|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Lets Get Practical
#22504740 - 11/10/15 11:50 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I am interested to hear yous guys thoughts on a practical matter..
What would be the single most effective way to reduce mass violence?
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: hTx]
#22504799 - 11/10/15 12:05 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
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?
Kill all central bankers.
Kill 'em all.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: hTx]
#22504850 - 11/10/15 12:20 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Go back in time and wipe out Homo erectus.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Lets Get Practical *DELETED* [Re: hTx]
#22504907 - 11/10/15 12:39 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by White BeardReason for deletion: .
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
With nuclear war we won't get far. How about that missile launched right over LA? "Just a test, folks". Go back to sleep.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: hTx] 1
#22505060 - 11/10/15 01:19 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What would be the single most effective way to reduce mass violence?
Accept greater risk
|
Tropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: hTx]
#22505316 - 11/10/15 02:15 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
Jokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: Tropism]
#22505512 - 11/10/15 02:54 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tropism said: Constant global sedation.
I like it. Dose the worlds drinking water with heroin. Who's gonna care about anything enough to cause violence then?
-------------------- 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
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
yeah, but then nothing would get accomplished and eventually the economy would collapse. The dope would run out and all our infrastructure would be in disrepair. People would have no means of a living besides looting and robbing from one another. Things would become much more violent.
|
eehoo
Stranger


Registered: 09/26/15
Posts: 711
Last seen: 8 years, 18 days
|
|
Increase local domestic violence, and return honor to fighting (I.e 1v1 , equal weapons or both fists, better man wins)
--------------------
|
Tropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
|
|
Quote:
Jokeshopbeard said:
Quote:
Tropism said: Constant global sedation.
I like it. Dose the worlds drinking water with heroin. Who's gonna care about anything enough to cause violence then?
Anyone gets outta line you just double-up their dose. Problem solved.
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: hTx]
#22505690 - 11/10/15 03:41 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Extinction of Homo sapiens sapiens
|
Jokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system
|
|
What about that movie (and the Rick & Morty episode) with the plot that allows a single night of violence per year. Could it really work practically?
-------------------- 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
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
idk, but The Purge movies were terrible compared to what a great concept it is.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: DisoRDeR]
#22507543 - 11/10/15 11:21 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with the suggestion "Accept Greater Risk". Also I think being aware is important.
I have been thinking and reading a bit about non-violence, as a distinct possitive idea. I know there are a lot of suggestions that this ideal does not fit our world. My response, is in acknowledgement that conflict is part of life. But I don't think this means non-violence is an impossible ideal.
Maybe it is suggested or asked for the wrong way. For example, peace could not to my mind be asked for outwardly in "meekness" or "turning the other cheek" by some ease in example. That is too much to ask of somebody. It is possibly unjust, and also finally just impractical, because if everybody did this, or was really "like Christ" I think that force of violence would go unchecked.
I mention this first, because while we are supposed to be beyond the suggestions of judeochristian religion today, I think this mythology holds fast, in a western people's broader ethic. A modern genesis is to say we are more objective, and so we have a basic idea of standing on one side of things. Someone would maybe say "the way the world is" is not as something created, yet that form of statement is indeed still quite held to. I think Nietzsche was right, in his impression that westerners killed their creator God, and now stand on one side of things. Genesis for modern people.
From the Greek/ Athenian enlightenment, down to the modern enlightenment era, we suggest the outward openness of a forum, established by democratic ideals, of liberal institutions, in which we find our ideas of truth foundm As truth does not come without contingency of argument, truth does not come without its forum properly. This forum has been considered such a virtue, that I even think I agree, that maybe the whole world could benefit from these western ideals of truth and representation.
But then, I don't think the venturesome exportation of western values, is such a benefit to the world, and this I would observe has in its way become violence under the same aegis of "Democracy". And come to it I think there is room for inherent criticism. Western ideals of truth themselves are not only hand in hand, but entangled with representation. It is not some thing about Platos forms, but pehaps indeed it was Socrates' opposition to the polis, which gave him forum to speak, then had him killed, and memorialized all in unison.
So eventually, as I have sometimes expressed in this forum at the shroomery, I have seen this as conditional, even a form of violence. Why indeed is western enlightenment, the burgeoning of knowledge and pursuit of truth, always needing in a way its forum, and polis? Why is it needing outwardly project its truth, or claim its truth, and what does this imply everything needs to be justified? Isn't nature okay the way it is? Are people over there so evil? The Western human being, I conclude, is simply extraverted in his notion of truth. It is both a virtue and a fault. And what about the simple form of suffering which can't be justified, that is grossly "of nature"? Through some cynicism to these outward forums, and through some suffering, I have become more open to recognizing the possibility and path to individual or personal realization. When indic people, for instance, Buddhists, say all is arising of suffering, I take it they mean that the world may, to an individual's personal or "psychological" discretion, be recognized as undifferentiated. And as I have observed, first of all is tbat this is a much larger idea than some notion held by Buddhists, or even all yogas and tantras of the Indian cultural landscape. What has been mentioned is the palpableness of a certain psychological experience that suggests a notion of unity which many have interpreted as metaphysical and cosmological. Could it be reasonable to say that nature, and nature itself is suffering, even if it relies on a certain "psychological" impression to be described? When it is said that all that arises is this same feeling this is a view to nature:
“Quote:
This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one [with right view] does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kacca¯na, that there is right view.
Being the same thing, I hold that the differentiable phenomena of nature are interconnected in this way, if in a passive way, nonetheless seen in these developing threads. If there is of course the points of mitigation, where "something" arises, seemingly out of nothing (again though I would contrast my own position with the creation of ex nihilo views) it still is possible to see this all as one interconnected stream. If it is burden of argument, that would be asked of me, I would say that the priority of awareness is something which seems to come hand in hand, and entangled with the psychological experience of suffering.
One example of interconnectedness I first observe, in studying this is Karma. It does not so much a metaphysical or cosmological truth. In the Bhagavad Gita, of course, Krishna encourages Arjuna that death is okay, due to the reality of reincarnation. Krishna suggested that Arjuna should fight even his own brothers and cousins, in a battle which is right, for instance, when Arjuna felt that the violence of battle was wrong. However it becomes clear that what Karma, as a principle of arising consequences, means, is actually work, or action.
Hence I observe of an ethic, it is the same with a metaphysical idea of the nature. For example, just as modern westerners have a concept of force, that is mechanical, standing behind whatever levers and pullies or mathematical calculations, indic people have Karma, or work, which, if one point of difference could be made, it would be that it is not removed from reality in precisely this sense.
For example, I was watching a discussion by the Anglo American philosopher John Searle, where John raised his hand in the air and said, my consciousness did that. I would not doubt he is right, and unifying something there, but his precise point is not saying that those threads flow all from a stream of consequences, all the same interconnected stream to be observed. Rather, he is saying I personally, have power over a causal determinancy of physical events, or apparently I (the cartesian ego as consciousness) pop up in this. That is an important "thing" I wouldn't deny.
I think people can see things the way they want to, but I am bringing this up, as a point of contrast though. I do not think it necessarily has to be some mystical thing to pull the filter off which says you stand on one side of things, or "stand in" for the myths of creator like beings. I think that is a distinct notion that is in contradiction to coming up in and through things in actual involvement.
A better comparison in terms would be in the Greek notion physis, (Greek: φύσις), the organic and undifferentiated, "growth" or "becoming" of nature in itself, prior to dualism. I think the Greek people, in an unmediated way, contemplated nature, as well as what they created. They kept a sight of this, and indeed understood one in contradistinction to the other, but in clarity.
Physis or nature, is also the basis of the idea of modern physics, and hence, of a linear, or mechanical reality, which is calculated by abstract and removed principles and mathematical language. It is hard to suggest that this is an assumption, when determinism (what was once logical, or the practical part of our knowledge base that could be "determined") has been superimposed on physical nature as much as the human mind as though it were something inherent. Clearly this is projected by the way we attempt to know things in the modern world, but we take this as absolute. It is difficult to argue with absolutes.
If it seems quaint or strange to talk about an unmitigated organic stream of becoming, in relation to this, whether as the lucid and colorful greek way, or as the indic way, I am not sure what could be said. I would argue, not so much that this is a difference in cosmology or metaphysics. This is modern people stepping away from nature, and dwelling in nullity of the principles they came from.
My own argument here however, is not to a revival of Greek philosophy. Here it is of what Indian philosophers have suggested, that I would put in relative terms again, as how individual realization of the undifferentiated arising of suffering, potentially suggests observation of nature which is not ideally removed.
It is not a gurus trick or hoax to think of this, I observe. I think this is a practice, prior to being any claim, or idea to be justified in any form of expression. I think it makes enough sense for my own sake, and worth sharing that from the most palpable reality of arising suffering, epistemology, ontology, and perhaps even cosmological notions, come out of an archetypal way of being. No one needs to believe me. In terms it is what we would call the passive and quite subordinate, subjective domain of psychology which here speaks. That is reasonable too. It is acceptable to find a relative term for what is talked about. Perhaps it is ultimately something passive or quiescent that is sought?
I find these following words reconcile these relative issues quite well:
Quote:
The Dhamma is understood to be a path of practice in conduct, meditation, and understanding leading to the cessation of the fundamental suffering (dukkha) that underlies the human condition as lived in the round of rebirth (sam· sa¯ra). The texts repeatedly state that the Buddha taught only what is conducive to achieving that goal of cessation, or nirvana (Pali nibba¯na), and there are strong suggestions, as captured by the renowned undetermined questions, that purely theoretical speculations, especially those to do with certain metaphysical concerns about the ultimate nature of the world and one’s destiny, are both pointless and potentially misleading in the quest for nirvana.
Nevertheless, while it is true that the Buddha suspends all views regarding certain metaphysical questions, he is not an antimetaphysician: nothing in the texts suggests that metaphysical questions are completely meaningless, or that the Buddha denies the soundness of metaphysics per se. Instead, Buddhism teaches that to understand suffering, its rise, its cessation, and the path leading to its cessation is to see reality as it truly is.
Noa Ronkin
So, this is my contribution, to the prospect of non-violence. I think awareness is important. An ideal of non-doing, non-imposing, and non-resisting may be ideal, but it has to be practiced and worked for; or I believe, even as the Bhagavad Gita suggests, it has to be fought for. My thought is someone who wants peace has to find things all together to ride the crest down. The notion could be considered psychological, so the main thing to do for peace, I say is find personal psychological equilibrium.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: hTx]
#22507835 - 11/11/15 01:56 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
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?
question is of course obviously self contradictory -- hence the funny replies it is NOT a "practical matter"
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: hTx]
#22508009 - 11/11/15 05:01 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
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?
Study how they do propaganda. Learn the tricks, see through them, keep doing it, go as deep as you can and share with others as you do
Think of the First World War, and how many young men were seduced into the whole propaganda of it, and this was before TV and radio!! They used art, posters, the music hall and of course extremely violent coercion and shaming
Make it your business to study propaganda/mind-control, and the actual doing of it will undermine it!
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: zzripz] 2
#22508018 - 11/11/15 05:20 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
World wide vegetarianism. Then the world wide acceptance and positive reinforcement of half an hour if quiet meditation/reflection time every morning. This would be encouraged by every employer and parent to help create mindfulness towards and from the general public.
--------------------
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
|
Jokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: nuentoter] 1
#22508230 - 11/11/15 07:45 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nuentoter said: Then the world wide acceptance and positive reinforcement of half an hour if quiet meditation/reflection time every morning. This would be encouraged by every employer and parent to help create mindfulness towards and from the general public.
Following on from this, how about dedicating 50% of school learning to academia, and then 50% to learning about being a creature with consciousness and emotions? Things like how to deal with your emotions, how to deal with hardships, how to learn your mind, how to support your fellow human, the nature of love, etc, etc?
-------------------- 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
|
CosmicJoke
happy mutant


Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: hTx]
#22508673 - 11/11/15 10:10 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
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?
I've said it before, massively reduce our military budget and invest it into education.
-------------------- Everything is better than it was the last time. I'm good. If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care. It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence. I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too. If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.
|
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: 23 hours, 30 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.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: Kurt]
#22521160 - 11/14/15 05:46 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm arguing that Gandhi's methods forced the British to grant India independence likely before India was ready to be independent. Maybe if more time was given to build up a strong Indian state that represented all Indians, things would have gone smoother. However, I'm just speculating.
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
|
Gandhi's methods forced nothing, that's the point of being passive. The choice is up to the other party with how to deal with it. I believe he did leave them in a spot of ultimatum but the British/Indian reaction is of their own choosing not his.
--------------------
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
|
|
Quote:
White Beard said: I'm arguing that Gandhi's methods forced the British to grant India independence likely before India was ready to be independent. Maybe if more time was given to build up a strong Indian state that represented all Indians, things would have gone smoother. However, I'm just speculating.
I am not a scholar on this so I will admit that that may well be Whitebeard. Reading about Gandhi, I note he has said some pretty outlandish things (about the second world war for instance), which I find it would be difficult to get on board with. In any case, I do not think he is perfect...
Still, I would wonder where this kind of criticism you are proposing is merely speculative.
In general, to be realistic and practical, any work will do some good somewhere, but it will also do harm somewhere. Hence I think practicality or work can't be valued for it's own sake exactly, and can't be overlooked by principles or ideals either. To consider any practical matter in balance with principle at the same time, would be pragmatic in the classical sense. That is how I would lean on being practical anyway.
I understand for instance, that it might be ideally asked; "what harm of consequenses can be mitigated" and precisely as you say, we cannot be too idealistic. Unfortunately lists of priorities in principle of how it is possible to achieve a revolution or independence, are usually pretty short, and short sighted. History proves that revolutionary causes which may be right in some ideal sense, are wrongly or unjustly carried through, ultimately to the point of corrupting any ideal once held, in many cases. We are very critical of this in the 20th and 21st centuries.
But I don't think principles are impossible to find in some basis, and something we can assume a general skepticism towards. To use non-imposing and yet practically effecient principles as means of achieving India's independence, as Gandhi did, indeed for the first time in history with such impact, seems pretty laudable to me.
Perhaps all acts and works have their consequences in some sense. I would observe that this is a general statement. And so you have these general questions; is the internal violence in India, subsequent to independence, Gandhi's fault? Or did this violence occur because of Gandhi's "idealism"? And in what ideal circumstances would India have been "ready" for its independence? This is begging the question on idealistic terms, of this generality (of being practical) I'd say.
I would say compared to principled pragmatism, these objections could pretty easily just seem like deflected apologetics for western involvement. You or anyone over here could say "India was not ready for independence", because "look what happened". Look at these consequences of Gandhi's actions, or of a nation he established that was irresponsible. Well, I'd argue the interconnecting threads of cause and correlation here are complex, and maybe not ideally reconciled in this general way.
Maybe Westerners have no business with criticizing internal problems of India, or its conflicts with Pakistan, even if they may be presenting humanitarian concerns? Maybe we already wore out our luck and welcome with intervening? We do not seem to be in the place to be suggesting our own idealism, of global peace and democratic justice, at this point today in any case. Doing the best we can to mind our buisness is also an ideal. I think that could lead to a better world. We could learn a thing respecively from Swaraj, or Indian self rule; to let things be, in principle, even if they are not ideal.
Gandhi was in some ways imperfect, and not any saint. Respective to anyone or any circumstance, we can always be critical, or seek the possibility of a better circumstance in ideal, but the question is, on what basis do we suggest this ideal critique of justifications? It is easy to rationalize what could have been different, but where is the practical principled basis, or where is the tested result? That is what Gandhi has going on in his favor.
Gandhi had said:
Quote:
"My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God."
Of course Gandhi had his ideals, and they were not just "pure" or "saintly" by nature, but that is no conclusion in itself. I think it would be typical fashion to attack the man's principles and ideals, just because they perceived as conditional, when they were indeed conditional, embodied and worldly, and effective and non-violent in demonstrated ways.
Gandhi fasted unto death, on many occasions, in protest, and in the end that included to protest religious violence in Insia. He was eventually murdered by Hindu extremist.
I came across these words elsewhere online.
Quote:
The way the teaching (of Gandhi) is imparted is (sometimes in India) not as of what Gandhi was - a clever politician who made idealism pragmatic but as a saint who stood by his principles of love and peace.
Maybe there is a problem with an image of Gandhi, that leans too much to canonization. I can understand a critique of the kind of liberal idealism in America that glorifies Gandhi to saintliness, and I can indeed see how that opens up a possible question of Gandhi's ideals themselves, but not just by some simplistic objectification. If Gandhi was conditional, he should be criticized conditionally, according to the situation. To start with, if he had an ideal, there is the possibility and tested result that it was practical and principled, even though there was this violence and even though Gandhi himself was murdered. It was no failure.
In Gandhi, I would argue there is a demonstrative route of balanced and interlocking practice and ideal principle.
Appreciate the exchange and debate; Kurt.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Lets Get Practical [Re: Kurt]
#22525239 - 11/14/15 10:25 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Wow, love the dialogue guys..
I would just like to comment, every saint was/is a sinner, every 'hero' has made mistakes..I don't think we should let those mistakes take away from the ideas or actions they did which influenced society in a positive way.
What MLK did was amazing, if not essential, to win the fight for the problems which were occurring in that day in age. The same goes for Gandhi...the contributions to positive societal change are real.
In response to OP,
I think we could make a strong argument that reducing/eliminating poverty could effectively reduce violence..sure, this would take a fundamental change in the way society currently works. But I believe poverty and inquality are very important factors to consider when it comes to mass violence.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
|