|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
CosmicJoke said: I've said it before, massively reduce our military budget and invest it into education.
That makes a little too much sense, CJ.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: Tropism]
#22510172 - 11/11/15 04:33 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tropism said:
Quote:
hTx said: I am interested to hear yous guys thoughts on a practical matter..
What would be the single most effective way to reduce mass violence?
Constant global sedation.
Beating depression for everyone. Remember, 6-8 glasses of water a day!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2946484/After-fluoride-lithium-tap-water-beat-depression.html
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
Khancious
da Crow



Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
|
|
Revamp the monetary system... have A.I. run and harvest farms for food supply unless there are enough people willing to work them and cultivate a loving relationship with their growth, annihilate meat (murdering of animals) from culture's conception of a healthy diet, and give everyone free education and housing, whilst food will be a exchanged for the time and energy you put into building and maintaining a sector of society that you naturally fit into based on your free education, and definitely have open access to psychedelics and herbal "narcotics" to keep the deadly chemicals out of lives.
I guess that wasn't single though
-------------------- I am that, which is.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: Khancious]
#22512689 - 11/12/15 06:15 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
On the 'exterior' level ... There is no way to force peace on others. Idealism is like Aesop's fable: "Belling the cat". So such discussions are not only useless and but distract us from the root of the matter.
Martin Luther King understood this, as he learned from Gandhi, that we must change ourselves first from the inside out, if we wish to effect the exterior world. Gandhi defeated the whole British empire with nonviolence and fasting and liberated India, before being assassinated, as was Martin Luther King. While in power the British governed in such a way as to create enmity between the Hindus, Sikhs,& Muslims so that there was a blood bath after Gandhi's murder.
On the deeper 'interior' level, Gandhi and Thich Nhat Hanh already answered the question, long ago.
"There is no way to peace; peace is the way." Mahatma Gandhi
=========================================== "You should be happy right in the here and now.
There is no way to enlightenment.
Enlightenment should be right here and right now.
The moment when you come back to yourself, mind and body together,
fully present, fully alive, that is already enlightenment.
You are no longer a sleepwalker.
You are no longer in a dream.
You are fully alive.
You are awake.
Enlightenment is there.
And if you continue each moment like that,
enlightenment becomes deeper.
More powerful.
There is no way to enlightenment,
enlightenment is the way."
vietnamese zen buddhist monk - thich nhat hanh - 2007
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Well said.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said: While in power the British governed in such a way as to create enmity between the Hindus, Sikhs,& Muslims so that there was a blood bath after Gandhi's murder.
Are you kidding? Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus have been fighting each other long before the British showed up. Sikhism developed as a military force to fight against Islamic rule in India. Ever wonder why swords and knifes are so sacred to them? British rule was keeping the peace, and as soon as Gandhi fucked things up, the country fragmented.
Gandhi is partially responsible for ~ a million deaths caused by the partition as well as the nuclear cold war between india and pakistan. Additionally, he openly admitted to beating his wife in his autobiography. Truly, a hero of world peace.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
You're right, White Beard. The end of colonial rule was a very questionable success for the Indian people. They have had many hardships in the interim period, and suffer so many problems that one wonders if India will ever really be on its feet as a successful democracy.
Gandhi's policies on peace and nonviolence should be championed, as should MLK's. However, he was certainly not a saint. In addition to what you mentioned, he disowned one of his sons for leaving the ashram to become a lawyer. That's simply what his son wanted to do, but his father wouldn't respect it and cast him out of his life permanently for his decision. Every one of these historical figures who people label as "heroes" is truly a mixed bag, and we should keep things in perspective. I personally do not believe in heroes, just in people doing their thing out of necessity.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Devizome
A friend


Registered: 03/01/14
Posts: 140
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: hTx]
#22514433 - 11/12/15 03:06 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Get rid of money.
-------------------- Love & Respect, Devin
|
Jokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I personally do not believe in heroes, just in people doing their thing out of necessity.
I like this, and wholeheartedly agree.
-------------------- Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not. --Jac O'keeffe
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 5 minutes
|
|
If we find the correct outlet..we can prevent serious violence..and channel it into video games..or war games or whatever..but no real serious harm comes to us;
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
Are you kidding? Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus have been fighting each other long before the British showed up.
I was naive. As you sate they have been fighting in India forever, the list is too long ... and it continues into the present day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India
I am sorry to hear of all his personal failings. Thich seems a fine person and I think the meditative principle of 'cleaning one's own house" first is sound.
Historically, at the political level, one can perhaps find many counter examples where force was necessary and helped, but like the Iraq war aftermath shows, it seems violence has a way of causing more. trouble.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
I guess that we have no place for saints. But is there any place for bearing some or any example?
Quote:
Gandhi's vision of an independent India based on religious pluralism, however, was challenged in the early 1940s by a new Muslim nationalism which was demanding a separate Muslim homeland carved out of India.[7] Eventually, in August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire[7] was partitioned into two dominions, a Hindu-majority India and Muslim Pakistan.[8] As many displaced Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs made their way to their new lands, religious violence broke out, especially in the Punjab and Bengal.
Eschewing the official celebration of independence in Delhi, Gandhi visited the affected areas, attempting to provide solace. In the months following, he undertook several fasts unto death to promote religious harmony. The last of these, undertaken on 12 January 1948 at age 78,[9] also had the indirect goal of pressuring India to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan.[9] Some Indians thought Gandhi was too accommodating.[9][10] Nathuram Godse, a Hindu nationalist, assassinated Gandhi on 30 January 1948 by firing three bullets into his chest at point-blank range.[10]
What I know of, perhaps as it has been told to me, is that Ghandi freed the Indian people from a colonial rule, that was clearly much out of place, and clearly based on exploitation, and he did this through principled non-violence. Respectively, I do not know who is responsible for violence between Muslims and Hidus, but can anyone believe the pressure of an external British colonial rule, (and the necessity or just response to it) was helping anything?
Ghandi's response seems to be just to me, even if it is based on a broad ideal. I think any critique would have to be on grounds, of what he mainly did. Maybe if anyone is looking for a saint or hero, a critique of character that way, and indeed something that is usually unrealistic in general, and that is one thing, but I don't see anyone suggesting heroics. I think it was what Ghandi clearly said and did and how he did it, that people respect.
Maybe we do not enough appreciate that any government rule which exists has to be considered civil, for anyone to have accomplished anything like Ghandi did through non-violence. As I recall, even while Ghandi was a traditionalist, he was educated in western liberal institutions, in England in fact, as a lawyer.
I am quite sure the possible controversy with Ghandi, which leans towards revisionist history; is really of how he represents both principles of indian people, and of westerners at the same time, and this is seemingly not easy to completely make sense of, in some singular example. But then I say, look to facts, and then okay, try to understand the principles.
I'd say that Ghandi spoke to (For instance what Laughing Dog quoted here) is difficult to claim and prove, and may even be perceived as inherently disputatious or wrong, or "illogical", but I believe those words are worthwhile, and they were what in all this that impressed me personally.
In any case, I think Laughing Dog is right on point that Ghandi was beginning with keeping and caring of his own house, in principle, and in matter of fact.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said: like the Iraq war aftermath shows, it seems violence has a way of causing more. trouble.
Agreed and I find it interesting that you bring up the Iraq war because I see a parallel between it and Indian independence. Both countries were ruled in a strict authoritarian manner. In both cases, people wanted liberation from this authoritarian rule. When the central authoritarian rule collapsed, there was only a weak government to fill the gap and sectarian violence ensued that was far worse than the crimes committed by the previous ruling party. Seems like violence always grows in chaos. While authoritarianism isn't the greatest, it's clearly better than chaos. Maybe India would had been better off if there was a more gradual transition from British rule to home rule.
|
RennHuhn
Stranger

Registered: 03/12/15
Posts: 75
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: hTx]
#22516815 - 11/13/15 05:28 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Kill capitalism
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: RennHuhn]
#22517031 - 11/13/15 07:46 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RennHuhn said: Kill capitalism
Give summary of reasons why you say that, and what would you say to those who would then think the only alternative you propose is communism?
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
|
Quote:
White Beard said:British rule was keeping the peace, and as soon as Gandhi fucked things up, the country fragmented.
Gandhi is partially responsible for ~ a million deaths caused by the partition as well as the nuclear cold war between india and pakistan. Additionally, he openly admitted to beating his wife in his autobiography. Truly, a hero of world peace.
Gandhi's methods were non violent and I don't think that a violent response to his actions puts said violence on his shoulders. I'm quite sure he had hope of non violent change. Unfortunately this did not happen and there was another excuse made to kill people.
Gandhi was not the benevolent being he has been made out to be, but death tends to jade the bad things a person does. Also there should be something said about personal redemption.
If the population of the earth became vegetarian this alone would end must of the violence on this planet within a few generations. At first strictly human » animal violence would decrease. After generations pass I believe that the realization that violence and death is not necessary would permeate at least a good portion of the globe. Respect for all living things would hopefully increase, spreading peace.
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: nuentoter]
#22517272 - 11/13/15 09:15 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Vegetarianism is also something that could greatly reduce human impact on environment in a positive way without evoking ideological mechanisms at the government level (the issue of environment on American soil).
The recent movie Conspiracy makes a very good case that adopting a vegetarian diet is actually the first thing you can do for the environment, if that is a priority.
In any case, I agree Nuentoter. There has got to be something said for what Gandhi was talking about as swaraj, principle of self rule, or as Laughing Dog put it, cleaning one's own domesticity. Whatever that principle is, peace could and should be looked from an inward place.
Platonic or universal ideals of justice, have their virtues, but they do not seem to be working on some things, and seem to be full of hypocrisy these days. We need to start feeling things out. Who would think that the first way to practically concern ourselves with a subject of ecology, would be in our closest relations with other sentient beings we share the planet with? Well, as it happens reforming this relationship, would bring manifest good.
http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
|
RennHuhn
Stranger

Registered: 03/12/15
Posts: 75
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: zzripz]
#22517276 - 11/13/15 09:16 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I dont want to explain everything here, but short and sweet the answer is something like that. Because workers dont own the means of production (or distribution in case of Books/Music...) all rise in efficiency, only helps the investors that didn't do anything and even hurts workers. This leads to increasing wealth gap.(Money works better than real humans in modern capitalism,this means the rich get even richer) This undermines democracy(Lobbyists and donations). Undermining democracy leads to laws reinforcing the situation.
Some brand of socialism(workers own the means of production, not the state!) would solve this problem. If you organise it as market socialism or communal or mixtures needs to be seen, but in general worker owned means of production work, even under the current capitalist system.
Communism is something far more utopian and could grow slowly out of socialism. Socialism is possible without violent revolution, in a democratic system and does not need dictatorship.
Also it is argued that socialism would solve a part of the western spiritual crises because the end of alienation from each owns work would end(you no longer work for some hierarchy but for yourself)
The end of the american millionaire or bust ideology would also help many peoples psychology.
As a rise in efficiency wouldn't mean less workers anymore but less work for all it would make a more artistic/persuation of personal luck society possible. As now you are either working full time or looking full time for a job.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: nuentoter]
#22517397 - 11/13/15 09:49 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nuentoter said:
Quote:
White Beard said:British rule was keeping the peace, and as soon as Gandhi fucked things up, the country fragmented.
Gandhi is partially responsible for ~ a million deaths caused by the partition as well as the nuclear cold war between india and pakistan. Additionally, he openly admitted to beating his wife in his autobiography. Truly, a hero of world peace.
Gandhi's methods were non violent and I don't think that a violent response to his actions puts said violence on his shoulders. I'm quite sure he had hope of non violent change. Unfortunately this did not happen and there was another excuse made to kill people.
He destabilized the nation. He should of realized the various religions would start fighting over control of the country after British power ended, but instead he held an idealistic view that everyone would hold hands and sing kumbaya.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
What is your argument Whitebeard? You are arguing Gandhi achieving independence from the grips of a western colonial power wasn't practically or ideally carried out well enough?
I am open to the suggestion, at least in principle, that democratic ideals or coming to the aid of people around the world could possibly be considered just. i can understand voicing a criticism of other peoples and nations, when we are all human and can stand for "universal" humanitarian ideals in such a virtue. I personally think no other culture or tradition has achieved the virtues of liberal democratic forum, as western civilization has.
If only this charitable attitude wasn't found in a strain of practical self interest,19th european colonialism, and economical hegemonies, it would be much easier to talk about this prospect of universal human rights. Unfortunately, instead, I observe that the platform of justice and democracy, can itself be an unrealistic ideal. Historically, this is the example that has been born out and perpetrated.
Particularly today, but in a strain of history, I'd argue that western culture has to admit that inward security is one thing, and talking about charitably bringing its ideals or justice to people around the world is somewhat another. What is a matter of minding our own buisness. A projected platonism of western democratic justice, stands as an ideal criticized and questioned above all, in some cases.
I would observe Gandhi brought democracy to the Indian people. To criticize Gandhi's nonviolent means is way off base. It seems to me that unloosening a western colonial power's fist clinched around the country is not exactly something that could be done in an any "ideal" fashion. You could say it was a means to an end.
I'd argue, to the thread topic, that means stand to be considered both in principle, and practicality, one in connection to the other, and in both considerations. The broadly generalized question of Gandhi's justice, the consequences of his actions, is idealism. Gandhian Swaraj, or home rule, was establishing a democracy in a region with a sense of self proportion of the Indian people.
|
|