| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Registered: 02/20/02 Posts: 2,253 |
| ||||||
|
After the age of 14, most of my life has been about finding the right mode of energy, or frequency , or adjustment if you will, as to how I should live my life. Seeking insight in forms of psychedelics, meditation, yoga, contemplation, wisdom from others, the internet, and even music, I have learned a great deal.
Life is most definately about survival. It is about surviving in order to reproduce, and then evolving. This is one basic pattern nature has made, in order to insure things flow correctly and in a forward matter. This is all assisted thanks to time. I think now a time has come however, where a certain amount of humans have outgrown our current form of survival. The methods, techniques, and forms of survival the governments (mainly the industrial) around the world have used are now being recognized as detrimental not only to the planet, not only to all the creatures inhabiting the planet, but to HUMANITY itself. To blame the government is a fallacy, because government is often a reflection of our own selves. Perphaps we , in their situation - would take the same route. What I am implying, is that in order for survival, not only of humanity, but of the creatures of this planet, and the planet itself - it appears as if a radical change is to occur. To change the external only, I believe the pattern would restart itself. Here's an example. The government systems of the world begin to fail, because of their weak foundations. People all over the world begin to unite, help each other, etc. Eventually however, will a new form of government or control not be needed, and step up only to start the pattern of abuse all over again? Then, an internal change is necessary. Internal being influences and also mirrors external being - so the most important change for the 21st century in humans would not have to be external, but more internal. I have a belief. My belief is that , mainly the American Society (I have yet to venture outside of america) is built upon weak foundations. Any capitalistic society will eventually collapse, simply because the foundation is not strong. Jesus, quoted from the bible, once said something like "Build your temple from below the ground, so when strong winds come it does not blow away". That is not an exact quote, but the quote was to that extent. What I believe he was saying was that if you build your temple (body, system of government, family, etc) with strong foundations (love, unity, respect, compassion, HONESTY) then whenever times get tough, those roots that you started the temple with wil keep everything together. However, if you build your foundation weakly (based on simple survival, anger, aggression, dishonesty, or material-craving) it will crumble when great changes or troubles occur. An example of this weak foundation not working, is this: Perphaps I dress up as a bum. I go to atlanta, a rather big city. I approach 10 people with the same situation: "Hello, sir (or mam) I have NO place to live, yet I can cook, I am compassionate, and intelligent. I will help you and your family in anyway possible. Would you share your home with me?" How many out of 10 do you think would actually share a home with me? A bum from the streets. How many, in a rather machine-like manner, would simple ignore me, and pretend I don't exist. This is the example of being raised in a weak foundation. I also believe the cause of so much disease (cancer, aids, neurological diseases, tumors, etc) are the result of poor foundations of systems of government and living. It is a reflection of the inner turmoil we have brought upon ourselves. The medical industry itself is a weak foundation within a bigger weak foundation, and they have VERY, VERY little knowledge of the true human psyche and body - and are not able to heal on a complete level as of now. Do you see this getting better? I don't, because the medical establishment is built upon weak foundation (money and politics). Depression exists because of this as well. The school systems , The medical system, basically every system within the American Governmental system is weakly founded, simply because it goes accordingly to the original pattern. A change of pattern is needed, but that must come from within. Schooling is meant to raise you intellectually and somewhat physically. The purpose however, is NOT to guide a child into becoming a well-rounded, well-compassionate, and spiritual individual. Instead, the purpose of the educational system is to provide people the ability to function within the society created. It is a programming of thought, if you will. (Would a foundation built truthfully and strongly and justly raise it's own as sheep?) I see america as built upon weak foundations, which is why I believe it is destined to crumble. Perphaps in 5 years, perphaps in 50, perphaps in another 250 years. My mind would say much sooner, however, then 250 years. Much, Much sooner. With all the turmoil in the world today - America could very easily turn upside down. The most common threat I see is warfare, causing the economy to shoot down extremely low. I have choosen a different path. I will build my foundations strongly. I will build my foundations based on truth, brotherhood of man, compassion, loyalty, and in the name of Creation. I have choosen a path that will better humanity, not by my external doings, but by my internal work. How many people are ready to finally stand up, and admit that our current worldy system of living is NOT working, and that EVERYONE can do something about it. This does not mean quit your day job, nor does it mean become a "hippie". All it means it do readjust your energy in order to be more efficient to the world around you. Start helping, start being positive, and start doing internal work on your body and mind. This itself is healing, and to heal oneself is one of the greatest things you can do. Everyone has their own path they can set with what they want. Some people may choose to leave the system completely, and form underground brotherhoods (much like hippies, or built communes). Some people will choose to work within the system, spreading their wisdom and love almost as a cure to a disease. All in all, it comes down to the fact that our current system has been weakly built, and we need to change this. Hating the government, the people who do you wrong, etc is NOT a positive change. That is nonacceptance of what reality is, and will only make your development suffer. Instead, we must fully accept the knot we have gotten ourselves into, and move from there, step by step. Well, what do you guys think?
| |||||||
|
stereotype Registered: 06/19/02 Posts: 1,294 Loc: Around Minneapol Last seen: 14 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
no... I think we should blow it all up. love doesn't cure hate.
-------------------- The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side. - Paul Tillich
| |||||||
|
J♠ Registered: 04/17/01 Posts: 20,815 Loc: Ontario, Canada |
| ||||||
|
Education is KEY
![]() If we were all just educated properly, we would not be in this mess
-------------------- But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
| |||||||
|
Prying open myth Registered: 07/06/03 Posts: 100 Loc: Forever I walk a Last seen: 20 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
No, we still would be. The problem is the basic selfishness of humans.
For humanity to transcend its current state would require a fundamental shift in consciousness; a move from individual focus to group awareness. However, I don't forsee it happening in the near future. More likely is a general collapse of social order and a reversion to anarchistic warlordism, followed by a move to dictatorship, and maybe eventually on to a democratic republic. Then that'll collapse, and the cycle will repeat itself. Alternately, we'll have a global catastrophe that wipes out most or all of humanity. If any humans survive, they'll be forced back into a tribal mindset in which the survival of the group is more important than the survival of the individual - and, gradually, humanity will claw its way back on up. With luck, it will have become enlightened enough at that point to advance past the current state of humanity, to a level where utopian visions can become reality. Personally, I don't think it's possible for humanity to advance without some kind of global catastrophe. Remember that the first purpose of any government is maintaining its own power, and it will go to any length to achieve that. As long as governments exist, humanity will not advance. But as long as humanity is selfish, governments must exist. Only through the destruction of both selfishness and governments can humanity advance. -------------------- "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom... keep that in mind at all times." --Bill Hicks (RIP)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
A thoughtful post indeed, supermarket! A few questions for you. You say --
I think now a time has come however, where a certain amount of humans have outgrown our current form of survival. Which is? The mode of survival of homo sapiens sapiens has always been to use productive effort to acquire the values required for survival -- water, food, shelter, etc. In what way do you believe we have "outgrown" this method? The methods, techniques, and forms of survival the governments (mainly the industrial) around the world have used are now being recognized as detrimental not only to the planet, not only to all the creatures inhabiting the planet, but to HUMANITY itself. Recognized by whom? Don't confuse the methods which governments utilize to further their existence with the methods required by homo sapiens sapiens to further their existence. Governments survive not through the expenditure of productive effort, but by the confiscation of the products of those who expend the effort. To blame the government is a fallacy, because government is often a reflection of our own selves. Perphaps we , in their situation - would take the same route. No "perhaps" about it. All schemes initiated by governments to "redistribute" wealth come at the request of their constituents. Why do you believe these requests are so much more common today than they were a hundred years ago? Do you see it as part of the outgrowing of our current means of survival? The government systems of the world begin to fail, because of their weak foundations. There are many different forms of government. Do you believe all have the same foundations? If so, what do you identify as the common foundation, and why do you perceive it to be "weak"? Eventually however, will a new form of government or control not be needed, and step up only to start the pattern of abuse all over again? The way you phrase the question implies that you believe such a government or control will be needed. Why do you think this is so, and what do you feel is the least possible amount of government/control we can get away with? My belief is that , mainly the American Society (I have yet to venture outside of america) is built upon weak foundations. Any capitalistic society will eventually collapse, simply because the foundation is not strong. Hmmm. This is the second time you have stated your belief in weak foundations. I ask the same question I asked above. What I believe he was saying was that if you build your temple (body, system of government, family, etc) with strong foundations (love, unity, respect, compassion, HONESTY) then whenever times get tough, those roots that you started the temple with wil keep everything together. Those attributes are a good foundation for a relationship with family and friends. Do you believe a government needs no more than those attributes in order to justify its existence? What about justice and protection? However, if you build your foundation weakly (based on simple survival, anger, aggression, dishonesty, or material-craving) it will crumble when great changes or troubles occur. Well, those attributes certainly describe some governments that have existed, but I fail to see the connection between that list and the government of the United States, for example. I also believe the cause of so much disease (cancer, aids, neurological diseases, tumors, etc) are the result of poor foundations of systems of government and living. It is a reflection of the inner turmoil we have brought upon ourselves. How is the existence of the AIDS virus a fault of government? Could you provide a chain of events illustrating this? The medical industry itself is a weak foundation within a bigger weak foundation, and they have VERY, VERY little knowledge of the true human psyche and body - and are not able to heal on a complete level as of now. Do you see this getting better? I don't, because the medical establishment is built upon weak foundation (money and politics). Depression exists because of this as well. I had meant to limit myself to just asking for clarification, but here I must beg to differ. There is no area of science which has made more progress in the last fifty years than medicine. Not only do I see it better, it is indisputably getting better. Further, medicine is not built on any foundation other than the scientific method. The school systems , The medical system, basically every system within the American Governmental system is weakly founded, simply because it goes accordingly to the original pattern. A change of pattern is needed, but that must come from within. Again with the "weak foundation". Again I ask for something more specific than a vague general assertion. I see america as built upon weak foundations, which is why I believe it is destined to crumble. See above. America was the first (and many say the only) country whose foundation was the State recognition and protection of individual rights. The Founding Fathers were the first to espouse the idea that the State was not created to give people freedom, but to protect it. What part of this foundation do you perceive as weak? With all the turmoil in the world today - America could very easily turn upside down. The most common threat I see is warfare, causing the economy to shoot down extremely low. Do you believe America will be conquered? Or is it that you believe American politicians will be suckered into entering too many wars that they could choose to stay out of? How many people are ready to finally stand up, and admit that our current worldy system of living is NOT working, and that EVERYONE can do something about it. I'm not sure I get your point. The way I live my life works for me, and does no harm to others. My guess is the majority of the posters in this forum could honestly say the same thing. Well, what do you guys think? I have no objections to any of the things you plan to do, nor do I object to your trying to persuade others to do the same things. The foundation of the American system of Government was custom-built for people like yourself to advocate these changes. This is why your repeated assertion of its "weak foundation" quite frankly baffles me. Help me out here. pinky
| |||||||
|
Re-memberingcosm Registered: 03/30/03 Posts: 188 Loc: Unknown Last seen: 19 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Very good, Supermarket! Nice post indeed. Have you been reading much Dan Millman lately? hehehe, sounds like you may have been chanelling him a bit
-------------------- Here we are, in these bodies, on this planet in an endless universe. This is not the extent of who we are... merely an extension of who we really are.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 02/20/02 Posts: 2,253 |
| ||||||
Quote: nope! I always figured Dan Millman was rather pro-establishment, or atleast never confronted or challenged any established system of control in the books Ive read of him writing. I have read his work in the past, mainly "Way of the Peaceful Warrior", "Sacred Journeys of the Peaceful Warrior" , and "Laws of Spirit" Good man, from what I can tell
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/07/03 Posts: 104 |
| ||||||
Quote: I think this is a very thoughtful post. Well done.
| |||||||
|
unintended sideeffect Registered: 05/28/03 Posts: 842 Loc: OR Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I agree; it is a very thoughtful and interesting post.
One of the primary points that I got from your essay was your belief (although you didn't state it as such) that in order to continue, some of us will simply need to evolve. And I don't mean 'evolve' in the metaphorical sense. I mean, actually evolve. Become a new species, with new characteristics and capabilities. While I have read a good bit on the nature of intelligence from both the biological and anthropological point of view, I have never seen anything particularly interesting on the theory that we are approaching some sort of evolutionary crux. Does anyone know of anyone who has written on this? I'd sure be interested in seeing what it is... I've often wondered if intelligence alone would be enough to solve the issues that we face as a species, were we ever able to remove the un/less intelligent from the equation. Obviously, it's an intellectual exercise at best - but an interesting thought. Well, to me, at least. I'm a geek
-------------------- There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. -- Howard Zinn
| |||||||
|
Drunkard ![]() Registered: 10/15/00 Posts: 1,091 Loc: England |
| ||||||
|
never make eye contact...
| |||||||
|
unintended sideeffect Registered: 05/28/03 Posts: 842 Loc: OR Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Uh.. You lost me
-------------------- There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. -- Howard Zinn
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
I hope supermarket doesnt mind if I address a few of the points you've raised Pinky but Im in agreement with much of what he says.
Quote: I think the prevalent form of survival today puts the individual's survival above that of the group. In fact that doesnt accurately describe the problem. It seems to me that generally people will put their individual comfort, not survival, above the actual survival of other members of our species. I.e In a world where we have the resources available to feed the whole world, vast portions of humanity still starve. The current form of survival thrives on competition between those involved, it needs winners and losers to designate how well one has managed to "survive". The problem with this form of survival stems from the fact that it has become too successful. In the west we reached a point where our survival was secured a long time ago but we cant stop playing the game of "winners and losers" Many people have begun to realise that we stand a better chance of long term survival as a species through discarding this method. Instead, as soon as an individual has secured hir own survival the individual's primary motive should change so the survival of the group takes priority in hir motivations. Obviously people cannot have this kind of thinking forced upon them. People arrive at these conclusions through an internal process. Call it spirituality or whatever you prefer. Quote: Governments can legislate against harmful technologies and methods of industry instead of supporting them and making their existance easier. Quote: The method of survival I outlined above i.e where individual comfort takes priortiy over group survival demonstrates one area where governments base themselves on weak foundations. You can tack on irrational greed and fear also. These factors all relate to each other. Quote: Anger - The reaction to 9/11 and the subsequent actions taken by the US govt. Agression - Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc etc. I dont think you can really deny the US govt has always shown a high level of agression. Even if the agression hides itself in terms such as "patriotism" or "righteousness" and the like Dishonesty - Watergate, Oliver North, Clinton, The basis for the Iraq war. Material craving - The desire to control oil, the desire to see US industry succeed in spite of the damage they may do to other countries. Quote: Just being awkward here but how about I.T?! Heres a link to a guy who believes that selfish individuals will succeed in a selfish group but altruitic groups will succeed over selfish groups..thats the jist anyway and sort of what I think Supermarket might be getting at Niceness Basically I agree with Supermarket when he says that the external will mirror the internal so we must make the effort to change our internal view first, as we can change this, instead of simply letting our own internal view mirror the external. Peace -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Registered: 02/20/02 Posts: 2,253 |
| ||||||
|
Congratulations, youve connected with my thoughts and are in agreement with them
Perphaps that means you understand true peace, or have experienced it....because my ideals are not foreign, they are that of a peaceful and progressive view for humanity - although peaceful and progressive have not gone hand in hand with humanity as of yet!
| |||||||
|
Registered: 02/20/02 Posts: 2,253 |
| ||||||
|
"...although peaceful and progressive have not gone hand in hand with humanity as of yet!"
and the reason I clearly state again is because we've tried to progress outwards without focusing on the inwards ....sometimes humanity reminds me of a bunch of children who in their hearts have good intentions, but don't understand whats going on
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
I have held these beliefs for quite sometime and yes I think I have experienced true peace.
It made me very happy!
-------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
floccinocci floofinator ![]() Registered: 01/08/03 Posts: 5,248 |
| ||||||
|
Post deleted by poke smot!
Reason for deletion: x
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
pokesmot writes:
Perhaps you're evaluating the current administration, and not the foundations that the government was... well, founded on. The concepts and ideas of representation, balance of power, the constitution and bill of rights. All of these are the foundation which we originally modelled the government. Very astute observation. The excessess and bad judgment of more recent administrations are not because of a "weak foundation", but in spite of a strong foundation. No one can argue that the reality of American government in the 21st century is a very far cry from the reality of that government in the 18th century. Americans had the best foundation of government mankind has yet to devise and they still managed to screw it up. The perversity of Homo sapiens sapiens is apparently limitless. pinky
| |||||||
|
unintended sideeffect Registered: 05/28/03 Posts: 842 Loc: OR Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Amen to that. Quote: And a double-live a-fooking-men to that! -------------------- There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. -- Howard Zinn
| |||||||
|
Registered: 02/20/02 Posts: 2,253 |
| ||||||
|
yes, the original foundations of the government were weak. Perphaps not from a text-book perspective, but rather from , in my opinion, what the country was REALLY based on.
America was not created to form liberation, or help fight for freedom, like textbooks will state. It was not created in the adversary of taxation or in the unity of mankind. It was built as a growth, or expansion, much like a cancerous growth. There is no doubt that the American Government that originally started in 1776 or so was and still is not one of the best governments to be craeted thus far. Regardless - its the less rotten apple out of a rotten bunch. Doesn't mean it still won't make you sick when you eat it. I believe the country was built with money and wealth and security in mind - there is no doubt about that. It was built with the idea of a select high society controlling the politics, and a weak/low class poor society working for them. Thats my opinion though
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
I think in general the US public did not wish to become involved in WWII but I think the adminstration at the time felt quite keen to join in. Dont forget that those same people authorised the dropping of an atomic bomb on a civillian population. Perhaps the single most aggressive act in the history of humanity?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
as above, so below Registered: 05/29/01 Posts: 1,947 Loc: Malice, Tx Last seen: 1 year, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
I'm going back the the topic of medicine and how pink mentioned that the field had made so much progress...
I think the point that supermarket was getting at was that the medical field is just fucked up all around, like the problems with health insurance, and the drug companies that bribe doctors into giving out THEIR drugs, and how there are countless kids doped up on ritalin and similar drugs just because some doctor suggested that the kid might have ADHD instead of just being an active kid, but I digress... a lot. I hope this made sense
| |||||||
|
floccinocci floofinator ![]() Registered: 01/08/03 Posts: 5,248 |
| ||||||
|
Post deleted by poke smot!
Reason for deletion: x
| |||||||
|
Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
Most people are unaware that the increase in life expectancy is due mostly to improvements in sanitation and only peripherally to modern medicine.
| |||||||
|
T'was born oftru ![]() Registered: 04/07/03 Posts: 1,500 Loc: a human-infested Last seen: 20 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
I dont know about that, sanitation causes alot of sickness through the debilitation of the human immune system, causing people to fall victim to virus easily.
-------------------- enjoy the entertaining indentity i have constructed for you while you can. Edited by atomikfunksoldier (08/05/03 01:50 PM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
pokesmot writes:
I didn't say that the foundations were weak ones. Actually, I was leaving it to be assumed that I was supporting that strong original foundation. Yes, I know. I was agreeing you. More than just agreeing, in fact -- I was complimenting you on your astute grasp of the situation. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
supermarket writes:
America was not created to form liberation, or help fight for freedom, like textbooks will state. It was not created in the adversary of taxation or in the unity of mankind. It was built as a growth, or expansion, much like a cancerous growth. And you arrived at this conclusion by what logical steps? Are you saying that the entire body of writing of the Founding Fathers was actually an incredibly clever linguistic sham, carefully crafted to conceal their true motives with words that said the exact opposite of what they really planned? There is no doubt that the American Government that originally started in 1776 or so was and still is not one of the best governments to be craeted thus far. How could that be? Does that not contradict your previous contention I quoted above? Regardless - its the less rotten apple out of a rotten bunch. Doesn't mean it still won't make you sick when you eat it. If by that you mean that government is a necessary evil, I doubt any of the Founding Fathers would disagree. That is why they went to such painstaking lengths to restrict the power of government to the barest minimum they could think of as practicable. Unfortunately, a society with no government and no laws whatsoever is vulnerable to the first predatory group who happens across it. I believe the country was built with money and wealth and security in mind - there is no doubt about that. If you mean the Founding Fathers were interested in constructing a system that would protect the wealth and security of the residents of the United States, you are correct. It was built with the idea of a select high society controlling the politics... If by that you mean that originally not every resident had the vote, again you are correct. Note, however, that originally those who were voted for had virtually no power to affect the lives of residents in a negative fashion. There was no standing army, no laws against what you could eat or drink or smoke, no police force, no income tax, no zoning regulations, no way to print fiat currency (the gold standard still existed at that time), no power to draft young men into the armed forces, no power to prevent anyone from persuing whatever career path they chose, etc. In a very real sense, it made little difference WHO was elected. ...and a weak/low class poor society working for them. Incorrect. At that time, the United States was largely an agrarian and enterpreneurial society. Farmers worked for themselves, as did blacksmiths and shopkeepers and artisans and newspaper publishers. The days of large companies employing thousands of people were yet to come. You haven't thought through fully the philosophical principles embodied in the core documents of the United States. In essence, they say that each individual is sovereign and belongs to himself. They say that the only legitimate purpose for the institution of government is to ensure that said sovereignty is not violated by others who refuse to recognize it. What stronger foundation could you ask for? With the benefit of over two hundred years of hindsight in your favor, what would you add to (or subtract from) that foundation to eliminate its "weakness"? pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
GazzBut writes:
I think the prevalent form of survival today puts the individual's survival above that of the group. As it must. A group is nothing more than several individuals. Individuals logically antecede groups. It seems to me that generally people will put their individual comfort, not survival, above the actual survival of other members of our species. "Generally"? Not so. Those individuals so calloused they will turn their backs on a starving infant are few and far between, and in no case can such behavior by accurately described as "generally". In a world where we have the resources available to feed the whole world, vast portions of humanity still starve. Such starvation is almost always a result of the political processes within the affected country, not a result of the lack of generosity of those living outside the country who wish to help. Famine in the modern world is a political phenomenon, not an environmental one. The current form of survival thrives on competition between those involved, it needs winners and losers to designate how well one has managed to "survive". Incorrect. It is not necessary for someone to suffer in order for someone else to prosper. Human survival is not a zero-sum game. In the west we reached a point where our survival was secured a long time ago but we cant stop playing the game of "winners and losers" How are you defining "survival"? It is foolish in the extreme not to plan for a rainy day. Subsistence survival is an extremely risky strategy to pursue when it is possible to aim for prosperity instead. Many people have begun to realise that we stand a better chance of long term survival as a species through discarding this method. Such people are called "social engineers", and none of their theories hold water. Marx was one. Engels was another. Besides, "species survival" is best achieved through allowing the individual members of that species to freely exercize their productive efforts, not through restricting those efforts. Instead, as soon as an individual has secured hir own survival the individual's primary motive should change so the survival of the group takes priority in hir motivations. Why? As a side note, who decides when an individual's survival is assured? Obviously people cannot have this kind of thinking forced upon them. People arrive at these conclusions through an internal process. Call it spirituality or whatever you prefer. Agreed. This is why claiming that the system of government which gives people the most freedom to assure their longterm survival is built on a "weak foundation" is baffling to me. Does it not stand to reason that if you are left totally free to achieve prosperity as rapidly as possible you will then have more time to dedicate to spirituality? Governments can legislate against harmful technologies and methods of industry instead of supporting them and making their existance easier. Certainly governments should and must protect their constituents from aggressive acts of others -- that is their only legitimate function, after all. If a factory is dumping radioactive sludge into the ground water of the town, it must be stopped. The method of survival I outlined above i.e where individual comfort takes priortiy over group survival demonstrates one area where governments base themselves on weak foundations. You can tack on irrational greed and fear also. These factors all relate to each other. How does this indicate weak foundations? Just saying it is so doesn't make it so. Look, government cannot legislate compassion or generosity -- all it can do is allow its constituents the freedom to prosper to the point where they are in a position to actually help others without jeopardizing their own well-being. The fact that not every individual may choose to help is irrelevant to the function of government. As you have pointed out, such spiritual qualities must come from within. Anger - The reaction to 9/11 and the subsequent actions taken by the US govt. Agression - Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc etc. I dont think you can really deny the US govt has always shown a high level of agression. Even if the agression hides itself in terms such as "patriotism" or "righteousness" and the like Dishonesty - Watergate, Oliver North, Clinton, The basis for the Iraq war. Material craving - The desire to control oil, the desire to see US industry succeed in spite of the damage they may do to other countries. None of the above examples are even remotely connected to the foundation of the US government. Pokesmot has already addressed this point admirably, so I will not elaborate. pinky
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Must? You always seem far too sure of yourself Pinky! Did you click on the link I gave which shows that possibly altruistic groups have more success than groups made up of selfish individuals? Quote: That seems like a bit of an extreme example Pinky. I mean in the west in general people would not want to give up any of their unnecessary material comforts to help those in need elsewhere in the world. Do you deny this? Quote: A fascinating claim. Can you actually back this up with some hard evidence? Although I agree that the methods of government play a part in the state of some of the poorer nations of the world to see this as the sole cause seems rather shortsighted. Do you really think the west has done all it could (not should, thats for another debate) to help the starving of the world? Quote: Please show me where I said this? I merely pointed out that we live in a competitive society where we draw lines in terms of winners and losers in most areas of life. This effect may seem quite subtle but if one looks hard enough you will see it. Quote: You forgot to mention the founding fathers. Quote: Can you substantiate that?Once again I refer you to the link in my post. The way I see it, If people as a whole choose to work together because they see that in the long run this will benefit them, have they placed a restiction on anyone? In one sense they have, they have restricted individuals trying to gain or produce more than they need a behaviour which the group defines as detrimental to the group survival. On the other hand if the group do not restrict this behaviour and certain individuals acquire more of a resource than they need they have also placed a restriction on the remaining members of the group. Share and share alike as my wonderful mother taught me! Quote: I cannot answer that question for you Pinky. Supermarket mentioned the internal work that he has done which has produced this outlook. I feel that once a person begins this internal work in earnest they will eventually arrive at these conclusions. Remember this is S&P not PA&L! Quote: I get the feeling you are veering towards an attitude of "Ive got enough, I could give some of this away but what if...what if..?" I dont really think we need to think like that anymore. We have enought paranoia in the world already! Quote: You have answered your own question. The achievement of personal prosperity has priority over group prosperity and also over spirituality. I see this as a weak foundation. Quote: See the link I provided or try and understand my arguement! Basically I think the forms of government we use have served us well but have now outgrown their usefulness. I dont feel attachment to them and can happily discard them if their usefulness has past. Can you say the same? Quote: you originally said: Quote: So I have simply pointed out how you can connect these attributes with the United States. You didnt say " fail to see the connection between that list and the FOUNDATION OF THE government of the United States, for example" Always fun to debate with you Pinky. Seems like it has been a while! Peace -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
GazzBut writes:
Did you click on the link I gave which shows that possibly altruistic groups have more success than groups made up of selfish individuals? I read it the first time you posted it -- in the PA&L forum. Others in the PA&L forum pointed out enough flaws in the guy's work that I didn't bother to add my own comments. It may have escaped your attention that the guy's work (and his theory based on that work) involved the study of zooplankton. The means of survival of zooplankton and the means of survival of Homo sapiens sapiens differ. To propose laws of moral behavior for humans based on a study of unicellular organisms is an exercise in futility. I mean in the west in general people would not want to give up any of their unnecessary material comforts to help those in need elsewhere in the world. Do you deny this? Yes. Check the amount of foreign aid per capita (both governmental AND from private donations) given by the "Free World" and then get back to me. A fascinating claim. Can you actually back this up with some hard evidence? Countless places. Do a google search on "causes of famine". I find it odd that you would challenge this -- it's neither a new concept nor a controversial one. Although I agree that the methods of government play a part in the state of some of the poorer nations of the world to see this as the sole cause seems rather shortsighted. The state of almost all the poorer nations of the world is directly related to the philosophies (or lack thereof) of their own governments. I am in too much of a rush this morning to dig out the dozens of links dealing with this, but here's one I came across recently -- http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003831 Do you really think the west has done all it could (not should, thats for another debate) to help the starving of the world? No. The West could have expended a hell of a lot more effort vigorously promoting freedom in those countries than it has. Handing money to the thugs in charge of those countries will never work. You forgot to mention the founding fathers. I didn't forget to mention them. They were not social engineers. Their goal was not to change the inherent nature of man through the application of government-controlled force. The way I see it, If people as a whole choose to work together because they see that in the long run this will benefit them, have they placed a restiction on anyone? The key word in that question is "choose". The philosophy of the Founding Fathers was that forcing such "co-operation" cannot be allowed -- such actions must be voluntary. Supermarket's contention is that a system of government founded on such a philosophy is "weak", yet at the same time he (and you) advocate looking inside and changing oneself. Do neither of you see the contradiction? In one sense they have, they have restricted individuals trying to gain or produce more than they need a behaviour which the group defines as detrimental to the group survival. I repeat, a group is nothing more than several individuals. If the rights of any given individual may be violated at any time, no one in the group is safe. I ask again, WHO DECIDES the point at which an individual has "more than they need"? On the other hand if the group do not restrict this behaviour and certain individuals acquire more of a resource than they need they have also placed a restriction on the remaining members of the group. To which resource are you referring? Share and share alike as my wonderful mother taught me! Again, the key word here is "share". There is a difference between "sharing" and "confiscating". To take that further, you seem to be saying that if a given individual chooses not to share, he must be forced to "share". Have I misinterpreted you on that point? I cannot answer that question for you Pinky. Supermarket mentioned the internal work that he has done which has produced this outlook. I feel that once a person begins this internal work in earnest they will eventually arrive at these conclusions. Remember this is S&P not PA&L! The "P" in S&P refers to philosophy. I am not discussing politics, I am discussing philosophical principles -- specifically, whether or not an individual owns himself or whether he is a "group possession". I get the feeling you are veering towards an attitude of "Ive got enough, I could give some of this away but what if...what if..?" I dont really think we need to think like that anymore. We have enought paranoia in the world already! Paranoia and prudence are not equivalent. I note you dodged (again) the question of "who decides". The achievement of personal prosperity has priority over group prosperity and also over spirituality. I see this as a weak foundation. I know you see it that way. I am trying to get you to explain why you see it that way. What logical (or moral) explanation can you present to justify valuing "the group" over many individuals? Basically I think the forms of government we use have served us well but have now outgrown their usefulness. Marx felt the same way. I dont feel attachment to them and can happily discard them if their usefulness has past. Can you say the same? Not without being presented with a superior alternative, no. To quote Jimmy Carter, ""We must adjust to changing times with unchanging principles." Forcing others to act in a certain way because one "thinks" that freedom can be discarded now is wrong. It was wrong in the past, it is wrong today, and it will be wrong in the future. You didnt say " fail to see the connection between that list and the FOUNDATION OF THE government of the United States, for example" Whoops. Mea culpa. I thought the implication would have been clear from the context of the discussion, but I could indeed have phrased it more precisely. pinky
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Yeah Luvdem really cut it to shreds didnt he! Cutting! I do not claim this article holds some hard and fast truth. I leave making such bold claims to your good self. However, I found it interesting as it matches my own philosophy quite nicely and indicates cooperation can indeed have potential as a successful model. So what if we learn it from plankton? Quote: do you want me to trot out those tired statistics that show how 2% of the world have 95% of the wealth in the world? 3rd world countries have developed slower than countries in the west. Do you think the western world would have got to its present state if it had been struggling against a far superior (economically and technologically) culture who had control of 95% of the wealth in the game? As for foreign aid how about extortionate interest on loans, Arbitrage of currency, exploitation of cheap labour, Government subsidised exports etc etc. We take more than we give. Nice article in your link which happens to ignore all of the issues I have mentioned above. Quote: I just did. However, you obviously didnt. Quote: I dont advocate forcing anyone. I have come to the conclusion that evolution through its own methods will lead us to an approximation of the ideas myself and Supermarket have mentioned in this thread. Probabaly far removed but based on the same spirit of cooperation. I think it will happen thanks to computers! I say this in all honesty by the way. As for who decides, The individual can decide for himself. I dont think we will have to force anyone. Patience. I will just continue trying to eradicate greed in my own life and try and live with a sense of balance and harmony towards the all which is me that I am. Quote: Simple, We are all one. Anyway, I will let you have the last word if you so wish and will say no more in this thread before we start going round and round in circles. Peace -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
carbon unit Registered: 01/22/00 Posts: 1,739 Loc: Europe Last seen: 18 hours, 21 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: Yes, but how does this one make decisions about what to do? 1. By having a centralized government that decides everything for everyone? 2. By letting everyone decide for themselves? 3. No need, because when being one, there is no need for any decisions involving multiple things, like for example "alternatives".
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
We will find out when we need to know!
-------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
GazzBut writes:
Yeah Luvdem really cut it to shreds didnt he! Actually, I was thinking more of Rhizoid's post, but luvdemshrooms had some good points, too. I do not claim this article holds some hard and fast truth. Good, because it doesn't. However, I found it interesting as it matches my own philosophy quite nicely... Would such a match lead you to read more into it than was actually there? ...and indicates cooperation can indeed have potential as a successful model. So what if we learn it from plankton? The mode of survival of plankton is no more relevent to human morality than is the mode of survival of wolverines. do you want me to trot out those tired statistics that show how 2% of the world have 95% of the wealth in the world? So what? Now, if you could show me that the 2% seized that wealth by force, I would sit up and listen. Inequality of distribution of wealth in and of itself is no more indicative of malfeasance than is the unequal distribution of intelligence or physical prowess or attractiveness. 3rd world countries have developed slower than countries in the west. True. This is because almost all of their governments are based on weak foundations. Do you think the western world would have got to its present state if it had been struggling against a far superior (economically and technologically) culture who had control of 95% of the wealth in the game? Who is struggling "against" the West? The prosperity of the Western nations in no way prevents third world nations from prospering. The fact that there are Arnold Schwarzneggers around doesn't prevent me from putting on fifty pounds of lean muscle mass. The fact that McDonald's exists doesn't prevent me from running a successful fast-food restaurant chain. As I have said repeatedly in threads which I know you have read, before wealth can be looted, it must first be CREATED. The economy is not a zero-sum game. As for foreign aid how about extortionate interest on loans, Arbitrage of currency, exploitation of cheap labour, Government subsidised exports etc etc. We take more than we give. And the fact that such things exist negates the fact that people who don't have to give a dime to anyone choose to do so anyway? Here's an interesting tidbit for you -- despite the fact that the US government hands out BY FAR more foreign aid than any other country, PRIVATE contributions by individual US citizens ALONE also outweigh the COMBINED amount of private and government contributions of the next-highest country (Japan). As for loans, taking out a loan is a voluntary act. You don't want to pay the interest, don't take the loan. Further, you cannot possibly be unaware that a vast percentage of these foreign aid "loans" end up being written off anyway. Arbitrage is a money-manipulation technique which can be practiced on things other than foreign aid loans. Accepting a job is also a voluntary act. Note that if there were no "exploiters" in most of these countries, there would be no jobs at all. As for government-subsidized exports, that is contrary to the principles on which the US government was founded. Nice try at deflecting the point under discussion -- foreign aid. Nice article in your link which happens to ignore all of the issues I have mentioned above. Because none of those issues have anything at all to do with why Africa remains a cesspit, and will always remain a cesspit regardless of how much money is tossed at them -- UNLESS there is a fundamental change in the foundations on which most African nations have built their "governments". I dont advocate forcing anyone. Nor do I. Nor did the Founding Fathers. Why then, do you believe that the first government in history which specifically excluded the initiation of force in human interaction (even by government) has a "weak foundation"? As for who decides, The individual can decide for himself. Exactly how is this different from what the Founding Fathers envisioned? I dont think we will have to force anyone. Patience. I will just continue trying to eradicate greed in my own life and try and live with a sense of balance and harmony towards the all which is me that I am. The Founding Fathers didn't believe it was necessary to force anyone either. They believed that if an issue was serious enough, men of good will acting freely would address it. This is a "weak foundation"? Anyway, I will let you have the last word if you so wish... That's right neighborly of you. I appreciate it. pinky
| |||||||
|
The Duk Abides Registered: 05/16/03 Posts: 94,392 Loc: Earthfarm 1 |
| ||||||
|
We are evolving, indeed...but into what I cannot say! Like you, I truly hope it is an evolution into something far better than the way we are now.
Be that as it may, a very thought provoking post indeed, SuperMarket!
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
21st Century Spirituality | 576 | 4 | 05/10/05 12:46 PM by egghead1 | ||
![]() |
An Aristotelian Foundation for Objectivity | 1,451 | 8 | 04/22/06 05:40 AM by fresh313 | ||
![]() |
Spiritualism and the Survival Hypothesis | 1,075 | 9 | 06/10/03 11:51 AM by lucid | ||
![]() |
Your ideals will survive.... ( |
1,790 | 23 | 06/25/04 04:39 PM by BleaK | ||
![]() |
the supermarket definition of Sorcery | 646 | 4 | 11/29/04 09:51 PM by Todcasil | ||
![]() |
Castaneda, Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series and our Mind | 997 | 8 | 07/25/04 11:26 AM by DoctorJ | ||
![]() |
New Foundations | 484 | 1 | 10/03/07 05:30 PM by redgreenvines | ||
![]() |
Review of the last century's phenomenology ( |
4,722 | 68 | 11/21/02 11:42 PM by Jellric |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 4,439 topic views. 1 members, 11 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



It made me very happy!


