last line was a variation on the quote the good people are silent, and the bad are filled with energy, or however that goes.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Well, Id love to be able to communicate with animals, and for wild birds to perch on my finger like they did with St Francis.
I dont know what animals think, but I know every being values its life immensely.
However, humans are the only species smart and powerful enough to disrupt major ecological processes.
We will see if we care enough to devise a way to stop.
How so? Because they didnt have pyramids? Because they are saddled with the pejorative primitive?
You asked for an example of a balanced civilization. Would substituting the word culture make a difference? Thats fine, if so. :sparkle:
Ok, thats fine. Fair enough.
The larger point of what can we learn from them? is what I began to address in this post.
You mentioned that you voted other in the poll. Could you possibly elaborate on that? :smile:
Oh I think I see what you are saying: civilizations are unsustainable because of their size.
Cultures are at least potentially sustainable.
Is that the comparison between the two terms that youre making?
That sounds reasonable.
Where does leave us with our mega-civilization?
(No pressure. Just need the solution to everything in 50 words or less. :grin: )
:100: :smile: :up:
Yes. Very well said, completely agree. Thank you very much for your post.
An excerpt from a thread on "The Future"...
Quoting 180 Proof
Cant imagine, dont want to imagine
but that scenario has to be taken seriously as a very real possibility.
Is climate change (the umbrella term for a constellation of myriad environmental conditions) thought of as a symptom of an even deeper problem?
It seems so, that while no one is glad for climate change (CC), it at least opens the door for consideration of societal change.
But sometimes, I get the impression that CC (even when taken very seriously) is thought of as a rather physical situation that intersects with us only through the carbon we give off or something.
And with some brilliant mechanical tinkering, it can be fixed without too much self-reflection as individuals or collectively.
As if nature were a car that has been running poorly and making clunky noises, but paying a trusted car mechanic will fix it.
There is another thread for the details of CC, so Im more interested in the thinking that underlies everything we do.
And especially the non-thinking, which takes two forms:
The first meaning of non-thinking is the stuff we ignore or dont think about in any way.
The second meaning concerns the unconscious mind, the part of our minds that doesnt manifest itself directly, but has a tremendous influence over our consciousness.
(Im thinking here of Freuds iceberg model of consciousness and Jungs collective unconscious).
Is our civilization churning out well-adjusted individuals mostly?
Or is the stamp that our culture deeply ingrains in each of us very problematic?
Now if an individual has access to constant amusement and distraction, any problems lodged in the unconscious may be mostly dormant as long as the distractions continue.
But if the toys are taken away leaving the only basic necessities and the person to face themselves, will the person tend to have a painful identity crisis with much anxiety?
Have we become out of touch with the natural world and even ourselves and our minds?
Are we at war with nature and ourselves?
Is this schizophrenia?
The average person could not survive very long in the deep forests, even if the weather were comfortable and they were given tools and maps.
On a psychological level, would many have a mental breakdown if the constant flow of distraction, information, and entertainment stopped even temporarily?
What comes first: the unbalanced civilization or the unbalanced person?
Or do they arise together, fall together, and even possibly become re-balanced together?
Monopoly, monogamy, monotheism, monoculture, monolithic, monomaniacal in satirical yet serious form of some fictional expert explaining why he thinks this way is just fine):
Monotheism.
The whole big world is rather confusing, so long ago some very wise people (it doesnt matter who or why, its complicated) simplified everything into the One.
One may ask about God or Gods or Goddess or Titans or Deities or Celestial Beings.
The answer turns out to be quite simple, thankfully.
Theres only one God, period.
Therefore, its logical to worship Him in a socially approved manner, and avoid wasting time and energy by thinking too hard about it.
If you do ponder about God too much, you might go insane (thats why we said its complicated).
There is only one God, which is easy to remember.
He is male (of course) and loves when people die and kill for Him in a sanctioned and sanctified manner.
Best of all, understanding God as completely as we do (no small feat!) gives us the courage and authority to organize the rest of society.
Such as the use of nature for purely human benefit
Monoculture.
Weve raised the animals for you to eat.
We gave them jobs and their own office in one of our high-tech factory farms.
They werent doing anything else important, and if they had a small fraction of our immense intellect theyd be proud to serve us (hamburgers).
Weve harvested the wheat for you, ground it into flour, taken out all the stuff that will make it too brown and chewy, and served the delicious paste to you at minimal cost.
Monoculture has allowed us to dominate Mother Nature (who doesnt realize our superiority and secretly is trying to kill us).
Mother Nature is not too bright, and one wonders what the Omnipotent God saw in her in the first place maybe He was a little drunk and horny.
(One cant be Omnipotent without being horny sometimes).
She is rather beautiful though.
Speaking of mating and marriage
Monogamy.
Some animals mate with several different partners, but this is exactly because they are animals.
Animals with no sense of self, and hence no self-control.
Humans, despite rumours to the contrary, are definitely not animals in any way.
(The few people still spreading that fake news have been thoroughly discredited).
One man, one woman the way was meant to be in order to raise a herd of children.
This cluster of children will make wonderful consumers of the many fine products that our clean and efficient factories produce non-stop.
Which leads us to the topic of work
Monotony and Monopoly.
Factories and money are the natural way to monopolize the raw material that is the earth.
Do your job.
Do it well, and do it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over (Printer: repeat until the page is full).
Monarchy
There may not technically be a monarchy anymore, at least not one thats just for fancy clothes and galas.
Rather it has slightly expanded to include legislatures, congresses, parliaments, ministries and ministers (both Prime and sub-prime), judges, security forces, bureaucrats, etc.
The point is that it is all settled and centralized for the convenience and safety of all.
Just like the earth is the center of the galaxy, and humanity is the center of all creation, the Monarchy is at the center of society.
(Those of a less spiritual, and more of a scientific inclination may give their devotion to Family, Job, Culture, and our benevolent and tireless leaders instead of God per se, but please keep it to yourself).
This is The One Right Way to Live.
(Youre welcome!)
Use this wisdom wisely.
(Or risk suffering The Many Wrong Ways To Die we warn because we care).
In a nutshell, all the abilities the average smartphone gives one.
What is less likely to be envied is the extreme pressure they must feel, as soon as they become aware of the basics of the situation.
Pressure to be noticed, to be liked, to perform, to achieve, to stand out, to make money (despite still being a child), to gain a following, and so on and on
Not just compared to the rest of their friends and classmates as has been happening for millennia (and not without its own problems), but compared to the whole freaking world.
Pondering this might raise a headache, along with many questions, including this one:
Question: are there human entities (persons, groups, corporations) that are intentionally trying to make humanity more afraid, more powerless, more unhealthy, and more isolated? In a word, more unhappy?
If so, then who, how, and why?
If not, then are these entities doing so unintentionally or accidentally or because the market is forcing them to?
Or ?
Taught to hate the Yin within by repression and judgment.
To hate the Yin around us by seeing it as lesser, while exploiting it.
For a common example, a young boy who is light-skinned (white) is told (implicitly, perhaps explicitly dominator culture is hypocritical and likes to disguise its toxic nature) to hate the lesser female, and to avoid being anything similar to that.
To be a girl, fag, sissy, wimp (or other terrible slurs) is considered the lowest level, even possibly evil or to be possessed.
We are even taught to hate childhood, in a way. Because being a baby is being immature and stupid.
We are taught to hate minorities because they are supposedly (at least partially) primitive and animal.
Hate is fear, and fear is judging all in order to put oneself on the elite pinnacle of humanity.
But this judgment is against parts of ourselves, no matter who we are, and this causes self-hatred.
Trying to be strong can be good, but labeling half of creation as lesser or evil cannot help but lead to suffering and tragedy.
In our badass culture, we try to become a monster, in order to avoid being a victim.
Hmm I think I know what you are saying. But if you can expand on that a little, then I can be sure. Thanks for your reply! :smile:
There is the entire philosophy of duality and its lesser forms, metaphysically and psychologically. From a philosophy point of view the most important area for expansion may involve the dichotomy of psychology and metaphysics? It can be asked about these labelled categories and inherent conflict of opposites which may be conflict underlying this dichotomy and naming of opposites. And, with opposites, it may give rise to a question of binary opposition or a continuum?
Ok thanks, that helps me understand. :up:
Yin and Yang could probably be called a metaphysical concept, one that originated in Asia of course.
Id call it more of a continuum, because each Yin and Yang contain the seed of the other within it.
Perhaps the West in general better understands binary logic of yes/no and good/evil.
Even the beloved Star Wars and its balance of the Force is not accurate regarding the dark side lol.
Its just a movie series, but it kind of perpetuates the misunderstanding, I think.
Yin is definitely not evil or power-hungry as shown there.
I guess this is on the level of mass psychology, or the underlying philosophy of a civilization.
Perhaps this involves the psychology of propaganda in a way because it seems like it would take a great intentional effort to convince everyone that they should act, identify, and think in a rather narrow and particular way.
Or so I tend to think in my cynical moments, but I may be imagining things.
Interesting! Apollonian and Dionysian are a classic pair.
Towards which one would you say that our culture is leaning towards or imbalanced toward?
Id have to ponder it more, but Id say that up until the mid 1960s our culture was overly Apollonian.
Then after a culture clash, the Dionysian was co-opted, and its archetypal power subverted to serve the status quo-money machine.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Derridas deconstruction is an attempt to unravel the logic of dialectical opposition:
Thanks for your post. :up:
Regarding our possible cultural underestimation of the dark quiet feminine Yin, Id say this quote describes our love of (addiction to?) certainty and fact.
Fact as something solid and almost immutable.
Assemble a group of related facts and you have truth! (A least a truth.)
Even on a purely physical level, seeking absolute truth can go astray as shown by the mysterious Quantum theory.
With regards to a moving target like the human mind and culture, the results can range from deceptive to disastrous.
But perhaps if one has a very practical attitude toward beliefs and other assemblages of facts (do they work? do they help?) and has a non-attachment to them, then there are less potential problems.
At least, it seems so to me.
Dogma wasnt always the criticism is is now; Nietzsche the iconoclast helped his readers see the pitfalls of unexamined belief, whether religious, philosophical, or otherwise.
Although my impression of Nietzsche is that he sometimes fell under the sway of the overly Yang, with his Will To Power, for example.
But please correct me if thats an incomplete or incorrect view of his influential work. :smile:
Thanks for your reply. :smile:
I think I understand most of Derridas quote, and see a relationship to my quote.
But if you could expand on that a little (dumb it down a shade? :blush: ), it might sink into my mind even better.
So Derrida is saying that binary oppositions (male/female, white/black, hetero/homosexual) inevitably privilege one term over the other. Deconstruction overturns the hierarchy but doesnt stop there. It then shows how each term of the binary depends on and overlaps with the other, so that they no longer can be said to simply oppose each other but to belong to each other.
Ahh! I see. Excellent, thanks. :up:
By the way, where (what book) was that Derrida quote from?
It was from Positions, where Derrida responds to interviewers questions, the easiest way to read him.
Thanks for your in-depth reply. Much appreciated! :up:
I would take it a step further (so to speak) than Nietzsche, if I may add to his thoughts.
Id say that mens ideals of women are part of a cultural blueprint for identity and activity that constrains and controls men as much as it does women, though women undeniably are abused.
The clever part is convincing men that they can be in charge and manly by playing this crooked game.
In a crooked game, everyone loses even the cheaters.
By following civilizational norms that Man is Man, Woman is Woman, and never the twain shall meet each is cut off from half of their potential.
One example of this is the way men are programmed to be unaware, dismissive, or repressive of their feelings.
This makes them better tools for the army, industry, or other roles that require a machine or semi-robot, until actual robots or computers can replace them.
We have to ask ourselves what are the rules of identity?
Who made and enforces them? And who benefits from this situation?
It may be impossible to determine where and when this game started since its been going on for millennia.
Odds are that it is not the ordinary average human, their families and communities that are priority.
Thanks very much! :up:
Oh wait you mean that quote was already dumbed down? :sweat:
Quoting 0 thru 9
Believe it or not.
Now soldiers can kill by launching rockets while sitting behind computers. Very brave and manly.
Maybe because of the damage to civilians and infrastructure, nations will soon fight wars in a televised battle of soldiers in an arena.
100 soldiers vs 100 of the enemy. Winner take all. Sponsored by Kill-Flex Rifles and by Pepsi.
But even so, terrorists would still do it the same way as now.
If one wants to illuminate the room, light a candle.
If one wants to illuminate and warm a bitterly cold wasteland world, light your soul on fire.
(Prosaic meaning lol: self-defense is a sad fact of life, but violence is at best a temporary solution.
It is a drug with many nasty side effects, even when it is considered righteous.
What would result from many people truly knowing their own mind and power?)
Thanks. :up:
There are terrorists all around, at least potential ones, clouded with rage, pain, and confusion.
To them (or should I say to us because almost all of us are on the edge) everything is toxic or tainted.
They and we are walking bombs, ready to detonate from the brewing chemicals inside.
A lucky few can find an alchemy to neutralize the corrosive acids before they dissolve us alive.
Our ancestors have eaten bitter grapes and our teeth are set on edge, biting anything they can.
I think we are on a vast pendulum swing from right wing or fear oriented societies to left wing or desire oriented societies. It's also clear that although the value-added portion of desire side orientation has already been accomplished, that we have gone well past balance and clearly the inertia is going to take us further into desire-side failure before the metronome uses up the swing energy to oscillate back towards balance.
The good news is this swing is of course less wide than the previous wing to the fear side. But it's sad for those of us aware of wisdom, of real balance, will suffer more, precisely because we realize when balance was passed and we are left feeling like, 'Wait, those waters were warmer! Go back! Oh shit you fools don't realize it and are actually still fanning the same now stupid flames. Waaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttttttt!'
Quoting 0 thru 9
Oh sh(oo)(i)t, I thought I was already on my groove and you have not even setup the post yet. Damn! I still get points, damnit!
Quoting 0 thru 9
Like it or not the West had the onus and the drive last wave. Desire always leads the way. Idealism is the path to the future and desire side thinking (motivation) is what takes the helm.
Yes there are sub cultural ruts and eddies (women in Iran were Western dressers with no hijab and 50s conservative clothing and hair styles back the 1970s (compare that to now)). But the WORLD at large was following and ruled by the desire curve. Even now the second or third wave of it from the West is slowly converting Islamic backslide forward again. Yet they remain the most persistent old world male or fear oriented culture(s) on the planet. You have to get deep-fried country within any nation to see that kind of shift. Leadership is all much more on the desire train.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I mean you say these words 'unsustainable'. I don't buy it. It's built in that healing can happen and then its also built in that time scales out quite insanely. With each iteration/oscillation of history's major arcs (worldwide expanding soon to interplanetary) the next wave is smaller We are zeroing in on wisdom, balance. It almost seems inevitable. Like barring a world ending event the increasing frequency of the metronome swings will bring us to a perfect(ish) balance in a timeframe that is short order by universal lifetime standards. It is the Fermi Paradox writ small. Other civilizations do not exist precisely because the moral agency curve on those that survive transcends this dimensionality and they need not disturb growing cultures (or perhaps they labor to ensure our growth in an unexperienced way (which makes sense as to why good remains good and is objective and stable).
Quoting 0 thru 9
So this is just code for me for one word 'Change'. I mean it's kind of boring, if you follow. I envisioned if I were offered Godship and allowed to make 1 rule for reality it would be this one: "Let there be continual change in every way!" That's because with this rule in place you get flux. You get choice.
Quoting 0 thru 9
The old world thinkers HAD to attach meaning to substance. They slowly realized that meaning does not need substance. But by then the people had already made the icons. Too much work to remake them into ... ideas. This is reminiscent of the Islam and Christian icon-haters that demanded that no image of or representing God could be crafted and to do so was a sacrilege. This affirmation of limits is critical to meaning itself. In not doing by intent, some aspect of infinity is accepted and thus conquered. The certainty is deemed unnecessary if its not possible. You see how that works on so many levels?
Quoting 0 thru 9
Death is a thing. But death is only really relaxing sensation/arousal enough to 'rejoin' all. It's actually kind of a goal in some ways. Get it? So who wins, the society whose individuals live longest or the one that dies the quickest? Tricky questions!
Quoting 0 thru 9
I see a lot of male side consideration being order-related, fear-related because men represent order itself as a gender in general. But this is multi-level deception. Order is not the good and so fear and men are as good as they are evil in agency, in choice. Being order-leaning is dark only, NOT GOOD, because balance is wise.
It is more generally (in the past) conflated that chaos is evil. But this is also deception and a delusion. Chaos is just as good as it is evil. Being chaos-leaning though is dark only, NOT GOOD, because balance is wise.
So, both standard conflations are practical bets, but wrong in their final assessment.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I would deny any relationship between the binary concept and ying/yang. There is too much depth and meaning amid yin/yang. Binary is literally that 0/1. If you are speaking true binary as a concept its JUST 0/1 and only within reality do we always detect the neutral state as well, some 1/3 intersections. This shows the duality and the trinary nature of reality. But binary is not sufficient on its own to capture that system and yin/yang is although it mostly does not choose to.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Agreed as mentioned before, sustainability is always reachable. Matter, energy, and emotion are never created nor destroyed, but, ... change! So, free will. It all flows.
Quoting 0 thru 9
'Tell im what ees won Jane!'
I agree that this is the shortsighted dynamic.
The issue is that real wisdom, balance found amid struggle, is misunderstood. It always has been and always will be.
But the thing is, and it's pressing now, we have to change to a wiser model, by any means necessary, or we are likely doomed. When I say doomed, nothing is final. That to is part of wisdom. But there is a sweet spot in any situation where the pivot to wisdom and balance is still possible, if improbable, at a lower activation energy. It really is a hear me now or believe me later throw-down.
There are so many inherently unwise states present in today's humanity. What I mean by inherently is that the status quo accepts as wise tenets that are fundamentally unwise. I do not want to derail, so I will say only there are glaring examples and the actions of 'leaders' here points out who we tend to empower to make these horrid immoral errors. That means the system is broken, not just those leaders.
My gadfly challenge to humanity is this: Change to wisdom as a base or decline into near insignificance. As is the nature of reality, wisdom is universally reviled as a set of impossible ideals. Sadly, Pragmatism is the worst enemy of all moral agents in this sense. (It is not. Idealism is just as bad, but pragmatic failures are improperly trusted and more in control) This dynamic means that broadcasters of real wisdom are all too likely to be sidelined as sophists. I hate that term by the way. Sophistry should be exalted as an art of wisdom. The art of deception as wisdom is the definition of Pragmatism and Idealism, both, taken alone. We should all aim for a sophocracy, a rule of the wise. But first, we have to declare a credo about what wisdom is.
I originally posted a HUGE post reply to this thread. I cant find it now. I have no idea what happened. I am not debating laziness or re-posting it.
Thanks! I feel similar anger and frustration about being stuck on the Titanic with billionaires who dont care if we hit an iceberg, because they have a personal helicopter to fly them to safety.
Addiction to power is the worst addiction, because everyone suffers for it.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Could you please expand on this somewhat?
If Im understanding correctly, Im not sure that I completely agree with this particular point, though I agree overall.
I dont think the situation as a whole has reached a balance point anytime recently, not even for a moment while swinging in the other direction.
I agree that desire is the carrot stick to keep the machine running, and the whip is never far behind (from hitting our behinds lol).
And the faded promise for capitalism is that everyone can be successful!
(Cryptocurrency is the latest attempt to let everyone try to game the system, and is immensely seductive because there is a lack of cash flow is like living in a dry desert).
But I think we are prisoners of a system whose rules make it mandatory to consume the Earth for power and profit, not just human need.
It is a game, pure and simple a tragic game with all losers (as in war, a key feature of the game).
Even the winners are tragic selfish scared losers, only with bigger bank accounts.
The masters of war have been in control for centuries and millennia, and theres nowhere left on Earth to escape them as might have been possible in simpler times.
We can identify with winners and believe their lies, and go along with their plans, and be their prison guards and beat up those beneath us.
Or we can abandon this toxic dream, even if we have nothing to replace it with at the moment.
Now Progress (that which tried to fill the endless void) is on life-support.
Well, Mr. Gadfly, what is the wisdom to which we should switch over? The dictionary says...
"Wisdom: the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment."
but this doesn't get us any closer to what exactly we should do. I agree that we ought to change. I have a list of changes we could / should make. Lots of people have these lists, and many of the items are excellent recommendations. "The List" isn't the problem. The problem is motivation -- the compulsion individuals must feel that leads them to act, to change (for the better or for the worse, depending).
My guess is that individuals attempt change their behavior when their material circumstances present enough motivation to change. A farmer gives up his land when persistent drought and heat ruins the farm. Parents migrate long distances when there are no longer opportunities for themselves or their children to survive. People make serious efforts to lose weight when the doctor tells them "diet or die".
I live a much less stressful, happier, simpler life now than I did 20 years ago. Wisdom didn't motivate the change: circumstances that were beyond my control forced new circumstances into my life.
If wisdom has an effect, it comes in when we have to decide what to do next, usually under difficult circumstances. ("Life is what we do while we make other plans.") I don't happen to know what to tell someone who has a family, a mortgage, student loans, and car payments what they should do if their means of earning a living is pulled out from under them. Simplify? Get rid of the cars? Sell the house? Put everyone in the house to work? Go live in a tent? Get a new career? Shoot yourself? What?
My options as a single man were/are not the same as a man who has a family. What is wisdom for me might be folly for them.
I'm 77. I don't know how a 27 year old should respond to the challenges he or she is facing in the years ahead.
The thing is, when the proverbial poo hits the fan, all their workers will realize it and many will step aside from helping them at that time. Some of them are smarter and pay for loyalty, overpay so they are 'appreciated', but even they will be surprised at the backlash in crisis mode.
Still, until the system collapses, and it will limp along almost forever in some cases (just ask Rome), the decadence and top heavy immorality will keep rising and the pressure below will keep building. It's sadly kind of another law of nature.
The real problem is now that people think this is prosperity. It will take much monger before the stubborn realize the pain they are in on a daily basis despite oxycontin, porn, cheap whiskey, and other 'easy' addictions.
Quoting 0 thru 9
So, this explanation would take so much more. But hey, you asked and that is the thread topic, so ...
So, what has been described as the Patriarchy or traditional society, etc was indeed a fear-oriented mostly Pragmatic society, or set of cultures. It is in the nature of the world, or the pool of available societies that most express fear mostly. Anger and desire are less openly expressed.
The reason why anger is left behind is simple. Fear is the orderly building force. It causes all identity in the universe. Group together, form a group, become something. Build it. Fear is the integration force. It is also a more male participated thing.
Anger is balance, neither male nor female actually. Tribal scenarios are NOT civilizations. They are more anger and balance based and they get left behind. Big man or egalitarian groups do not give in easily to the building needs of fear. They do not in orderly fashion form militaries. They have true warriors, not soldiers, and they will destroy soldiers one on one. But they will lose against the grouped, orderly, planned based formations of a fear society. Thus is civilization built and one thing above all is denigrated, anger. Random violence and un-random violence both stop a lot of would be 'rulers'. But it is in the nature of things that anger fights too many battles and wears itself out. Fear has more stuff stored up from planning, more time to rest, better at observation, better at finding weak points. Fear is conniving and cowardly. It does not come to fight without overwhelming odds. Anger is courageous. It will fight just to fight. So, early anger loses to fear and anger is denigrated.
After the fear society forms and all, repeat all societies are fear societies. Formation of a society is only ever based in fear and only ever departing from anger. That is how it happens in the natural state. This is the nominal case of such a transition. There are other cases but they are weird, after the fact, and beyond the scope of this post.
Anyway, societies then, once formed go through phases. The identity they formed when they are created will last depending upon its wisdom and power. Both have great inertia but power has much less than wisdom. Thus in Earth's history we have civilizations with great power that nonetheless disintegrate and fail. Wisdom alone, and greater and greater wisdom with each iteration, has real staying power dur to its multi-virtue more genuine balance.
But the reason societies fail is not fear and not anger. It is desire.
Desire is chaos. It is freedom. They are roughly equivalent terms. It does not matter if people want to disagree. It is a law of nature. Like Milton I can wait. Let truth and falsehood grapple, truth is strong. Desire is effectively the force of disintegration, just like fear is the force of integration.
Do not get me wrong. Fear, anger, and desire are all the only three emotions, primal, and they make up everything in the universe. There are no exceptions. And each of these emotions is both moral and immoral showing the infinite power of free will, of choice. So, I am NOT denigrating desire here. But desire is what it is and to mischaracterize it would also be immoral.
Amid human societies once they are formed and built they cause great 'prosperity'. The survival needs of fear are met and fear itself begins to also be denigrated. Just as fear is more a male instantiation, desire is more of a female instantiation. Do not bother me with trivial examples of this statistical fact not being accurate. It is beyond basely accurate and there are so very very many reasons. Amid humanity, one of the simplest reasons is that women must become pregnant. This is the basis for much of their instantiation. Their more restricted and orderly biology causes a backlash of freedom in their manner. Likewise males have the freedom and must therefore balance that with an order attitude. That is one core reason and another is that to prevent inbreeding, the order of the own group, its restrictiveness, must be denied by the privilege of the protected breeder capable group, women. This freedom-aimed, mysterious stranger from over the hill loving manner is programmed into women. It has worked for millions of years to prevent inbreeding. It has to be there.
But that is all the time I will 'waste' on that issue here. Suffice it to say that societies return to idealism from pragmatism and balance and that tipping of the scale is the beginning of the end for them. It seems almost inevitable (it is not) that all societies follow this pattern. My book is first and foremost about realizing that the pattern exists so that we can slow its wild oscillations and stay more centered on balance and wisdom.
Anyway, all desire side efforts, freedom-seeking in any way, often is abused. It is not even realized as abuse. Most of freedom's defenders will proudly die for their foolish freedoms. And I do not mean the support for wise practices like free speech and such. I mean they will die precisely for the freedom to do and do repeatedly immorally addictive and destructive things to themselves and others. Capitalism is an obvious example. Democracy is another, but that is a topic for another thread.
SO, you have to at first admire all the wonderful explosion (chaos and desire are explosive) of wealth and distractions from the real task (gaining wisdom) that happens when a fear society builds itself up. But they started by priding themselves on the denigration of anger, remember. This trend continues. Now the perversity of immoral desire turns that society on itself, from within. Many failed societies, all of them that just collapsed where that collapse was not based on dwindling resources, followed this easy to understand pattern. Desire and 'becoming' within the society, against all balance, against objective moral truth, begins to take over. 'You can be anything you want to be.' is the clarion call of desire, of immoral desire. It is a direct denial of objective morality. Desire to be moral must be bound properly by fear and anger, but both become denigrated, usually.
'The heart wants what the heart wants!' is mostly a dark immoral excuse. It is not a wise statement and it never will be.
Quoting 0 thru 9
This is nothing more than what my model predicts. New and 'interesting' and more and more convoluted highs of addictive desire. This is the path of immoral desire-side destruction, obvious to the wise. Here I will arm you with a red flag to see it. And you will probably hate it. It is sad to most desire side thinkers. They rail against it. But 'giddiness' is it. If you see giddiness, you see imbalanced probably immoral desire occurring. Even the church-based giddy high of worship is deeply suspect as addictive behavior. Balance is the healthy state. Within balance fear and anger properly calm giddiness. So, you have been warned. Take the advice or do not, but now, you will at least see it and wonder. It will show you what I mean.
So, why is desire so possibly bad? Remember that I do not intend to denigrate it. It is because the feeling desire offers its user is more compelling than the corresponding fear and anger are. Further, it is because people do not realize that desire (and giddiness) should be suspicious on their own. Earlier societies knew this, back when they were too orderly, too fear based, or too anger based. But the direction of all societies proceeds along that path normally from anger, to fear, to desire, and then back again. Keep in mind that the standard 4 part aphorism of hard/easy times and weak/strong men, is, like most aphorisms, a lie. That is because evil and good are not a real proper part of that model. Just like yin/yang as a model the model itself is wrong. That helps no one. In fact it causes more evil. Belief in a wrong model is one of the worst things we can do against wisdom and the good.
Desire is the emotion of the future. Adding to it feels progressive. It is not. That is to say, it is not unless it is balanced with fear and anger, properly. Fear always feels so restrictive and imprisoning. That is some of its nature, yes. But fear is misunderstood. It is all thought, all reason. When it is agreed that these things are fear, and really mostly just fear, fear's value is better understood. That is why I redefined fear to its true definition. 'Fear is a excitable state that arises as a result of matching patterns from one's past'. All awareness, all preparation, and even all joy (from the angry conquering of fear) is fear based. Fear is the emotion of the past. So to most people fear seems old, it seems boring, and it tends to also excite them as they fear fear itself. This is what leads to its denigration, immorally.
A fear side man like most will try to fit in in society and build something. That male will want to impress the best females. That is 'normal'. Normal just means there are far more of these males than the other types. Order builds on itself. But look at what happens naturally! The chaos side females will, amid their order bought freedom, revolt and push back the 'rules'. Some men will also. They will resist pairings with their own society's males in favor of the mysterious stranger over the hill (to prevent inbreeding). This temps the orderly males to use more order to restrain the females. And the cycle goes on and on.
But eventually, freedom has its way with everyone. Disintegration becomes 'fun'. People take it as licensed behavior to pursue every addiction with reckless desire as their 'right'. All bonds within the society are seen as poisonous restrictions of an unnecessary (fear denigrated) order. Every single connection point is assaulted with the boundless expression of desire, pure self-indulgence as the only holy virtue. The balance of wisdom was tossed aside well before the restrictions of order were. That was the losses of anger and fear respectively. This is a law of nature, not just my observations.
When one emotion is running the show it confuses people. They see all the emotions. But they do not realize that anger and fear now serve desire improperly. The anger you see is violence born of tantrums from puerile children not getting their way, including adults obviously. The unwise all seem like children to the wise. Neytiri in Avatar tells Jake 'You are like a child ...' Her mother Mo'at, the wise woman, tells him she seeks to seek if his people's insanity can be cured. That is tribal wisdom, balance, anger. It is closer to real wisdom, balance, that any civilization's can be. I am not saying to go backwards. Civilization must become more intentional. We must become wiser. Again, that is the purpose of my book, and so many others, crying out for more wisdom in this horrid but hopeful reality.
Quoting 0 thru 9
All blame is accepted. It is my fault. It is your fault. There is no such thing as a prisoner, excepting one that accepts themselves as such. That is wisdom.
To say 'prisoner' about yourself means you have accepted it on some level and I advise you that such a statement and admission is dangerous. It is the part of you that wants to blame others and not yourself. But the truth is finally 'You are them!', and 'They are you!' So, you are to blame no matter what and all imprisonment is self-accepted.
Quoting 0 thru 9
No, do not denigrate war.
War is a synonym for change. War is morally acceptable. I lose a lot of people there and I am fine with that. Wisdom is universally denigrated.
Growth comes from suffering only. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering upon the unwise to give them opportunities to grow. If you walk through a field on a sunny day without a care in your heart, you are making cosmic war on the creatures that live in that field. Your obliviousness to this truth is all that makes you careless. Peace is the greatest delusion there is. War is fine. Loss is fine. These are not immoral in and of themselves. They are consequences. Consequentialism is a lie. Morality is all deontological. Intent is what matters. The direction and strength of choice is what matters.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Indeed. The winners lost their humility in most cases. That is an unwise takeaway. The winners that will not discuss what was done wrongly are always the worst kind of fiends. Machiavellian consequentialists are a Pragmatic terror upon this world. Resist the immoral lies of Consequentialism, and renew vows instead to deontological free will.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Change/war/suffering is inescapable. Only a desire side immoral idiot believes that pleasure is the path to success or anything good. Suffering is required to stay wise as well as to become wise. The wise seek out greater and greater means of challenging themselves to suffer more exquisitely than others. They could not be wise otherwise.
You cannot escape change/war. Peace is a delusional immoral aim. To maintain proper balance war is required morally. You may prefer to call this struggle or effort, and that is fine. War is the real name. I do not shy from naming something what it really is. I accept war and prefer it. I do not mean unnecessary violence which many people would foolishly demand is the real definition of war.
Do you want something to survive? Declare war on it. It's the best thing you can do to cause the survival of what you declare war on. Figure that one out.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I agree. But this state is always toxic. It is not perfection. So do not hate it. Do not call it toxic, even. No one is toxic to the wise. No state is toxic to the wise. Everything has the infinity of choice amid its state. Free will is the only thing in existence.
Thanks for your many in-depth replies. They were read and appreciated.
However
But unfortunately, when you write things like you did in the second half of your post
I dont feel like responding. But I will because I feel compelled to explain since I started this thread, and feel a little responsibility about it. Otherwise, Id might just go my way without much comment.
This for example:
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Quoting Chet Hawkins
When I read this, I feel disappointed and somewhat queasy. You have some provocative ideas that I found challenging and difficult, and I enjoyed those. The quoted comments from you crosses some kind of line for me though. And they taint everything else youve written, in some way.
Sorry if this sounds offensive But to be extremely honest or blunt, those comments seem (to me) dangerous, delusional and preachy. It seem to assume that you have an absolute vantage point or a Gods eye view. To such an extent that I would be greatly surprised if anyone in this forum would agree with them in any way. If you lived in Gaza or Ukraine, I might think you really understood the consequences of your statements.
(To repeat: your many other comments were cool, even if I didnt agree or even understand them completely).
To be fair, Ill read your response to this, and take it into consideration. But you seem like youve made up your mind about many things, so Im not expecting a retraction. Like you, Ive been pondering these issues for many years, so I am probably set in my ways about certain things as well.
In a nutshell, your quoted statements really go directly against the purpose of this thread, maybe unintentionally. One may say in response that Im being a woke snowflake who cant handle another view, or cant handle unvarnished wisdom. But that is not really the case.
If I dont respond further, good luck to you in all ways. :pray: :flower:
Quoting Chet Hawkins Perhaps the lesson to be learned then is to see the signs and pity those that fall for them. Their actions require us, gifted with greater awareness, to suffer for them as they themselves do not know to do so for themselves. Our inaction deserves recognition as the mental parasite it is. As does our personal hypocrisy which, if it cannot be extinguished, should be beaten back.
Ah hopefully we are addressing the issues. Critique is part of why I post as well.
Quoting 0 thru 9
That is sad and interesting. Hopefully, you explain WHY your line was crossed. I cannot work on vague notions.
Quoting 0 thru 9
OK, but that does not say why they sound that way.
I suppose the idea that the colloquial definition for war is dangerous and all bad or mostly bad. It's why I took pains to link war to the idea of change only, which I do believe. I am not saying that violent war is not mostly bad, but there can be morally necessary violent war. That is really a key takeaway. You cannot defend yourself, your nation, your group of people who choose a proper moral ideology, without violent war as a threat to would be enemies.
The other key mitigation in my opinion is this. Wisdom only comes through suffering. That is a tautology. In every way, most moral agents do not believe in wisdom until they have suffered some along each path of possible suffering, loss or longing for a virtue that is now in a low state.
So, if wisdom comes through suffering only, in some cases the goal of the wise must be to increase suffering. Then the question is how in each case, relative to the virtues.
So, there is resonance. Resonance is the way in which moral strength helps us earn wisdom without much suffering. We have a relative strength and enacting it resonates with objective good in such a way that the reflection upon the moral agent, the feeling is hard to call suffering. Because we are not perfect though our expression is always not perfect, so, there is suffering always. This is why, even amid strength, it is still a tautology that wisdom only comes through suffering.
The real question is where is the line drawn. That is the line between necessary and unnecessary suffering. We could all easily agree that most warfare, heck even most civilizations regular peaceful living, produces a ton of unnecessary suffering. So, my point there is that we as a society have to get much much better at understanding where that line is, for real.
The final example of the need for war exists in every virtue, but, the basic one is this: You are part of a moral society, relatively to the others around you. They are weaker on some virtues by a great deal, each of your neighbor countries or cultures. We are not naming names nor are we suggesting that this is a real world thing at the moment. All similarities between countries past and present, fictional and real, are unintended. Your country faces a dilemma. The immoral expression is rising, different and seen as such in each of the neighboring countries. Many of them have resources you need and they are tired of your (proper) moral proselytizing. Your existence is a challenge to their immoral ways, and frankly their existence is a challenge to your moral ways. I understand it's not a simple case like that. Some of your country's people are immoral as well, and some of theirs moral, but we are talking about sanctioned inertia as law and cultural practice for each country.
The properly moral country has a moral duty to make war on neighboring nations before they can become powerful enough to overwhelm what is of great value. Competition to weaken the immorality is also wise in other ways than war, before the last step of war must be taken. And of course it could be that the more moral country was always greatly lesser in power. And then it must bide its time, building quietly with less bravado, until it has the strength to project. But the virtue of challenge, of external action, what might be called the basic truth of war, is possibly moral. Like all virtues that virtue has both good and bad expressions. The early stages of challenge are writings and rhetoric and the mere presence of the good example for others to see and feel as a neighboring country.
But moral choice is hard, the hardest thing there is. It is understandable that most will fail and although most will also still be able to admit in some way that they are acting immorally and therefore we properly offer them time and relative peace to earn their wisdom without us having to step in, there are also those that double down on stupid. They oppress their people more, and for worse reasons. They do not adhere to any balance between order and chaos as the good. Instead they immorally conflate order with the good (so many examples in fact and fiction). Some even take the stranger step of conflating chaos with the good (so many examples). So, since moral choice is hard and there are even some that would support diversity of belief to include and embrace immorality, the more moral nation must sometimes morally declare war.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Well, the short answer is yes. 'You are me and I am you', the Unity Principle, also states that 'You are God and God is you'. Humility though is a virtue and part of proper moral aims. But so is admitting truth, accepting the responsibility of moral agency. Finally, there is no better approach than to admit you are a part of what is God. That is indeed what offers you infinite choice, really. There is finally no other reason you have it.
If you deny the God in yourself, then you deny what is moral, you deny perfection as a concept. I am not saying it's not a slippery slope. All proper approaches to morality are of course slippery slopes. Morality is the single hardest thing there is. All of it fits. Again part of what is good, is humility and perseverance. But if we are too lazy to take right action, to stand and fight immorality, to challenge it, then that is a moral failure.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Well that one sentence is a HUGE, GIANT leap from any other thing you have said.
Still, I welcome all critique. I am offering up my wisdom or lack thereof as something to be tested indeed.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Consequentialism is a lie. Deontological intent is superior morally in every way. I know that my intent is good, the best I can make it. I admit that my choices can and will lead to failure. I am not perfect. I will reform new intents and try again. But the goal is to earn wisdom and help other's earn it, and my definition of wisdom only includes the balance that makes it good. Some will describe wisdom in a way that includes only their favorite or easy virtues and in doing so they lack balance and they are immoral (wrong). All weakness, all that is incorrect, is immoral in some way. Accuracy is a part of perfection and morality and it is objective, not subjective at all.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Hey, as mentioned, it's intended to the good. I see that you are as well. Any slight, I hope either way, is forgiven and let's then say why it was made.
I took the time to discuss the idea more carefully now. Either you are probably a little more moved, or, you will now think you were more right to object and ask for clarification. There are still more examples I can give to show the concept. Here is one:
Students suffer the learning process. They are properly tested. Testing is suffering, ask almost all students. The ones that think it is easy are not being challenged enough. All testing should be variable to the student's capabilities. That is a test for the system, if you follow. This suffering is required to earn the wisdom of awareness. In many cases this wisdom is refused, or refused in part. The wise society though wisely chooses to inflict this suffering on others in order that they might have a scheduled opportunity to earn a certain set of wisdom. Likewise proper parents will schedule and enact suffering upon their children so that these children may have a controlled opportunity to discuss and show and earn their wisdom. The only question is when does that suffering become unnecessary?
And the more desire side thinking you have the more you will lean towards the immoral position that ANY suffering and ALL suffering is unnecessary. That is mere Hedonism, and it is immoral. Likewise the more fear side thinking you have the more you will lean towards the immoral position that any and all suffering is necessary. Due to the nature of perfection, this is more correct, finally, than the desire side opinion is. Does this mean wisdom should be imbalanced? No. The trick with that revelation is that as time progresses the state from which a choice is made should be improving. And the greater challenges of any and all suffering become more and more required in order to achieve greater balance (to evolve). Likewise, when a moral agent's state is truly in decline we take a softer approach to allow them rest and resonance in order that they themselves say they are ready for a new challenge (and they always will). The escape for those who cannot muster the will to fight again is only one thing, finally, death. Choose.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Indeed. No retraction at all.
But, I did explain again for more clarity. My challenges are often met with your response. I am well used to it. At parties I am always the guy who says the provocative things. But I am not doing it for myself (only). You are me and I am you. It worries me greatly that the balance and genuine happiness I feel regularly is not a lot felt out there in the world. All that unnecessary suffering needs a challenger to call it out. C'est la vie! C'est la guerre!
The war is also a synonym for existence itself. The trillions of interactions that happen across your body in any moment are war. The balance that maintains that war properly must continue. There is no effective long term respite from war.
Quoting 0 thru 9
It may not be the case, but it is partially so. That is to say my ideas challenge your comfort with something. It could be your position and you are of course challenging mine then. But let's see how you respond to this post so we will know.
My statements are not, as I understand them, against this thread. They point out the weakness of yin/yang as a model. They explain why it cannot be successfully used without great modification. The effective issue is that chaos and order ARE NOT the good. Order is often conflated with good, and chaos with evil. But those conflations are immoral. What is really needed most is the balancing force of anger. Anger is the only thing that seeks balance. And the peace types get it wrong. The sin of anger is laziness, seeking peace. The moral duty of anger is to seek war. War is right action. It is change. The intent is what is critical. Intend to cause enough suffering to allow for wisdom to be earned and intend not to cause unnecessary suffering.
The dual model does not work, because reality is a three part system, not two. But the balance is the hardest of the three part aims, and anger is first denigrated because of that. So our delusion began and we started it with the duality, the yin/yang, and all such dual systems. I have hard physical evidence that my model is vastly superior to any two part system I have ever heard of. But as mentioned in another thread (esoteric). Hegel got this. Dichotomy that takes a thesis and antithesis (fear and desire) and forces them together (war/anger) into synthesis, does describe reality. We all sort-of know that the left and the right wing are both useful. What is not usually accepted at any time in history is that they must be in perfect balance. Further that there is the third force pushing back and thus bending the egregiousness of both extremes into a new aim, perfection.
Quoting 0 thru 9
All good! Thanks for your comments!
Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it? To go so far that the Unity Principle is denied in its furthest interpretation, 'You are God, and God is you!' is dangerous. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally.
So, instead say, it's the balancing of the ego, with the id and superego; or the balancing of fear with anger and desire that brings clarity.
And yes, balance resonates to body from thought and vice versa.
Quoting substantivalism
Well, now! Look at you, willing to beat back hypocrisy? I agree!
I agree as well that society must morally suffer the widest range of free will to its members. There is no choice for society as infinite choice is a tautology in the universe. I could say some very provocative things here, but I will demur for the moment to see how my responses in this thread are handled.
Pity is one good response. Challenge is another.
These days judgement is seen as negative, can you believe it? It is our moral duty to judge literally everything. Desire side chaos thinking, pro-freedom in all ways, even immoral ways, hates to be judged. 'Judgy much!?' is a low-brow epithet often heard these days from the left. A true listing of virtues (and Scotsmen) is needed as a temporary non-conclusion, a state of being, for society, for all human societies together.
Agreed that inaction is merely lazy, implied by your statements.
But the fear side tendency is to go too far, punishment. Punishment is immoral. That one is the one that leaves right side (fear) thinkers reeling, in the same way that when I say war is morally required the left pitches a fit.
Punishment is already included by objective morality. And morality is not punishing you. You are! The chooser is the only one with the power to punish. They punish themselves. But remember, you are me and I am you. So, any evil act in all the universe punishes us all. That is harmonics, out of resonance with the perfect good.
So the right tends to want to punish. But no, the proper moral path is judgment, teaching, and better guardrails until a new moral choice path is established. The greatest freedom must be maintained during this process. As an example the movie 'The Last Samurai' shows the main character kept for winter as prisoner by the feudal Japanese. They do not imprison him. They have a older Samurai, armed escort him around. That is a better way than prison is. Free will and freedom are more respected.
Also right side thinkers have trouble with privacy. Since you are me and I am you, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. But we still act to allow for free will, for little choices unseen. This is the same as allowing freedom in the above example. But, as you can see, and if you can think at all, as you can then realize for sure; if the private home is sacred, then that is where immorality will seed itself. It's obvious.
So, wisdom makes all sides to any argument uncomfortable. It seems to cause suffering by being true. But it is wisdom that is causal. It is (your) choice, always.
Quoting Chet Hawkins Humility as forced upon me (ticked into me) or by my own hand? Perhaps much of the former has overflowed but the latter requires further improvement.
Quoting Chet Hawkins I feel that perhaps you have to bring about that state of affairs continually. To have it swing back from a violent perturbation. To embody. . . bear witness. . . mentally to what one is capable of despite our proclivities that we've inherited from modernity. What wrath we can bring about so that we can feel the moment with which to grant ourselves a caring hand to pull us away. To see what lust we possess and grow disgusted at the impulsive drives that arise.
The more extreme the perturbation the more chaotic and beautiful the fall to the minimum is. Put into difficult circumstances it scrambles to find justifications. . . reasons. . . grounding. . . to launch oneself off again. Creativity makes its appearance with open arms for all.
Quoting Chet Hawkins Without abandoning those intuitions I possess I either have my head painfully throb for the evil others conduct or I see myself as a part of it and somewhat capable. In the end such a punishment shouldn't end if I'm to remain consistent and sane.
I would stay away from equating Yin to the feminine, and Yang to the masculine. It's understandable that one would be tempted into doing so, but I think this "man vs. woman" dichotomy is a symptom of western pathologies and not necessarily relevant for the concept of Yin-Yang.
In Taoist thought, both are critical components of every facet of life.
Yang represents creation and action, Yin represents rest and renewal. One cannot exist without the other and vice versa.
Out of balance Yang exhausts itself, and out of balance Yin becomes stagnant.
A solid argument can be made to the effect that our society is critically out of balance in terms of Yang, and is indeed exhausting itself. One clear indication of this is the increasing rates at which young people suffer burnouts and psychological problems.
However, just because it is imbalanced in terms of Yang, does not mean that there cannot be Yin imbalance too.
For example, I have seen the emotion of fear being mentioned here a couple of times as being overly present in our civilization. Roughly speaking, I think this is true. Consider the copious amounts of "fear porn" in the media, increases in anxiety-related disorders, etc.
In the Chinese Five Elements (Wuxing) fear is the emotion most closely related with the element Water, which is considered the most Yin of all elements, coming forth from the element of Metal, which is also a Yin element.
Yin-yang and Wuxing are cycles, not two-sided scales. Imbalances in one element can create, perpetuate or strengthen imbalances in the other. Everything is in communication and constant flux.
I just wanted to pull some things apart here, since it seems to me the thread is leaning towards a faulty interpretation of Yin-yang and related concepts, as it attempts to reinforce the western male/female dichotomy.
Thanks! Much appreciated! :smile:
I think Nietzsche nails it, especially as a description of his time.
And it largely carries forward to this day, even as radically different as the world is compared to a hundred plus years ago.
Id say the Apollonian aspect of knowledge is of course a wonderful thing.
But in our culture, it seems to be placed far above other equally necessary parts of the human experience.
I theorize that this is at least partially because it enables the discovery of the principles that allow powerful weapons to be built, and the worldly power that comes from that.
That is the primary motivation (so to speak) when it comes to civilizational knowledge and information.
An example of this is the origin and creation of the internet for military purposes.
The opposite (but reinforcing) civilization trend is murkier to describe, but Id say it is a bias against simplicity, sharing, not consuming, and well against happiness itself.
Happy people are satisfied in a deep way, and will probably not feel the need to buy things and consume mass quantities.
A person who is afraid, in pain, confused, competitive, envious, anxious etc is an ideal consumer.
If one were to see many strangers going around lovingly and unselfconsciously hugging one another, and asking if they are feeling well, that would be a sign that something in our culture has dramatically changed.
The fact that that statement sounds humorous shows how ingrained these habits are, even in those who are trying to see beyond them.
:flower:
Our? As in human civilisation? Perhaps Danish civilisation is balanced, being free and developed. But the world in a broad sense surely is not.
Thanks for your reply. Most appreciated. I hope to respond more fully later. :smile:
Thanks. Yes, civilization as a whole
But any pockets of sanity in a sea of upheaval is definitely a good thing, like an oasis in the desert.
Mmmm cheese danish :yum:
If we are not perfect, there is more balance to be had. If we are not maximized, there is more balance to be had.
Ha ha! Well, I get it. That means 'real life' distracts you from the important questions. And, people aren't wearing enough hats!
Quoting substantivalism
Yes, that's the final truth in everyone's case. Of course get on a philosophy site and start going on and on about objective morality and improving more and more to approach perfection and morality being the hardest thing there is, and one wonders, is it worth it? How many converts to truth will there be? Comforting lies has a much longer line to the booth than truth does.
Quoting substantivalism
You're quite poetic.
Being 'in it' alive, and balanced feels like being a scaled down version of the Hulk. Raw, unprotected nerve endings, suffering experience, in all its beautiful agony. It actually is poetry in motion, in being, but its not surprising that most of us remain mostly unconscious of the effects, good and bad. The effort is too great. It's just like the choice, finally, to die. The effort is too great to choose otherwise. You do see some though that have an iron will at least, even amid bleak bed-ridden life support. Aberration? Maybe. The only thing I can think of is the internal world must still be rich and fulfilling in some way. Otherwise it's just a powerful circuit. Like the sun, it keeps on burning.
Quoting substantivalism
I mean the cycle is real, the oscillation. And it does seem that the swing is wider, corresponding roughly to moral agency. But that is worrying. Anyone, even a child, can tell, ... if the swing is getting wider it's similar to the universe accelerating in expansion. That makes no sense. It will end itself. Unless we can reliably narrow the oscillation by choice, en masse, we may have discovered the real reason for the Fermi Paradox.
Quoting substantivalism
I get that also. We are too exhausted to put in more effort to contain others' immorality. Locking them up seems like the only non-tiring option. But, it is not. And it causes more troubles, more immorality. It is not as efficient as a modern alternative to the old Samurai would be. Robots will help immensely. Everyone has an escort robot. Ha ha! Is that free? I think it could be. But will/would it be? Doubtful.
Only the shadow knows!
Thanks for your elaborations. That helps a little understanding your thinking. I still disagree, but Im going to withhold going any further with the general war topic here and now.
It is definitely a ripe topic, and Ill admit I havent heard anything exactly like your position before.
Perhaps if you wanted to, you could start a new thread about it (war, morality, etc). That could be interesting. Id definitely follow it, and probably participate. And Id be curious about the general response from others. You dont seem like you are rattled by disagreement, and that is a noble quality. Its difficult sometimes not to take disagreement as an attack on ones core beliefs, sending one into attack mode. I admire that you can remain polite under stress.
Anyway, thanks and carry on! :flower: :victory:
Thanks very much for your response. That puts the thread into a fuller context of the origins of the Yin-Yang idea.
I definitely do not want to reinforce the western male/female dichotomy! Quite the opposite.
Thanks again. :smile: :up:
:up: Thanks. Yes, Id agree with that.
Jungs concept of anima and animus (the female and male within everyone, in a nutshell) has been around a long time. But its still quite radical.
And the far-Right conservatives would probably wish to ban and burn it. Which is not surprising, but is rather depressing. Its like they are stuck in the movie Pleasantville.
Quoting Vaskane
Ill look into those books. Thanks!
@Chet Hawkins
And actually by coincidence of timing, this might be a good time for someone to start a philosophical thread about war, since the specific threads about Ukraine, Gaza, etc are now in the Lounge.
Just an idea :chin:
Well, I tried to be clear. My philosophical definition of war is closer to change than what people will commonly or colloquially recognize as war.
To many and most, war is only some crazy, violent, nation versus nation thing that is often about money or resources one way or another.
My caution is that war is really only change. And suffering itself is indeed the only path to wisdom. Change involving suffering cannot be simply deemed immoral as most people would tend to do in my opinion.
Writers are probably well versed now in/on the concept of the 5 conflicts and I think 'they' have added AI as the 6th conflict, although AI to me is just another chooser, e.g. man v man and not a new category.
All of these conflicts to me are 'war' or 'change' or 'struggle', etc.
If you want to say, 'no Chet, I prefer that the term war always means foolish or unnecessary conflict!' , then there is no point in me bringing up my term shifting.
But my caution is why I bother. If we denigrate war in general, and people also tend to denigrate anger in general, completely misunderstanding its purpose in the grand scheme of things, we also then cannot attain balance and morality and wisdom are thrown out the window. Fear side and desire side aphorisms that are anti-wisdom are then taken as wisdom and humanity all loses. It is better to understand that conflict is morally required and the wise seek out struggle and suffering to test themselves in every way. One less potato chip is war. Challenging your neighbor to stop their dog from barking endlessly is war. Doubting God is war. Posting on a philosophy site is war. Occupying space and having mass is war.
Again, if you wish to split terms on these differing matters you risk misunderstanding the nature of reality itself.
{It's the same with fear actually. The colloquial definition is not useful really. If you insist on the limits of weakly defined terms and or colloquial common nonsense (which I deem to be similar) there is no saving you from misunderstanding. Of course, all of this is said tongue in cheek, my opinion, stated firmly as belief. I do tend to mention almost every time what my changes are from the standard colloquial terms. But I do feel those terms, the old emotional terms, are correct to use for better understanding}
Ok thanks for the further explanation.
I may have been unsure when you were using rhetorical devices (metaphors, analogies, hyperbole, polemic, etc) and when you were using words literally and by usual definition.
Rhetorical devices are cool, and I usually love some creativity to peoples writing, and I usually get subtle nuances, so Im a little disappointed in myself if I missed these subtleties.
Now I understand that you paint with a fine brush, Ill try to read more carefully! :nerd:
That said
One less potato chip is war? Hmm
I believe our language has been devalued by lies, politics, advertising, and such.
But that may be straining the word war. But ok, you made the point.
In Arabic, jihad is usually translated as struggle, meaning the struggle and effort towards God.
Only in certain cases does it refer to actual warfare on infidels.
Not sure where Im going with that, it just reminded me of that.
I hope to respond more later.
Thanks again for your posts and efforts! :smile:
Then, yes, 'jihad'! I agree. The struggle towards God. Exactly!
Quoting 0 thru 9
No worries. And you're welcome. Thank you for offering me a chance for clarity.
Sometimes people just misunderstand me despite my painstaking efforts at clarity and ... yes ... spreading my beliefs. But then I just declare jihad! Seriously though, the way to be is jihad by the definition given. And I would change the term 'God' for 'the good'.
Quoting Chet Hawkins To call it truth is to commit such a mischievous intuition entrance to the armory of a philosophical dominator.
Quoting Chet Hawkins What spirit I have is exhausted, period. I want such motivations, intuitions, or moral imperatives to cease their chants regardless of my actions. . . or lack thereof. I just want it to simply end. They only bring me heartache and immediate awareness of how I should view my apathy/indifference as mental hypocrisy.
Well, that was kind-of my point. 'Real life' is quoted because that is delusional. Real life unquoted is non-delusional amid real experience. Real life includes speculations, idle and otherwise, that do absolutely have impact upon us, whether we wish them to or not.
What is in the mind's eye of the others is unified with us, as an objective truth. There is no final escape from that trouble. Perfection-aiming involves first admitting that this trouble is part of objective truth, and then striving with effort to overcome the many delusions that tempt us from the great happy resonance with truth.
I would like to ask directly to make sure you are not being simply coy and poking fun back at me, 'Do you mean (solely or mostly) me, when you call out idle speculations?' {is that a tongue in cheek dig?}
Quoting substantivalism
You might have to demystify that sentence for me.
Again, I sense a kind of dig at me. But, I am often a bit paranoid. So, I try to err on the side of letting slights go unanswered which has, I hope, an effect that means ... hey this Chet guy gave me side-eye so he saw my angle, but he let it pass. I guess that does not affect his position. His idea(s) remain stable despite assault. What does that mean?
Philosophical dominators with committed and mischievous intuition are fun! Right? {I had a cat once, ughhh} That is especially true if the foil is openly accepted and also humble (really) in that truth-seeking remains the final goal however haphazardly we approach it. When one mounts a soapbox or posts on such a site, one is not free of intents, no, and none of those intents are perfect. But, such a proselytizer is either wearing better angle wings than most, or not. Is there a clear assertion of yea or nay in that regard?
Quoting substantivalism
Well, correct me if I am wrong. But, you seem to be maligning your suffering state while at the same time actually admitting that it, your chosen state, is at least slightly wrong. Is that a correct assessment of what you were saying here. If so, then I can relax a bit that you are not finding me any more offensive than your own choices are.
But this says what I try to say so gracefully and concisely:
It is like the tip of the spear, very compact, but it hints at meditation, yoga, your lifes purpose, love, and detachment.
And letting go of accumulating possessions and information.
When one wants to accept the path, the many details and tips can be looked up elsewhere.
If our civilization followed these ideas, my imagination struggles to see and cant explain
But I think itd be radically different, and infinitely better.
I enjoy the sentiment and the balance that any worthy model evokes within us to help us cope and understand reality.
In the end, by my model, you are aiming at the being portion, the anger portion, as a consequence. This is great in the sense that it stresses the third force, the consequence, of that model, yin/yang. What worries me is that the details and information and delusional hurdles along that path are required and cannot in any way be circumvented, despite the 'fond' desire that they could be.
One must 'suffer' though them and then hold that suffering present in one's balance to be and maintain wise action.
Thanks for your reply
I know, I know the inevitable objection to such idealistic thoughts.
Thanks for not putting it in the usual way, such as thats not the REAL world blah blah
(So Im not disagreeing with you, rather Im disagreeing with (and trying to smash) the inner recording tape loop playing incessantly inside of my mind, though not in my mind alone).
But the real world consists of a given and a possibility, brute facts and choice.
Let me emphasize the quote I gave, and how the translation of the first part is written almost as a challenge.
CAN YOU love people and lead them without imposing your will? etc
It hints that there is much we do have control over.
We live a mortal life in an evolving planet, with some things we cant change.
There will be plenty of suffering and opportunities for growth without adding to them.
(Crisis-opportunities as the Chinese say).
But we have such powers of choice built into us, even before taking into account technology.
It is tempting to think we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works exactly like it is now, theres no going back we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works
This reasonable-sounding lullaby works well for the owners of the global Machine.
We march to their tune by day, and lull ourselves to sleep telling ourselves that there is no other way to be civilized but the way we were taught, the way it is now (give or take some window dressing).
By focusing on developing oneself positively, and conducting oneself in accordance to sensible principles one becomes the most positive force one possibly can be.
I personally find this a very empowering approach, echoed in many philosophies and even coming full-circle back to Nietzsche in a strange way.
Quoting Chet Hawkins Any term you or me use is polluted by colloquial meanings and socially present biases. To call something "truth" without further elaboration on what that means or how to methodologically showcase something as such. . . and the limitations of these strategies. . . leaves you open to having your speculations be handled as a hammer by others against 'dissidents'. Whether that is your intention or not.
When it comes to philosophical speculation we are left with a handful of attitudes with which to motivate philosophical progress on. Pyrrhonean skeptics who seek to passively take a back seat or actively seek for balancing the arguments for as much as against a specific position. Pragmatic fictionalists who see it as merely make believe in a cosmic mental game to play out depending on the accepted rule set. That or become a supremacist. . . what I called a philosophical dominator. . . or it could also be called a dogmatist/fundamentalist. A position, that despite the immediately negative connotations, isn't meant to be seen as purely negative. However, the word "truth" can be used rather loose in a political sense comparable more to a sociological tool to immediately discredit the viewpoints of others to the benefit a given philosophical dominator.
Until there is an admittance that such a word is merely to portray your high sense of confidence or you later present an elaborate theory of truth I hope you don't fault me for my own idle speculations.
Quoting Chet Hawkins At least in principle I'd consider the opinions of another as their own without emotive objection and unless I have sufficient basis, besides idle discussion, to point out perceived flaws it always seem to be more psychological projection on my part than anything else.
I rarely believe I have sufficient basis. . .
As to 'maligning [my] suffering state', similar to what I've stated before something about taking a position to its breaking point and then realizing the solution with which to gain balance again seems rather appealing. . . but not until a sufficient back reaction sets me free. More so at the moment in principle, not so much in practice. In practice, it may mean that once such a principle has served its purpose it may go into hibernation.
Yes, ok, a balanced critique, levelled at all. I agree.
Quoting substantivalism
Yes, well, hammery or hammerish. I am fairly ... confident ... in my statements for some tastes yes, not necessarily implying you. I speak to truth as I understand it, which is not necessarily the same thing, yet, as truth as I might want it, if you follow.
The truth I know is one that requires of all moral agents an uncompromising and infinite amount of effort. The aim of perfection is a complete lack of laziness, cowardice, and self-indulgence specifically; those three being the only cardinal sins or immoral aims from which all others are derived. This can sound like belief and it is but not only that. I do maintain that, in demonstrable ways these assertions match reality in remarkable ways; repeatable, understandable.
Quoting substantivalism
I find those three to be a likely match for fear, desire, and anger. As such your separations of the approaches is agreeable and predictable.
I would say though that anger is different in one way to the other two emotions. I admit freely that this difference can be overstated and that is not my intent. Still, the single point in time of the eternal now is the scope of anger. In that singularity, it differs from the possibly delusional gulf or scope of the past (fear) and the future (desire). Also, anger is the neutral force, rejecting the other two as its primary role. The denial/acceptance of fear and the denial/acceptance of desire literally cause what most call 'reality' to exist. The tension of emotive interaction is actually a better description of reality than 'reality'. Again 'reality' as I use it is what most would call reality, incorrectly. There is nothing but emotion in existence.
Quoting substantivalism
I do engage in forceful discretization of ideas that I believe I have useful and strong arguments against. I will deign to offer those arguments as fully as I can. But, agreed that, at the end of the day, there is no final proof, only belief.
Quoting substantivalism
Well, the admittance of my confidence is there fully. That is all any of us have. So, I have no choice but to allow free will in others, expressing it egregiously and properly myself. And actually although I do not fault anyone their right to express their ideas on what truth is or might be, I would nonetheless fault their reasoning as needed where it does not agree with reality, which I would find reasonable from them towards my model in turn, e.g. 'to be fair' {Letterkenny}.
Quoting substantivalism
The which is a ... rather observant and uninvolved approach, the path of fear. Do you agree? I might say I find the 'get on the field and participate' advice of Joseph Campbell more to my taste, but it's no surprise I'm an anger type.
Quoting substantivalism
Your acumen does not seem wanting at all. The world benefits from people of high ability stating firmly their beliefs. 'Let truth and falsehood grapple! Truth is strong!' - Milton (has a point)
Quoting substantivalism
The sleeper must awaken! - Frank Herbert
Rest is acceptable but it seems to me more and more as moral agency increases and time passes more and more heightened (maximized) balanced states are required. This means rest must become more efficient (shorter in duration with a limit of zero). What do you think?
I am very well aware of the Pragmatic side, fear side failure of the cop-out saying of 'this is the REAL world' or 'we are only human'. I do not use that pathetic excuse. ;)
Quoting 0 thru 9
And that discipline is the right one, of wisdom. And the fact that you call it out is rehearsing the good, rather than the other way of excusing and thus rehearsing evil. I can only hope I do not sound condescending when I commiserate. I do the same thing. For so long I wondered, 'is this self chiding voice in me self-defeating?' Now I have lived with it long enough to cherish its insistence, in it's small, fragile, yet eternal and unrelenting voice.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Oh no! The inevitable backslide to the 'we're only human' position. Nooooooo!
Quoting 0 thru 9
No. You cannot.
Action is required of the moral. Inaction is mere laziness the sin of anger. This is why for example enneatype 8 and 1 are more regularly thrashed and anger is denigrated than the enneatype 9 laziness and calm is. Most people would rather be around someone who patients waits for them to 'get it' than to be around those that actively challenge or instruct them to change. But most people are horribly immorally weak in that preference.
Every immoral tendency in EVERY way is indeed just immoral until you admit there is objective moral truth. When you do so, when you admit that and believe it properly, there is a change. Suddenly there is a RIGHT way to do the previously immoral thing. There is no exception to this being the only exception in all cases. This is the infinite nature of all wisdom, all truth. It is the juxtaposition that evil will try to call out to discredit the good. The good, objective aim, is the hardest thing you can do. Any and every excuse will divert you from it. And if all directions are wrong except perfection and perfection is unattainable, then how easy is it for any immoral aim to suggest that the good direction is just as suspect of being wrong. But good is ok with that and yet seemingly remains the good, perfect in isolation.
Example: Being impatient in the pursuit of the good is wise. Being impatient in any other way is unwise. This juxtaposition is horrific for the unwise and they will deny it and let it rankle them.
Example: Condescension is unwise. But condescension must include immoral intent. The same attitude exists morally and is called, 'Teaching'. 'Mansplaining' is another example of this. If one is more concerned with the source of an action or advice than its intent, one is immoral.
Example: Gaslighting is unwise. But gaslighting must include immoral intent. The same attitude exists morally and is called, 'Counseling'. If one is more concerned with justifying one's actual insanity than addressing it, one will call counseling, gaslighting immorally.
There is no way to properly address these issues without an admission that morality is objective. Once one understands that, believes it, one can earn wisdom and grow. Until that baseline admission is made progress at all is much less certain, haphazard at best.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Control is an odd choice of words here. In isolation especially this sentence is problematic.
We have 'control' over one thing, choice, intent. Any other control is delusional. So what do you mean?
Quoting 0 thru 9
That is not relevant.
The choice to try to change what is immoral to what is moral is the only relevant thing. Thus your statement, granted in isolation, is immoral. We can indeed in time change all in any way desired. There is however always one exception properly to every such moral statement. What is good is objective and cannot be changed. See how that works?
Quoting 0 thru 9
Intent to the good is always and only wise and good. Consequences are not relevant except to inform formation of future intents. The sword of Damocles is involved in the formation of intents. Are you honest about including past consequences into your new intents? You do know.
The good wisely inflict necessary suffering on the everyone as everyone is slightly unwise. Adding wise suffering is always wise, as a tautology. Excuses abound. They are only that and not wise.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I agree. Choice is infinite. But the difficulty of right choice is state dependent in the sense for example that some people can easily hurdle some goals and others can do it, for sure, without exception, but not nearly so easily. The blind can see, they just refuse to. The difficult is too much. They deny in part their connection to all, their oneness with all, and refuse to see only because of the difficulty involved. This is hard to agree with like all real wisdom, and yet remains a tautology.
Slavery is certainly choice. The slave is choosing to be a slave. That one will really get people going. I mean, are we to remain timid on subject matter when discussing universal truths? I think not. If there is a person so possessed of rare understanding that they must needs call out dangerous and divisive truths in every situation, what is the label we properly apply to that person? Is the one-eyed man king in the land of the blind? Is she? Really? What is the probability?
Quoting 0 thru 9
This is nothing but order. Order is not the good. That conflation is tiresome to me but I realize that so many people, even Jordan Peterson sometimes, labor under its tiresome yolk. Cattle think and that's casting aspersions on some fairly independent minded bovine exemplars I and my border collie have encountered. Resistance is NEVER futile. The Borg are idiots.
What position? Sorry, Im not sure what you mean here. Please expand on this.
I meant simply that (as a very general statement) we have possessions, talents, family, etc and there are many possibilities what to do with that raw material.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Then I regret to say (and hope that Im mistaken) that you reject (or possibly that you are overlooking) the teaching of the Tao, which (in this small quote) advises to be like a patient nurturing parent towards one you wish to share knowledge / wisdom with.
This is opposed to claiming some knowledge (which may be presumptuous) and forcing it upon someone (which is very authoritative and domineering).
This usually leads to a battle of wills, instead of surrounding a person with some piece of truth, but letting them open to it or not.
You can lead a horse to water, after that it is their choice to be nourished or not.
To claim wisdom and the right to force it on someone reminds me of the extreme music teacher in the movie Whiplash, if you have seen it. (Please understand that Im NOT saying that your words are as extreme as the teacher in that movie! Not comparing here. Im simply against too much force in teaching or leading. Even when one is full of valuable knowledge! Especially then).
That which is loud and hot and demanding is too Yang, and will burn itself out.
Which is fine in nature, but who intentionally wants to burn out quickly? (not me, anymore).
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I dont know what definition of gaslighting you are using here, but it doesnt have much in common with anything Ive heard. Gaslighting is psychological abuse, not counseling.
From Webster:
I think you are saying that the intention defines the morality of an action?
Like murder is wrong, but killing somebody who is attempting to kill others is justified?
If so, then Id agree in principle.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Ok. But you are making sweeping absolute statements again (like in previous posts about war).
And the meaning of them depends on some irony or insight or knowledge that Im just not seeing being demonstrated or shown rhetorical devices aside.
I know about crazy wisdom being contrary and provocative while making a point.
Thats been done successfully, though its tricky.
But Im not seeing the wisdom here, sorry.
These type of statements just sounds like blunt assertions with some bold attitude, which Im not inclined to respect or even respond to further.
In my view, a steamroller approach isnt working, and I think you make better points elsewhere in your response.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I think we actually may be agreeing here, but I might have been a little unclear in my initial wording.
Im saying RESIST the way we are taught, with regards to the idea that the powerful must know what they are doing, and therefore are worthy of following.
To QUESTION everything, and not be lead by appearances and moved by displays of physical or financial power.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
We agree again here, I think. (Feel free to disagree lol).
My statement here was like what I wrote above about resisting and questioning.
Question our teaching, keep what seems worthy, discard the unworthy teachings, and keep investigating that which one is still unsure of.
Any find our inner guidance, conscience, moral compass (however one describes it).
(Oh yes and actually FOLLOW what the conscience advises one to do. Im still working on doing that one consistently). :smile:
Yes you are right. I maybe misunderstood your comment there thinking you were making the Pragmatic, 'Sorry there idealist guy, this is the real world with real people, and real people fail so we let them' type of statement which is really only an excuse. But you were saying from a given state there is (insert clarification here) choice. I agree and my clarification would be this insertion: 'infinitely available but by degrees harder and harder to choose ...'. The meaning of which includes the real world comment a Pragmatist would offer but without making any excuses.
I think we were saying the same thing depending on your insert.
Quoting 0 thru 9
So I do not reject that ... way. I do embrace it, but, the teaching part, the assertive declarative part is not the soft part. The do it and be judged part is the soft part. Granted, you cannot detect my demeanor in text. I come off mostly calm and humorous in person, but can lean towards forceful and assertive as indeed I am an anger type person and not a enneatype 9 (which would absolutely fit Tao as you describe if you can scrape them off the couch to get them to do something).
Asian philosophy to me is very Enneatype 9 in almost all ways. I find that an extremely limited point of view. Wisdom should encompass all possible teachers including a challenging 8 like me and a righteous 1 like so many teachers are. Further, Asian teachings in general express a deep and abiding mistrust of desire, which they pretty much view as the only emotion causing issues in many ways. I am not a general expert on it but I have read a lot of the widely known stuff. That's just my current take on it. If you have an Asian source you would recommend, I would be interested. It is a goal of mine to soften my language because I want to reach more people, but not so badly I will detract from the poignant nature of truth in my message.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes, well, it can be a leaning of mine. I do try to soften it, but natural tendencies being what they are ... I probably fail often enough.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes, well, granted in that sense. As mentioned the 'do it' part is much less assertive from me.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Well I prefer confident professionals to dithering or quiet types. In my experience it works better. I do not mean overbearing but assertive, yes. It's the same to me as a bridge maker. Do you make good bridges? Do you know what you are doing? ' 'Absolutely! I've studied the relevant science and I take great pride in going beyond specifications! I invest time and energy in understanding and using the materials like no one else I know. I do not invest as much time in flashy decor but rather in long lasting bridges that are engineered for flexible strength.' That by comparison with a bridge guy that is soft and quiet and says things like, 'Try it and see' or 'I've never had any complaints' is better to me. The latter type terrifies me with their lack of forthright and assertive candor.
This fits with my model as well. This may sound like exactly the kind of presumptuous assertion you do not prefer, but, anger is inherently the most honest of the three primal emotions. It is by its nature more interested in balance. And it is usually assertive to some degree. This brutality as a tendency is why it is often called 'brutal' honesty. That is no accident. And I prefer no accidents in my bridges and my wisdom. Too much?
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes imbalance anger burns up as Yang teaches. But balanced anger and anger is about balance in general does not do this and also broadcasts confidence and serenity. The mixture is delicate and I admit I sometimes rub my audiences the wrong way. But anger is supposed to run over expressed desire and fear the wrong way. Anger stand to their forces, bending them by force back into proper moral alignment. That is why war can be wise in come cases.
Quoting 0 thru 9
So the modern community on fb and other social media is chock full of many people, but mostly left wing and desire oriented types, that use gaslighting and condescension and mansplaining all the time, improperly. I gave these examples because of that. I have had extensive debates on each of the terms in many forums because people tend to use them improperly. Further the point being made was that the negative intent is required to use the term properly and therefore some attempt must be made to judge the speaker's intent. When you simply see people saying 'because a man did it it's mansplaining', and then things like 'he told me I was acting too emotionally all the time, so I'm done with that condescending gas-lighter!" you then have great sympathy for the targets of such nonsense.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes, and murder is a great word example. The word murder is basically defined as immoral killing. The implication of that is that indeed there is moral killing. And I agree.
Quoting 0 thru 9
It was shown. I will show it again. Choice is infinite. Done. Shown. The point is that choice is all we have and the infinite nature of choice makes blame easy. Everyone is to blame for everything. We are trapped in any state only because we lack the will, the wherewithal to change the state. But infinite choice is a guaranteed law of reality that means we are indeed to blame for any state.
Since you are me and I am you is also a truth, even if someone else caused the state you are still to blame. It makes truth easy to navigate if you believe it. Accepting blame is empowering and reaffirming in all cases. That does not mean you dwell on it or wallow in blame like foolish heroes in every story that thing everything is their fault and will not stop walling in guilt about it uselessly. That is not wise, even though it is wise to accept blame.
Quoting 0 thru 9
It is tricky! I think I do fairly well. But you are helping by making solid critiques. Thank you.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Ah, well, sorry. I tried to clarify again. It's very possible I am not the best writing spout of wisdom for you then.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I do not think I'd go that far in characterizing my approach. But confidence can seem too much to some.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Oh yeah, sorry. I should have been clearer that we agreed on that one. I just instead stated my parallel and supportive argument and maybe you thought I was disagreeing because I sounded confident about it. I was disagreeing alright, but with the same thing you disagreed to.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes the sword of Damocles is a hard thing to pretend to adhere to. As in let consequences inform your new intents and then pretend that the sword is there. Ignore it at your peril! The sword is your moral compass from an angry threatening point of view. Maybe you prefer the cosmic tickler of Damocles!
Excellent responses to my questions, comments, and critique.
(And the word criticism sounds better in French, oui? :cool: )
I probably wont be able to respond in-depth until tomorrow perhaps, but I appreciate the thoughtful and (very thorough) posts. :smile: :up:
There are, or so it seems to me, multiple imbalances.
_______________________________________
In terms of Yang, it appears to me western society is exhausting itself. It reminds me of how the Soviet Union eventually collapsed under its own weight, because the system was simply not sustainable.
As the period of western dominance nears its end, western societies have to continually ask more of its citizens in order to stay competitive with other systems. People must produce more, and rest less.
The event horizon for this system shrinks, becoming more and more based on the short-term while sacrificing it's long-term health. Where in the past people would have been thinking about how we can create a system that will continue to work decades into the future, now people are instead worried about how we keep the system from total collapse for another year.
This, obviously, cannot last forever, and even though the system continues to try and spur people on to work harder and be more 'productive', it will reach the limit of what the people can tolerate.
We are reaching that critical point, as more and more young people are suffering burnout and related psychological problems, even though the socialist structures of many western societies actually look to the younger generations to carry the old. They are the ones who are most exposed to, lets say, 'productivity propaganda' through social media and platforms like YouTube.
__________________________________________
But a Yang imbalance alone is not enough to critically imbalance a system, because if the Yin elements were in balance, those who ran into problems like burnout would be able to rest and restore themselves, and return healthily to society, or perhaps even return stronger.
In other words, there would be a self-correcting mechanism that looks a bit like:
Imbalanced Yang state > Overexertion > Burnout > Balanced Yin state > Rest & Reflection > Renewed Yang state.
A balanced Yin would ensure that not only can people return back into society stronger and with better insight, but also would propel the system as a whole to reflect upon itself and detect the unbalanced Yang state, and repair it.
___________________________________________
This doesn't happen, because the Yin is also imbalanced.
A typical Yin imbalance manifests itself not only as stagnation, but also as indecisiveness, worry, anxiety, overthink, fearfulness, etc. - creating a 'freeze' response.
This is often times associated with too much intellective thinking, which is something that in western society can be linked to an overly scientific world view; I have referred to in the past as the 'mechanistic' world view. (Which is a term I have gotten from Flemish professor Mattias Desmet)
It is essentially an almost religious faith in the power of science, rationality and reason, which has slowly but surely expelled from western society the spiritual, intuitive and emotional dimensions, all of which are important for balanced Yin.
Paradoxically it is also in the process of expelling reason and rationality (which isn't surprising, considering this fundamentally fearful state we are in), since despite the fact that science is showing us that many things are not explainable in rational terms, we still cling to science for the answer to all our problems.
Also note that fear and anxiety cause us to look for security - we will demand clear cut answers to difficult questions, usually (wrong-headedly) looking for them in places that cannot provide it, like science, governments, media, etc.
_____________________________________________
As we can see, it is not so easy to figure out where this cycle of imbalance starts or ends - perhaps it does neither - but a Taoist would probably first look at the Yin imbalance, since Yin is the root of all. Without the conservation of energy, there could be no action.
Therefore I would link the imbalance in western society primarily to a system of thought that has ran its course - the mechanistic world view ("man as machine"). The idolization of science has worked for a while, and now it no longer does, and must be replaced by something new - probably a synthesis of the previous science-based system with older (or new?), philosphically based systems that are more spiritual / intuitive (religious?) in nature.
My expectation is that this will be a slow and painful process, due to the degree to which this world view is rooted in every facet of our system.
Science and religion have been at each other's throat for centuries, and now we must conclude that both are needed for a balanced society, because it's becoming clear (at least to me) that a society that leans too much to either side will critically imbalance itself in one way or another.
Note that science can be seen as associated with the Chinese element of Metal, and religion/spirituality can be associated with the Chinese element of Water. Both are Yin.
Both are associated with deep thought, however the Metal element is more rational, while the Water element is more intuitive and creative. Hence the idea of a Yin imbalance.
:sparkle: :100: :sparkle:
Exactly the type of analysis I was looking for!
Thanks very much for posting an incisive look into our hobbling culture, like a doctor.
Or should I say, practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).
I cant respond in-depth at this moment, hope to reply later.
Thanks again for your thoughts! :up:
Yes, yes and yes. Well said. :up:
To keep the lights on, too many people are forced into draining jobs where the owners see them far too often as an orange to squeeze all the juice out of, and then discard.
Its not always just the low-paying jobs.
When I watch NFL football, and the players sustaining car crash -type violence on many plays, I wonder if the owners look at the players as replaceable parts, not human beings.
Probably no if about it, and the reason is money obviously.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yep. No rest for the weary warriors of the world.
Its as though the system thrives on misery and illness, a prime example being the trillion-dollar revenue of the health care industry.
Its clear that industry cares most about its own health and expansion.
Quoting Tzeentch
Our civilization is like the Pharaoh who refused to let Moses and his people go.
Only when it really hurt did he relent.
Do we have to be completely burned to know that fire can be dangerous?
Science and religion were competitive siblings from the start.
Add the high financial stakes that are at play now, and the result is a combination of poker and war.
The losers are the people trying to have a life.
(Do I sound a little critical of capitalism? lol)
Thanks again for the excellent post. It was worth waiting months to get.
Any further insights are indeed welcome. :smile:
Well, you have some, because you exist. That is no simple feat. And the decision to continue involves some of the same, and yes, flesh and blood.
Clarity is not required of the brave. Anger stands to mystery, unready, if need be. That is the requirement. Being is anger, unready and yet involved, in all.
In some cases this being may seem unintentional. That is less than best. The better path involves becoming one with the anger of being and the flip side of that same truth, the so-called 'unity principle', my term, but an easy one with so many others that are the same term, universal consciousness, etc. It does not end up being Wu, although so many Pragmatists will claim it is. What is Wu really but the instantiation of mystery, of the unknown, the parts not yet integrated?
To claim no target is the same mistake, a refusal of being and the choice offered. Free will was already given, and now you want it to provide a target as well? Better to get busy and make mistakes. Choose a target and never claim it has not been found. You are the finder.
Thanks again for your reply. Much appreciated! :up:
About the Eastern view of desire its obviously often a focal point.
Although Buddha discovered the Golden Mean, the Middle Way, and that was a giant step.
Theres some profound balance, and its within the grasp of everyone not just ascetics and yogis.
From what I understand, the Buddha said that the desire that is dangerous is the mental kind constant wanting while believing more is always better!
He described greed, hatred, and delusion as the three root poisons. (I cant argue with that).
As for Eastern and Asian teachings that I find powerful we already mentioned the Tao Te Ching.
To me, it feels like the trees wrote it, like the Earth itself speaking to us humans about how to live.
A relevant line:
You can do what you want with material things, but only if you hold to the mother of things will you do it for very long
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Yes. I agree. Choice is infinite. (Or close enough for our purposes).
Id perhaps change your word blame to responsibility, its maybe a more positive word? Anyway
Another Eastern saying that youve probably heard:
All the same are loss and gain, praise and blame, honor and shame
Maybe the word blame is better after all since it rhymes with shame. :grin:
Capitalism is ultimately nothing more than an idea of the relation between collectives and individuals, allowing for the existence of private property. That is a system that has been implicit in human civilization literally for millenia, and it has functioned more or less reasonably.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the human intuition of property ("this is mine, and that is yours") is natural and deeply ingrained in our psyche, which is why attempts at alternative systems have a tendency to fail - they go against human nature.
What I think is going on, is that in the past the economic motivations of "capitalism" were counterbalanced by other matters of value in the spiritual realm.
For example, there was the notion that if one blindly followed their greedy impulses, one would eventually pay a spiritual price for that. Christianity might claim you were sent to hell or limbo, or had to atone for sins committed, etc.
When Christianity, and really religion and spirituality as a whole, was discarded by western societies, only the earthly values remained - power, money, etc.
Western society has quite simply failed to fill the gap that religion has left behind, and demoralization has been the end result.
Blaming it on capitalism is a cop-out. Why did people in the past manage to find a better balance between the earthly and the heavenly, and why can't we?
The reason we as a society fear this question, is because it implies discarding religion as a whole maybe wasn't such a great idea.
Yes, focal. But entirely mistrusted, yes? My model does not suggest that as is Eastern (or Western) philosophy has it right. Of course there is more derivation in the West anyway.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I agree with infinite choice, and I think that is some of what you mean here. But the Golden Mean I find to be mostly in error. That is to say, it is not a low amplitude expression of desire that is wise. It is instead the very thing the Eastern philosophies take umbrage with, the highest or perfect amplitude desire that is the path to wisdom.
The concept of the mean, a mitigation, is still included in a proper model. But the three way derivation of emotion, with desire only as a single path, explains better what truth is, in my opinion.
In fact the Middle Way or Golden Mean as defined by Buddha is exactly what not to do. It's again, very Enneatype 9 only, laziness and clam over-emphasized whereas my model says conflict is good, and that includes conflict and thus balance between the three emotions. So, the much vaunted peace of the East is an immoral lie to me. You and I have already gone a bit round and round on that.
Most mythos I can take apart in this same way. There are always a number of glaring flaws in any other system I have found. They do not match reality unless we are pretending that morality is immoral in some way, subjective morality; or some inherent bent towards immorality (as right) rather than morality. It already is true that immorality (as easy or impactful) can seem like morality.
Quoting 0 thru 9
That is interesting, because more is better in many fundamental ways. But the only more that is finally better is more good. And good is objective. So more of many things is not better, if you follow.
There are three things that are better only when balanced by each other. That is the reason this dichotomy/trichotomy exists. They are fear, anger, and desire. This equates to cowardice, laziness, and self-indulgence. So as these emotions increase their 'sin' increases as well. So this shows why increasing desire is better and at the same time worse if its not balanced. So, any single emotion is only better when its more if both the others are also more. Confusing? Perhaps. Not really, if you think about it. But the interaction of emotions can be deemed as a mix or a conflict and either envisioning is accurate.
The point being the East was entirely wrong about two things for sure: desire being mostly bad as it increases, and peace as a desirable concept.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I disagree. Cowardice, laziness, and self-indulgence are all the three primal sins. Delusion is too wide a category as any of these sins can be called delusion. Delusion is only defined properly as immorality itself. Better, the sense that immoral is moral. That is delusion. Also one could properly say that any over or under expression of any emotion (out of balance) is delusional.
Greed is only over-expressed desire.
Hatred has two forms:
Mostly anger with fear mixed in (fear of the evil other) OR
Mostly anger with desire mixed in (desire of the evil other)
Delusion is really any imbalance between any of the three primal emotions.
So these items as discussed were not equals, a classical mistake in reason.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I have maybe even more than one book on that. I was wondering if there was a favorite. You speak of the original, Lao-Tzu.
Quoting 0 thru 9
very cool.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I would agree, but, the 'mother of things' makes no sense to me, unless you refer to the only real law of nature, free will. What does it mean to 'hold to' the chaos of free will? I suppose the better explanation/analogy to implement is that 'the mother of things' refers to the GOOD or perfection (converting to my model). That does make sense. Indeed, hold to the objective good.
Quoting 0 thru 9
That is an interesting parenthetical addition. Why add it? What is presumed not infinite about choice?
There is one thing in my model. We cannot choose to change the good. That is the only one.
Are there other exceptions for you?
Quoting 0 thru 9
And this would be another objection from me for Eastern thought. They perceive an unimaginably bad balance that does not exist. That is a balance between good and evil. No, we are aimed and we are supposed to aim at good. So there is no actual balance between good and evil. The successful navigation of being, must finally be, perfect alignment of intent with objective moral truth (the good).
If there is a balance between evil and good then choice is pointless. That makes Nihilism true and morality a farce.
Thanks for your reply. :smile:
Quoting Tzeentch
Ok, theres bound to be at least some theoretical disagreement when it comes to capitalism, socialism, etc. :nerd:
I was generalizing of course, lumping everything together and focusing on the negative aspects of what we call capitalism.
But I do so to play the role of amateur doctor, trying to see if there are illnesses and maladies that are causing pain, weakness, unhappiness, etc.
To determine if our civilization is suffering from an illness, and examine some potential cures, so to speak.
Its a metaphor obviously, to compare civilizations well-being to the health of a person.
But it might shed some light
I think that theres a profound connection between a cultures philosophy and the resulting life one sees around oneself: all the manifestations and concrete examples of thought and intention (or perhaps human Will).
(As a personal aside, I think the reason I initially became involved in philosophy as a teen was that I wanted to know how things came to be the way they are now.
And I sought to discover the foundation of thinking that underpins our culture.
I was searching for the missing manual of our civilization, so to speak.
Both out of curiosity, and a desire to to the best I could in life.
This thread is, I think, an outgrowth of that wondering and vague sense of unease).
I think it is debatable whether what has been going on in Western Civilization (WC) for millennia (as you wrote) can neatly be labeled as capitalism.
That seems to be an over-generalization too.
The mere existence of private property could exist in other possible systems.
Maybe there was a point in time where (what Im calling) capitalism was highly functional, with a high level of efficiency resulting in a successful society.
But whatever word describes the general situation now (plutocracy, oligarchy, etc), the medical diagnosis of our civilization is dire.
As you eloquently noted in an earlier post:
Quoting Tzeentch
Concerning the above quote, I strongly agree with almost everything you said.
But Im trying to understand why you now in this latest post seem to overlook (or exonerate? excuse?) that the total economic system that is playing a huge role in the society outside our window, and around the globe.
Would you agree that some economic changes need to be made?
Changes that limited the power of transnational corporations and banks, for instance.
Of course, this then involves governments which [s]are completely[/s] might be complicit in the matter.
Thoughts? :chin:
I see many problems with the system, but I think they do not originate from the system itself. Instead I believe they are a symptom of a deeper issue which I would tie into the Yin imbalance as I have explained it earlier.
The system is a human product, so without looking at the human flaws that create the flawed system, one cannot get to the root cause of the problems.
For example, some may argue that governments need to be given more power to curb "capitalism".
Why does this never seem to work in practice?
Because man is flawed, and flawed humans that run the government are subject to the same Yin imbalance as the ones that use and abuse the financial system. So it just shifts the problem into a different shape, which rarely solves anything and often makes things worse. (After all, 'capitalism' only controls capital, whereas governments hold the monopoly on violence - pick your poison, I suppose, but it's clear to me which is the more dangerous of the two.)
Attempts at bending flawed humans into a different shape through coercion often fail as well, which is why I believe these issues can only be solved via a voluntary philosophical transformation of the entire system - leading to my thoughts of the Yin / Water element imbalance.
The philosophical underpinnings of a civilization form the bedrock of everything, just like how all human behavior originates from the psyche.
Luckily, I believe this will eventually happen naturally, as the system threatens to implode and prompts society as a whole to reflect and come up with actual solutions.
Less luckily, things probably have to get much worse before they get better, unless this process of reflection can somehow be expediated (but I doubt it).
I find the current yin over-expression to be greatly at fault, yes, but a natural occurrence after a great length in time of a similar yang over-expression.
In other words when yang exhausted itself (some time past), yin has crept up in expression to well beyond intolerable levels.
Don't get me wrong though. Both yin and yang elements are always involved and since they possess in every case possible balance in any chooser, it is always the choosers, the participants, that are to blame. That means that all the yin that was weak for so long in Western culture and now the weak yang from exhaustion or cyclic lowering, both, always both, are really to blame. Of course,it seems like a traditional Western thing to blame who is on top calling the shots with over-expression.
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree entirely but that is a rather disingenuous statement. It is so because that is precisely what we are doing is examining the human motivations. The fact that these motivations exist at the chooser level and at higher levels within any entity representing aggregate choice, is not relevant.
Any systemic or cultural pattern starts with individual choosers. Even if its a trend now with cultural inertia overpowering many even powerful individuals, it still began and can be altered by each chooser within any current state, active choice.
So, again, the look into yin/yang and personality of choosers or motivations of choosers is indeed exactly what is being discussed, cultural or individual notwithstanding.
Quoting Tzeentch
The reasons are many and varied. But to sum it up it really does work like this:
The goals in mind are not the same between those envisioning the change and the changers themselves.
Further:
The goals are often wrong or wrongly understood.
Further:
The type of person that is motivated to understand motivation itself is not the type of person to enact policy and vice versa. This means we must learn or earn the wisdom to control the process from start to finish by a real thorough and long term plan.
The basic reason that Capitalism has not been overturned is that depending on the immoral but regulatable motivations of humans is much easier than depending on and orchestrating for the expectation of more and more moral motivations. We have to begin to realize first and implement second the kind of system as a whole that catalyzes moral behavior.
This is a sad truth. It is sad because that is exactly what Capitalism is doing so far. The incentive for 'success' is the financial reward, not the moral reward. So immorality is what is driving the system. I mean, I think we all realize how stupid and wrong it would be to let immorality drive any system. So, why does the profit motive persist? It's clearly immoral! But many people would argue that point, foolishly. So, it's a basic trouble in humanity. Admit the immorality of the profit motive or continue to fail.
Don't get me wrong. It's not lightly that I say such things. Capitalism is far more immoral at its base than many of the things we today decry as atrocities. We all seem to suffer a simplistic and pervasive delusion where Capitalism is concerned.
I have interviewed many many people on these points. Most of them say the same things, 'If I didn't have to work, I would not work at all.' I find that deeply immoral and these speakers do so in the absence of a system that is like that. I think these people are wrong, most of them. Most of them are actually fairly good-minded and fairly hard working people. They would change in such a system and work because it was less boring than not working. So I am not as worried about that issue. But not working by choice is just laziness and another immorality. If the two choices of sin are offered it might be that laziness seems worse than self-indulgence (greed). That is the nature of reality again, with desire being the fuel of idealism and the way forward into the future, whereas anger is the fuel of balance and the eternal now, the present tense.
In the anger side consideration of progress, after a world of more balance (Communism) is attained, there would still be the desire side truth of more is better. Production would need to be maximized and balanced for growth but not cancerous growth.
But these are indeed the root causes. Emotions as motivations are the roots. Speaking only of basic motivations is as rooty as roots go.
Quoting Tzeentch
And as the speaker for anger, you should not be so quick to assume this. Anger is actually more about balance and so it is not by default sinful via violence. It's default is laziness, and that is the real problem often seen in tyrannies masking so-called Communism that are not actual Communism.
In a real Communist state, everyone must have the same per-capita resources, roughly. Any imbalance would deny the Communist label. Further, private property would be restricted to incidentals only, actual personal items. Homes certainly would be rotated. No one gets a cool lakehouse or beachhouse indefinitely.
Even in Capitalist society the real changes and work are done by very few people. Only grunt work is the real question and as soon as robots are created that can do these menial tasks Communism should be much more easily attained.
There is only 1 real problem with implementing Communism. That is breeding. To manage resources breeding must be tightly controlled. Greedy over-breeding would not be allowed. Further, breeding of sub groups within the whole would have to be watched. The moral aims of the whole could be subject to change if any sub-group over-bred. There are mostly two sides to the overpopulation argument, the deniers who claim that population will decline with education as it seems to and the worriers like me that say we are already way overpopulated as a species on this planet based on sustainable output at this tech level. That debate must be solved.
it is my aim that we, each of us, live in abundance. That means different things to different people and cultures. But some of us are far too happy with no space and jammed in like ants. How can we design allotments such that space is available in abundance for those that prefer elbow room? These are the REAL questions our societies should be asking. Along with this biggest question of all: How are the rich to be collectively 'taken down' without violent war? Good luck with that one. But it is coming.
Quoting Tzeentch
I do not believe that you can get to volunteerism, but, I am for it if it can be done. I do agree that once a Communist style economic management is put in place, volunteerism would be a huge part of effective local work/activity.
I also do not think we can afford to wait for enough enlightenment. It will be too late if we do. The wise must rule us so first we must discover what wisdom is and quantify it entirely. Of course it will be a changing and growing thing at all times. That in itself is wisdom. But Democracy is nonsensical and always has been. The very idea that everyone is qualified to cast a wise vote is insane. Socrates himself warned us of this truth 2500 years ago and we still act like Democracy is a good idea. It makes one wonder if wisdom is ever going to really be possible.
Quoting Tzeentch
Agreed on both counts, but, civilization is really a manifestation of order, first. That ordering was mostly out of balance with nature or natural law or morality, take your pick. We need to remake it.
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree but there is no guarantee at all that reset and fallback are not included in the possible ways the existing system can fare near term.
The real and only question is AI. Will AI transcend human morality in terms of average morality per chooser? I think the answer is yes. But until it does so, the ensuing instability of AI's earning wisdom time might be long enough to wipe out humanity. Who knows? In any case its doubtful machines and AI will tolerate human greed and wanton self-indulgence, because such motivations would use up otherwise useful and needed resources.
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree. It's likely that the wise will not be heeded and immorality will continue until any number of inevitable breaking points.
Suffice to say, I think these are symptoms and not causes.
The original Tao is very short. Its said that it is like chess. It takes an hour to read, and a lifetime to ponder and (attempt to) master.
Heres a website that has several versions of the Tao Te Ching next to each other for comparison.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Quoting Chet Hawkins
How boldly wise of you, young grasshopper, to correct the Buddha! May he return the generous favor a hundredfold! :pray: :halo: :flower:
Just kidding I am a student of Eastern philosophy, but certainly not a master. :blush:
You seem to have some preconceptions of Eastern thought as being passive or unrealistic or something.
Forgive me if this analysis of your analysis is mistaken
It seems to me that you are correcting the mistakes you think you are seeing with your ideas which are much closer to Buddhism than your inadvertent strawman!
Id agree with most of your ideas except the ones giving an accidental misreading of the East.
I mean to say that its not critical for you or anyone to grasp the essence of Eastern philosophy.
But for this particular thread, it is rather central.
Thanks for your interesting reply. You give much food for thought. :smile:
Thanks for your reply.
I think that supposing that even if the main problems we as humanity face are not CAUSED by the rulers and their allies (corporations, banks, governments, militaries), they are certainly AMPLIFIED by such agents.
As a whole, the system seems to be locked into a game that it cant stop, even if willing.
(Not unlike the nuclear weapons escalations and potential global war in the past century).
The system is more machine than human; the humans are replaceable and just along for the ride.
So I guess Im partially agreeing with you, but not taking the Rulers (or especially the system they serve) off the hook and putting them out on bail.
Id be unfair and a bit daft not to admit the millions of good aspects of our civilization, even as it is now.
But the goodness is so inter-tangled with the bad, that it can seem like humans are fatally flawed or evil (which I dont believe).
So intertwined are the good and bad, it is like cancer woven into a brilliant brain.
Like glass shards hiding in a garden salad.
What is the point of no return or when is a totally different approach needed with regards to our culture? (Rhetorical question, of course).
Quoting Tzeentch
:up:
Perhaps I wouldnt exactly say that the philosophy FORMS the bedrock of everything, but Id say that it AFFECTS darn near everything. (A minor quibble).
The system is made up of individuals making their individual and mostly free choices.
One can say what they will about capitalism and the filthy rich multinationals, but who is it that gives a company like Amazon its power? It's the people who buy from Amazon. If the people stopped buying from Amazon today, Amazon would be gone tomorrow.
And apparently the individuals that make up society still believe buying their products a little cheaper is worth the trade-off.
Simple as.
Democracy works in much the same way. How is it that the most powerful nation on Earth cannot produce anything better than Trump or Biden?
Because the people have become ignorant, shallow and out of touch (Yin imbalance), and keep voting for these baboons instead of putting their foot down and demanding something better.
Yes, there might be a part of the system that seeks to keep people ignorant, but I'm not one for excuses. One cannot outsource one's responsibility to educate oneself. It's up to people themselves to learn to distinguish fact from fiction, to not be manipulated, not to accept comforting half-truths, etc.
If people refuse to do that, they end up with a wicked system of their own creation.
As such, the system will only change if the people change, and that will eventually result in individual people making different choices. They make different choices if their belief system (Yin) fundamentally changes. And just to clarify, I believe that can only happen genuinely and voluntarily. There are no shortcuts here. You can't fake it, and you can't force people into it.
Humanity's salvation will come about (if it ever does) one individual at a time. The same goes for positive change. Such is my view.
I agree with and admire your emphasis on the individual and the power each person wields, perhaps often unconsciously.
Looking at history, many times one individual made a great difference (sometimes even for the good lol).
If a person can become empty of themselves, they can be filled with wisdom, deep strength, compassion, understanding, creativity, and many other qualities.
This is compatible with the teaching of the Tao to be empty, to know and be the uncarved block.
Empty yourself and be full, wear out and be new, twist and be straight, have little and gain, have much and get confused
I wish to keep that idea of the power of the individual, and add it to a study and critique of the group and civilization.
The large community and status quo takes on a life and power and energy of its own, which is fine when the society is working for everyone relatively equally (not identically).
But in the world around us, few thinkers would take the position that circumstances are mostly fair for most of the people most of the time.
I will go out on a limb and say that this is not because humans are stupid or evil.
In the millennia of human civilization, we have learned to dominate nature and dominate each other.
This may not always lead to negative consequences for everyone, but one can imagine that a little domination goes a long way.
Too much domination leads to well, to the present circumstances in general.
Can we learn not to saw off the branch that we are sitting on?
Can we recognize and change the unwritten rules of the civilizational game if we find that they are self-defeating?
Or do we play the game of the Owners of the world?
Those who hold onto their great power fearfully, who live in a fine mansion but are terrified because they are surrounded by the billions they are enslaving.
They spread disinformation and encourage us to fight each other, and try to find scapegoats so that we dont recognize their lies and manipulation.
The axis of their power is crumbling and can no longer hold, even if we wanted it to.
We see that the Emperors have no clothes, but we offer amnesty if they release the floodgates of power.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Thanks for your post and ideas. :up:
I admire your radical spirit (looking for and digging toward at the roots) even if I doesnt always completely agree with some of your theories.
About abundance I agree that new possibilities have to be explored.
Along with the necessary and obvious physical abundance, we need even more.
Something additional, on another level entirely.
People by and large seem psychologically weary, isolated, emotionally undernourished, and creatively unchallenged.
Everyone i know is trying so very hard, but their eyes tell me (even if they dont speak) that the joy of life is feeling like an elusive thing even when the basic needs are met.
The camaraderie, the trust, the affection, the hope, and possibilities seem like a distant memory.
Or maybe such things are just the silly illusions of childhood that are best abandoned
That is the most fun, useful, and amazing of the possible responses. Even slack jawed almost worshipful agreement is not as useful because that would almost certainly prohibit or occlude advancement or growth from the admired side. ;) It's why I am here, to refine and grow.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I agree and that is really for sure what I am about. Humanity needs a next-level philosophy. We certainly are not getting there following the same tired paradigms. Pressure is building to make a sea change. With any luck and more than a little effort, I could be a part of that. We all could.
Quoting 0 thru 9
For the most part these days, at least in the first world, it is that yin over-expression that is to blame, in general. That is a preoccupation with self-indulgent desires in the time of relative prosperity.
I wonder, will the threat of missing spiritual or meta-level failure of advancement drive us to to it? Or is more incentive required? And upon whom will this motivational incentive need to be applied? The grow or die meme is relevant here. But how long will 'death' take? Is there a point of no return beyond which it is too late to proceed? I don't believe that, but, it is worth noting that at most such moral turning points in history some of the most famous quotes ring true to alignment with my warning to Pragmatism itself, 'It is better to choose to die rather than to be immoral.' "Give me liberty or give me death!' is an interesting and ironic example. It both aligns somewhat with that sentiment and yet shows the cause for being more specific with what is meant, if wisdom is truly at issue.
That means freedom is effectively a synonym for chaos and desire only, an immoral wish. So, being specific about supposed aphorisms of 'wisdom' is super important. It turns out that 'Give me liberty or give me death' is deeply immoral as a statement, unless the intent in the speaker is greater than the moral message of the literal words. Let's hope the speaker meant things the right, wise way. But it's better to say and write and quote actual wisdom, even if the saying is less brief and tidy seeming. That would be something like this: 'Give me maximized liberty within a maximal orderly system carefully and lovingly restricting unwise freedoms!' It doesn't roll off the tongue does it? But if one knows what the objective GOOD is, or suspects many aspects of the limits of understanding it, then one can say instead as a better shortcut, 'Any consequence is acceptable if intent is good!' This is why consequentialism is a lie, an immoral ism, in its entirety.
Quoting 0 thru 9
What is the most elusive thing? Perfection (the GOOD) is the only right answer. Perfection literally causes desire itself. It is the source of desire. The system of love containing the one right path, the GOOD, is in its whole presentation, also that perfection. We deny it some with every failed and immoral choice we make, but, we cannot escape truth. The truth I am advocating for continues to show in the eyes of all, and in the hopes of humanity, of all the universe.
Quoting 0 thru 9
The rich get richer. War still happens regularly with less and less rules. People still believe in Capitalism and Democracy, immorally. Amid this chaos most fall to Hedonism and Cronyism to cope. They 'buy in' instead of mustering the will to make war on immorality. They know that their own immorality will come to be a central issue they must face if they step up. And that terrifies EVERYONE equally. So they close ranks against wisdom and the truth and put off the great fight to the next generation, letting the cup pass to their (maybe hopefully?) more worthy progeny. It's a vast unsettling hypocrisy and not likely to change easily.
But since you and I notice these eyes, and since truth is in fact truth, the struggle is indeed eternal. Nothing but the good can win, finally. Real winning is only found in alignment with the GOOD and by the degree of that alignment.
Quoting 0 thru 9
"All our dreams can come true if we have the courage to pursue them!" - Walt Disney
"We will not solve the problems of today with the same (wisdom) that created them!" - OneMug (paraphrased)
"Rule for Happiness: something to do, someone to love, something to hope for!" - Immanuel Kant
Well the image that comes to mind that might describe the situation is a frog jumping from a rock to a log to another rock.
Usually, Mr Frog knows which landing spot hes going for.
But in an emergency situation, he will jump first to evade danger, and then figure out the details of having a nice sitting surface later.
Maybe we are in a roughly similar situation.
Usually we like to advance cautiously, but when the heat is on we have to improvise and move faster than the comfort zone of our conscious mind prefers living on instinct, intuitions, and any divine guidance the universe cares to offer us.
Strangely enough, we have to dig deep to get out of the rut we are in.
An open mind and a warm heart are among our indispensable strengths.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Yes, thanks for writing that. :up:
As a general observation about such things, I would add that in my experience it is inevitable to think and talk about the highest good and other ideals.
If we can limit ourselves just a little though, when it comes to defining those ideas down to the last word and concept, we can avoid working our minds into a corner (or into a clash with another person).
The Tao Te Ching says the highest good cannot be grasped or spoken of.
Then it seems to talk about that very thing!
Is this hypocrisy or self-contradiction?
No, I think that the TTC is talking around the subject talking about that which needs to be talked about but leaving the central causes and being to remain alone and mysterious.
This prevents the inevitable dogmatic disagreements that occur from overdefining that which is mysterious to us.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
We play our seemingly small part on the worlds stage for a relatively short time.
But each small moment in each life is infinitely intertwined with all other beings, like the jeweled net of Indra that Joseph Campbell described.
We are learning very quickly with regards to technological advances, but ever so slowly when it comes to having a civilization that completely works.
We are standing on the shoulders of our ancestors (all of them, even monkeys, frogs and jellyfish).
And tomorrows children and animals will stand on our shoulders.
From a certain view, Time proceeds upwards, building on yesterdays foundation.
I completely agree and I dearly love your example. I'm so stealing it!
The situation you describe also underscores my continual message that peace is effectively delusional. It's the thing we aim for only indirectly, balance, balance in all ways. But what is missing from the balancing statement is the maximization statement. The GOOD is balanced and maximized fear, anger, and desire.
To reiterate differently, conflict is eternal and non-delusional. If you wish to spin conflict appropriately you might say struggle or suffering or even something as neutral sounding as 'effort'. It shows or integrates the truth that to approach morality, the GOOD, is an uphill battle, requiring more and more effort as the pinnacle of perfection is reached for.
It's not thought of often as a good thing, to require or morally accept more and more effort. Whole branches of immoral vices amid the morality tree will tempt us to try to do less and less. The central sin of anger itself, the bastion of effort, is laziness. The central failure of desire is self-indulgence or Hedonism. And the run away rather than face it now or seek unusual safety and certainty is the cowardly mistake of fear. All of them contribute to a lack of effort.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Agreed. Lending great credence to the maxim, war is a constant non-delusional state. Avoiding war may be the worst thing we can do to intend morality. How about that for a confusing message to the mainstream? Instead of fleeing the struggle we need to know, to understand, that we should be leaning into it. The wise wisely inflict suffering upon everyone to allow for opportunity to earn wisdom (faster).
Suffering is the only real path to wisdom. The exception to this rule is resonance. That is to say maintaining a proper resonance with the good does take effort, which is suffering, BUT, we can say with some aplomb that ... maybe ... that is easier or done with a lighter heart than less resonance is. That means there is a perhaps dangerous temptation that develops when morality is high to slack off and rest in the wave of goodness. This again just increases the difficulty as moral agents that normally expend great effort towards the good, towards earning more wisdom, slack off amid prosperity and relax too much.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Ah ha but here is the warning this otherwise great statement gets, 'What about anger and being?' That is to say you covered fear (mind) and desire (heart), but left out the anger/body part. That is dangerous. That is how we get the partial wisdom of the past.
I am rather desperately it seems often enough, trying to get people to speak and write more clearly in this matter. Granted not everyone accepts my model and even the basis of it. But I think the tripartite nature of reality is easily more defensible that the binary nature. The missing element inside the quote would be '... open mind, warm heart, and resilient body ...' I would not lightly treat ANY circumstance of saying one or two without the other. Completeness is required for accuracy in scope, at least.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Well exactly. In my model you just said this, "Do not over-express fear, the limiting force. It leads to cowardice and certainty that are immoral." Notice how your statement suggests limiting the limiting force? I find that wonderful. It may be the circular statement that shows the failure of fear, not acclimating to its own nature.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I think that this is a clear nod to the elusive nature of perfection itself. It is an acknowledgment that arrival at perfection is impossible. So we foolish moral agents vastly overuse the term 'perfect' in every way as it has never happened despite your(plural) experiences and demands that it has. No, that is a giddy, addicted foolishness that affirms the impossible immorally. 'Wonderful' and the like is far better, more honest term.
The use of the words 'know, conclusion, perfect, etc' superlatives is almost always wrong and immoral. Most people simply do not understand these words properly enough to use them well. And their misuse DOES impact happiness negatively, not positively as people improperly believe. If we think even for a split second that we have witnessed perfection that foolish bluster can lead us to death itself as we no longer think we can attain better. Real perfection is eternally elusive and rest assured we have not been near to it ever, in any way, yet.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Indeed. I think AI will transcend humanity in moral understanding in the blink of an eye and indeed AI is our next step of evolution that we so oddly had a hand in. A lot of apes worked very hard amid their moral agency since the time of Proconsul 20 million years ago to get to Cro-Magnon or Homo Sapiens (wise man). 'They' say now that we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens (wise wise man). You could have fooled me.
I see our tech advancing at a pace that outstrips our evolution. So we are making the mind/body connection super strong. Ensconced in metal and electric frames the resilient body part is well tended to. But, does that possibly contain an open mind or a rather closed one? We will have to see how AI goes. And the big question is, is warm heart transferable to that medium. I think it has to be. I do not think any material of the universe is not subjected to objective moral truth. That means no instantiation is without free will. Even nature locks function into form unnecessarily seemingly. But it's nature, so, the truth is, objective, that it only seems locked and is not actually locked. Infinite choice, free will, remain available within all matter.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Well yes, the only marked issue being, is moral progress being made? In other words, is the signal of evolution being resonated with? Or are more and more immoral choices being made and evolution effectively snubbed to some degree? Is that even really possible? Can we deny the strength of the call of perfection? I doubt it. The GOOD is in many ways, inevitable. But that's faith!
Thanks! I only ask that if you are interviewed by Oprah, please mention this forum lol.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Thanks for expanding on your terms, which helps when starting with somewhat paradoxical statements.
Id agree more with the second paragraph, but you gotta do you! :smile:
I like the distinction I read somewhere about positive and negative kinds of stress: eustress and distress.
Eustress is a creative conflict or drive; distress is a more paralyzing or inhibiting type of pressure.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Yes, I like the three-part model of a complete human. Body, mind, and soul (or heart, spirit, feelings).
The heart being in the middle between the body and mind, mediating them, going beyond them in some undefinable way.
The model of human (and universal) energy contained in the Indian concept of the chakras is very descriptive and helpful.
Ive been studying it for years and I still feel like a novice, but its clarified much for me.
The notion of the lower three chakras representing staying alive, sexual energy, and societal roles.
All of which are essential parts of life.
But as the energy builds upwards, it reaches the heart.
If the heart is closed or weak or unbalanced it throws off the entire energy, affecting the physical levels and preventing access to the higher mind (spiritual) chakras above.
This reminds me of your model of anger, desire, and fear.
Those could possibly represent the first three chakras.
The Good could be a smooth flow from the root chakra up to the crown, where the energy (ideally) spews forth like solar flares with light, understanding, and energy.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Quoting Chet Hawkins
The Buddha said that we have no separate self.
When first learning this, I thought it meant something bad or nihilistic.
But it really is liberating and wonderful.
We are part of the universe at every single point of our being.
Nothing is separate, there is only the appearance of separation.
Loneliness, insignificance, and confusion cant exist long when I imagine this infinite being that is me and everything.
You are the universal energy and mind and body.
Obi-Wan Kenobi wasnt completely blowing smoke out his rear lol.
If someone doubts this far fetched and hippie-like description, I wouldnt be surprised.
Id say dont expect too much from me the Tao Te Ching says it all.
Just contemplate or meditate, and see what there is to see.
That feels like evolution (of the mind) to me anyway
I must answer yes, but . . . . the imbalance seems to be mostly due to top-heavy technological power of humans over the rest of the world. When humans were upright apes, they had little advantage over plants & animals for making a living in the world. But, as their big brains began to solve fitness problems with artificial products instead of innate tools, they applied that leverage to out-compete most other animals. For much of history, that advantage was considered a good thing for humanity.
Today though, the technology vs nature relationship is trending toward "critical imbalance" : what Malcom Gladwell called The Tipping Point*1. He wasn't talking about an the immanent end of the world, but about how complex & chaotic systems of all kinds can suddenly go off the rails : otherwise known as the Butterfly Effect. So, the term may also apply to the rapid changes in the physical and socio-cultural environment. The positive takeaway from his analysis is that understanding how things go awry is the first step toward a social or technical solution.
On a more personal level, your suggestion of a complementary Yin Yang approach to restoring the balance of Nature and Culture may be the best that Philosophy can do to "rescue" the world from descending into permanent crisis mode --- as portrayed in the stream of Apocalyptic movies coming out of Hollywood --- where humans are faced with an existential struggle-for-survival. For Science & Technology, the related notion of Holism*2 is now being applied to complex systems that are hard to understand and control.
Again, understanding how things go wrong, may help us to set them back on the right track. Without abandoning our technological advantage over a universe that is not designed for human thriving : is thrival better than mere survival? :smile:
*1. The Tipping Point :
Gladwell defines a tipping point as "the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point
*2. Holism in science :
Holism in science, holistic science, or methodological holism is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science
Thanks for your insightful reply.
Technology got us this far, but strangely might block our future.
But I agree that our collective thinking can overcome techs downsides.
Good idea about Holism, really its our best hope to have the scientific disciplines working together.
Add in the total picture that Big History gives us for as a cosmic overview as possible.
Of course, theres probably political and economic reasons that would prevent the sciences from completely trusting each other.
I guess itll happen when it needs to when the tipping point tips us in action.
Ha! Will do (deal!)
Quoting 0 thru 9
So, to clarify more, I do not mean to be promoting what is normally colloquially considered to be war. Even that is better than peace in general but clearly not ideal in any sense. The trick is the definition of suffering that is wise. Suffering that is wise is necessary suffering, whereas needless pain and death, intending evil, is unwise. That may be the reason you are still loathe to accredit the overall approach.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Well, this is back to the old ways of thinking (to me). The paralyzing pressure is only fear and fear is just as good as it is evil. In fact the more fear you can muster, the more GOOD you have the potential for. The only caveat is that you must raise anger and desire at the same time to balance the fear or indeed you end up with NOT a restrained pressure but instead a truly dangerously stiff and orderly or cowardly situation. Many arguments in the past along the lines of 'let's wait and see' or 'we cant side with the Dutch! They cannot defeat the Germans!' are more often along the lines of immoral cowardice. Not stepping up to do your part when it would make a difference to peers is a classic case of supporting needless suffering often enough.
The point being, that your negative definitions are not aligned properly, to me. I think you have the same issue with my suffering or conflict stance to some degree. But perhaps you might ask yourself to clear up that doubt, ... 'Is there a way to earn wisdom without suffering?' I contend that there is not.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes, in most models the body is most closely associated with the gut, although that is not accurate entirely to my model. Even the physical manifestations of mind, nerves and the brain, are still body interfaces to mind. So they are anger instantiations that connect to fear.
Each emotion has its unique case. if you get caught up in bad metaphor land you can start making no sense very quickly. Where in the body does desire reside most closely? Is it really the heart or also the brain, the mind? The relentless drive of the pumping heart organ does seem to relate somewhat and that is the only reason you can bother with some positional questions like the heart being in the middle.
No. I would say that based on my model all entities, even each atom, partake precisely evenly of the three emotions resulting in a balance, the famous balance of nature. We attribute this to 'nature' but in reality it is my model, of course as my belief, that universal natural law (nature and my model) must start from a position of relative balance in order to support free will. If there were a leaning in any direction then will would not be as free. And indeed, choices cause this to happen all over the place. Supposedly inanimate matter IS making choices. But this is more easily seen, this predilection, this imbalance, amid higher moral agency forms like humans. The necessary step of polarizing the two more delusional emotions, fear and desire literally causes all polarities in life and the universe, right down to male and female as one example. And the forms are embedded with evolution's choices whether we like it or not. But the universal guarantee is still there. So there is final balance even then. This means that although there may be for example a strong predilection (pre-made choice) for chaos in human females and order in human males (desire and fear respectively), there will still be a spread of all ranges of instantiation around those two foci. This allows for and means that choices can flip 180 degrees over vast times as evolution progresses and also it means any individual is not easily determined because their own choice is infinite. Still, to dismiss the statistical mean and the foci is not wise. They exist.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I find errors that are more pervasive in all other models including yin/yang and the chakras, just to name a few. Of course that could be considered arrogant but to be fair I had them to consider and build upon. I do not presume to be the sole contributor or influence to my model. That would be colossal ignorance.
But I can point to the errors of most other systems quite easily and I at least assert my model has less errors than they do. Of course I am not perfect and in time my model will show obvious errors to a new wave of philosophers, wisdom seekers, etc.
Quoting 0 thru 9
That is what I call the unity principle, you are me and I am you. I agree. We cannot be made to unbelong to this universe so death finally is not all that terrible. The context of a valid, well body is finite. Its delusional identity is likewise finite. Everything must be recyclable, and it is.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Well yes, George Lucas hit on some Eastern philosophy and added a name to the unity principle but he went too far making it black and white with good and evil. And his ideas on anger and fear are almost entirely wrong (like so many). That is not a dig at you, because you quickly considered my take.
But all too often the lazy denigrate anger and fast action. That is not a moral choice. Yes, anger can be just as evil as good, but anger itself is not the problem and to say it is is evil. Likewise with fear. And the message for the Buddhists is the same, no, you're wrong, desire is not equivalent to evil. There are good and evil desires. It just SEEMS like desire is evil because amid an infinity of choices only 1 direction points straight to objective moral truth, the GOOD. This gives the clueless a great path to the denigration of desire. I do not approve. The model has to work in every way. And so far I am well pleased with mine. I do wish I was better at the formulation of assertions for technical philosophy. I'd love help with that for my model, but, I assume that it can be done after the theory of it, the idea is written.
Quoting 0 thru 9
So that is a perfect example of Eastern laziness and ennui, the denigration of anger and desire. It is the delusion of peace as an affectation, a goal, an addiction, and to me and my model that is immoral.
Instead, morally, you MUST expect everything from yourself at all times, and stand ready to forgive the failure and renew the resolve to expect everything again in the next moment. That is the only moral path.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Evolution of the mind only would neglect the body and heart (desire). It is very very hard to be 'on the ball' with respect to wording and modeling the GOOD.
So many things people say or quote as aphorisms are actually poisonous anti-wisdom. I can easily (to me) show the dread lack of wisdom in Capitalism, in Democracy, and in both Pragmatism and Idealism as well. Most of what we rely upon as wise is not wise, precisely because it is not contained in a model that really does show how to differentiate and approach the GOOD.
Yes, suffering is necessary for growth. I agree with that.
(For a seed to grow, it must surrender its individuality to become something more).
Or call it effort, work, struggle some can see the struggle as a playful game or giant dance of life.
Im still working on not struggling with the suffering lol.
But when dividing suffering into necessary and unnecessary who decides whats necessary?
Quoting Chet Hawkins
There are of course many models and systems and philosophies.
They are like tools; if they can serve a function (such as helping us to see the invisible or to understand the abstract by making it somewhat concrete) then they are used over and over again by many generations.
But for us seekers, it seems that the best we can do is to (try to) understand many of these systems and translate them into language that has the most meaning for us.
Each of us must explain it (by breaking down and reassembling) to the most important (and difficult) audience our own individual self.
And you are obviously making the effort to do so and to share it with others, which is generous.
I appreciate your posts as they offer much to think about and to chew on, even when some small bits get stuck in my teeth lol.
Obviously, it can be daunting when others dont understand or agree (or both: disagreeing exactly because they dont understand the point being made, or the overall picture being painted).
Being ignored feels worse than being misunderstood, although being ignored is more relaxing.
But in a some way I broadly divide philosophy into the external social (written and perhaps well known) and the internal personnel (which is the eclectic bricolage construction of ones own philosophy).
Maybe this is another way to view the question of esoteric vs exoteric philosophy as discussed in that thread? :chin:
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Quoting Chet Hawkins
But having said the above comments about models, Im very puzzled why you keep misrepresenting Buddhism or Eastern philosophies as being lame and ineffectual and missing something vital and essential.
This seems to be a common prejudice which is easily corrected with further research.
There probably have been some Eastern ideas in history that were off-base in some way, just as in the West.
The Buddha corrected any extreme otherworldly approach to wisdom, such as weakening and starving oneself in the attempt to achieve enlightenment.
It takes physical strength to meditate, which to seek to behold Truth directly, while temporarily putting aside the discursive mind (without paying any philosophical middleman for his prepackaged thoughts and assembled ideas, to be witty about it. Even if the middleman is ourself).
I dont emphasize them often, but if we want to be more complete in our view of Eastern thought, we can remember The Art of War by Sun-Tsu and the martial arts.
Those are quite energetic enough for anyone, no?
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Some things in my writing are implied by what Ive written before. I cant say everything all the time! :grin:
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Yes. We agree on something. Drinks are on me! :party:
Each moral agent must decide what is wise for themselves, the personal option of your two later defined ones.
But, the society must persist in leadership as when a group forms it takes on a new identity and becomes an aggregate self. That self must also decide. It is the pressure of the group identity upon the singular self that often yields progress. This is for many reasons, but one big one is that often fear types join groups in order that they not have to think so much, if you follow. They surrender their moral agency immorally to the group, somewhat. But each cell in the body is either cancerous or healthy, if you follow.
Morality to me is objective. This means also that NO ONE decides what is necessary. A law of the universe already made that choice. Granted, this law also forces upon us all the burden of choice, free will. So mistakes will be made. Immorality will be chosen. That is all just to say, At the same time as each moral agent choosing as they must, they are also objectively wrong or right in their proximity to what is objectively good. So, all of their choices are finally only errors from which they should attempt to earn more wisdom. Yes, all beliefs are partially in error. That means all facts are as well.
So when we discuss the hard subject of necessary versus unnecessary suffering, we must be constantly reminded that there is only one right answer. Subjectivity is the delusion of experience from the immoral and imperfect state, only. The final goal is perfection, objectivity. Therefore between any two differing beliefs about what is necessary or unnecessary, only one of them is more right. That is a tautology. The central delusion of subjectivism is that all choices are equal, or that the jury is still out. The jury is not out. The verdict was cast at the dawn of time. The GOOD is objective. And genuine happiness is the consequence of alignment to the GOOD in many ways at the same time.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I agree. But the discipline of wisdom would require that such moral agents admit that their choice is always wrong in some way. The trick is to have two assertions at all times: 1) all my choices are partially immoral and I can do better, and 2) all my choices are relative to others' choices and between any tow of us or between me and society's net choice, only one of us is better.
I find that Pragmatists are usually able to push assertion 2 and Idealists are more able to push assertion 1. It is only both assertions that cause the balance of wisdom.
Quoting 0 thru 9
This statement by you is in keeping with the greatest gift one human can receive from another. That challenging wisdom was entertained, if not accepted. I can only thank you from all parts of my heart.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Ha ha! Relaxing? If one craves being ignored or left alone, perhaps. But morality is objective. So these cravings are either right or wrong, objectively. I would suggest that craving being alone is immoral. The immoral deflection is misunderstood from the true moral of the Unity Principle. The feeling is supposed to come via anger. 'I am sufficient unto myself and need nothing more nor fear anything!' But this is to achieve balance only. Maximization is not yet include. Maximization includes all as its final goal. So the person wanting to be alone is immoral in that choice. I do not mean to rest or take time to integrate. I mean the person who is devoted to being alone or removed from others or is doggedly un-inclusive of others. All is the only final state. Those red light sabers must be converted.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Stealing 'eclectic bricolage' also! ;)
I agree, but, we must not make overmuch of these 'separations', because they do not exist (really). We must therefore merge the social and the self. It is immoral not to. Humans are destined to become cells in an organism that is humanity, almost certainly. And there will still be this level and more of complexity of moral agency for each of us amid that greater 'animal'. But we need to admit to it and accept it more for it to be realized. That is my struggle here with separating the two.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I just see the esoteric as that which is so unknown by society that it is considered excessive in some way. The Pragmatists would say, 'humans are not ready for that' at best. They would say much more harsh things usually about ideals they do not like, like becoming one with a hive mind. Of course some few Pragmatists are on that border and will entertain that notion as moral or desirable.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I do need to look into it more. I apologize if I misrepresented it.
Quoting 0 thru 9
On that I simply and obviously agree. And I was pointing out why I think Eastern philosophies are wrong. I can do that same thing for the Western ones.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Well, you could say he advised. I don't think he can correct. That implies completion and no more such error. Like Christ, he suffers others' interpretations of his meanings. You mean to say here that the Buddha realized that restraint itself could be over-expressed. That is too much order, too much in the way of limits, and it ends up weakening the self by denying the worthiness of imagination and desire (mostly). In that way, your comment makes sense as a retort to my assertion of denigrated desire by the East.
In my defense:
Free from desire you see the mystery. Full of desire you see the manifestations.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 1]
Lessen selfishness and restrain desires.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 19]
Without desire there is stillness, and the world settles by itself.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 37]
There is no greater crime than desire.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 46]
I have no desire to desire, and people become like the uncarved wood by themselves.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 57]
The sage desires no desire, does not value rare treasures, learns without learning, recovers what people have left behind.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 64]
It is reasonably hard to draw another conclusion from the Tao Te Ching as I understand it. Granted, looking into the context of each of these quotes offers us mitigation advise where balance is mentioned. But in that system there is nothing clear about how to do it or why.
My model shows clearly that only anger and fear balance desire and why. I think the clarity is something I win with on that score. Further, I directly do not denigrate desire at all. I explain that the GOOD is only obtained by maximal desire. That is a rather bold denial of all of these statements by the Tao Te Ching, again as they lay here as isolated quotes mainly, but also as many people understand the work.
Quoting 0 thru 9
This idea is amazing and complex. I love it. I am not maybe as worried about the middleman or conduit through which I experience belief and choice. I enact new ideas faithfully as a scientific method of wisdom, until I sense unhappiness arising as a result. So false prophets and aphorisms are always 'en guard' from me for me. It's in the nature of my rigorous challenge in every way. Find the weakness as a goal. To do that, you must do the thing!
If you know the Avatar series 'The Legend of Korra' there is an assistant to a narcissistic merchant Varik, named Ju Li. He cannot be bothered to finish his sentences and his usual thing to say his lazy union mind with her is, 'Ju Li, Do the thing!' She knows him so well that she always gets his idea of what 'the thing' is correct. Over the course of the whole show, this interaction is a hilarious and charming sub-plot.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I have read it (being an Enneatype 8 philosopher and soldier (AFROTC) I was drawn to Sun-Tzu early on.
Energetic is a property of desire, yes. But warfare and action are more the province of anger than of desire directly. My model shows that desire in isolation is far too delusional too suspect, indication of indeed that very same doubt offered by most of what I consider in Eastern philosophy to be. The real complexity of intent is found most easily at the 9 virtue stage, rather than cleanly at the 3 primal emotions stage.
It is the interaction of emotions that is effectively conflict in every way. Left alone both fear and desire are pre-delusional. Fear limits and eventual death is the final limit. Desire expands and that is just an explosion, effectively another form of death. Adding anger is where things really get down to business. Anger is the most honest emotion. It is balance by definition. It denies both fear and desire and thus causes balance. It brings physical reality into being, again underscoring its honesty. Being-in-essence is anger. One must occupy space and have mass and one does so fighting constantly with literally every other thing and truth in the universe.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Ha ha! Lazy! Oooh! I get it. I forgive you. But you should try. Say one harmonic phrase that heals the universe, ... every time you speak.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Muckity Muck (scotch) for me. What's your poison?
Thanks! :smile: :up:
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Good answer, much appreciated.
Ill link my response to my previous comment about meditation and using it to (at least partially and temporarily) behold the Good (or the Real or Ultimate Reality or whatever term one prefers).
I use the word behold because it could include all the senses like seeing, hearing, touch simultaneously.
I wouldnt say meditation is the only way or best way it is just a more step-by-step procedure that is aiming for a consistent goal.
There are many other ways one could imagine where the subjective and limited mind that we all have opens to something significantly larger or deeper into a kind of cosmic mind (words start to fail here).
This could happen when mopping the floor or walking your dog.
It could be uplifting, unsettling, ecstatic, confusing, or bring other intense feelings (which probably reflect the person having the experience).
It is a fortunate person who has had experiences where the normal veil of separation is lifted and the Real is beheld directly.
They are fortunate, but have a task to try to understand this experience and integrate it into their lives.
Trying to put it into words is another trick.
If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.
? William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
A catchy way to put it, echoing Platos cave. (echo echo )
This would be my rough description of subjective and objective at a foundational level.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Yes, an impersonal and detached manner is helpful.
To be able to judge ones own actions without being too soft or too harsh (like labeling oneself stupid or evil).
Equanimity is a word used to describe such a state of mind that I find helpful.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Ha maybe i should have wrote that being ignored is quieter, at least.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Yes I agree!
Good point about humanity needing to (and destined to) become more interdependent on a deep mental level (or spiritual level).
We are psychologically torn in two, ripped into little bits that go flying in the air while we try to identify with some of the shreds
We are ALL of them, and more but we are so used to being labeled and numbered, that we end up doing it to ourselves out of sheer habit.
As a cold comfort, we also tell ourselves that we are wealthy, righteous, and high-tech.
But we dont know how wretched, poor and naked weve been trained to be.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Ok good point. I could see how someone might get the idea that the TTC is condemning desire plain and simple.
I guess one way over that potential stumbling block is the context of the TTC as a whole.
There are other quotes that highlight more simple desires, like not traveling but just savoring the place you are at.
And the wish / desire to be at one with the Tao, the Way of nature and the universe.
Some other translations use the words greed, avarice, ambition, addiction along with the word desire to give a meaning of something gone too far, an apple starting to rot.
But now I see where you were getting that idea
Heres a website that breaks down the Tao Te Ching word by word, including the Chinese characters.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Yes! Thanks. :up:
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Wow, thank you very much!
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Haha wine for sipping, weed for tripping! :yum: