Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@federica said: How far have you actually thought this through? Because I'm honestly ready to hear your solutions to the above issues, truly....
I don't advocate imposing anything on anyone. My suggestion would be for a country like the UK to take the lead and to then to offer our services to the rest of the world. As brutal as it is, we tend to learn through experiences, as that is what breeds understanding and appreciation. If we developed new models for living and other people wanted them then we would share... selflessly. Example is the greatest advert. If, say, the UK adopted what I have suggested (and more) and we were successful with it and everyone was benefiting and much happier and we had incredible technologies... basically, if it was working, then i'm sure there'd be a high interest and demand for what we have to offer.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
And what if people (in the UK) DON'T want them? What are you going to do with all those people who are NOT indigenous to the UK, and are here for ulterior motives? How are you going to integrate religious views to enable everyone to live on equal terms? In order to simplify, believe it or not, you have to spend money. Where is it going to come from?
Where are you actually going to start?
And Russell Brand is an empty-headed, bandwagon-riding wanker. He's a mouthpiece with no substance, and enjoys the fruits of success but never actually puts anything back into the process.
For goodness' sake, don't ever hold that moron up as a 'shining example' of wit and wisdom!
@federica said:
And what if people (in the UK) DON'T want them? What are you going to do with all those people who are NOT indigenous to the UK, and are here for ulterior motives? How are you going to integrate religious views to enable everyone to live on equal terms? In order to simplify, believe it or not, you have to spend money. Where is it going to come from?
Where are you actually going to start?
And Russell Brand is an empty-headed, bandwagon-riding wanker. He's a mouthpiece with no substance, and enjoys the fruits of success but never actually puts anything back into the process.
For goodness' sake, don't ever hold that moron up as a 'shining example' of wit and wisdom!
Again, example is the greatest advert. The first thing to do would be to encourage all those who are attracted to this sort of thing to implement it in their lives... commit to living selflessly and forming self-less communities in whatever shape or form to the best of our ability, and be visible with it, and if our way of living if beneficial and we are happier etc. then i'm sure others will be attracted to giving it a go, and so it could spread. There is so much discontent and so much desire for change now that it wouldn't be too difficult for little pockets to take hold. But, there's no quick solution, it would take time, maybe many generations. Although, if it was successful enough in, say, the UK to give us legitimate democratic power then changes could be made quickly. The key then is to introduce selfless thinking lessons into the education system as a priority.
In reading through the thread, I'm surprised nobody pointed out that we have economic systems based on selflessness. It's communism. Take what you need, contribute what you can. Your motivation to produce is everyone's welfare. Selflessness in action.
Looked good on paper, in real life turned into just another oppressive state that enforced conformity and punished innovation. The problem was, the theory neglected to consider people's natural selfishness. Somebody has to be in charge, enforce the rules, make decisions for entire groups of people, and generally consider themselves to be more important to society than others.
@Cinorjer said:
In reading through the thread, I'm surprised nobody pointed out that we have economic systems based on selflessness. It's communism. Take what you need, contribute what you can. Your motivation to produce is everyone's welfare. Selflessness in action.
Looked good on paper, in real life turned into just another oppressive state that enforced conformity and punished innovation. The problem was, the theory neglected to consider people's natural selfishness. Somebody has to be in charge, enforce the rules, make decisions for entire groups of people, and generally consider themselves to be more important to society than others.
I think the difference is that communism is a selfless system that doesn't necessarily entail selfless minds, whereas what I am suggesting is just selfless minds.
It is an interesting thought experiment. Sorta like trying to imagine the Star Trek society actually operating in real life.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited November 2014
I think @mindatrisk may be smarting a little by having his commendable ideologies put under the microscope and stripped to bits.
all really wonderful on paper, but in 'present form' totally imaginary pie-in-the-sky.
@mindatrisk, you really would be far better put, to consider an actionable and workable framework of stuff you can actually, physically implement and put into motion, rather than daydream about how wonderful things would be if only....
3
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@mindatrisk said:we need new ideas, and we need to encourage new ideas, so we can work out what is do-able and what is best.
>
>
Proven, undeniable, indisputable fact:
Where human beings have ventured into the simple, uncivilised, (not to say "pre-historic") isolated, secret, primitive worlds of others, to bring about educational and environmental changes "for the better", they have also successfully destroyed, halted, ended and changed for ever, the lives of those very people they intended to help.
You only have to look at the lives of American indians, in reservations, to see the truth of that.
We, educated, civilised, advanced and cultured people, decide that this could do with improvement! They will benefit form this this and this.... we can supply this that and the other - and life, as they knew it, is gone, destroyed and lost, for ever.
we do this to other cultures, and we do this with the environment, too.
We encroach upon Nature to give us what we require, and end up causing such a massive upheaval, such an ecological imbalance, that it has a ripple, knock-on effect, and devastatingly so.
The Amazon jungle is being decimated for profitable reasons, primarily, first and foremost.
The Florida everglades are shrinking as humans encroach upon it to build housing for ever-expanding communities (and that's another thing: Global population!)
>
How far have you actually thought this through? Because I'm honestly ready to hear your solutions to the above issues, truly....
>
>
It's dawned on me more than once, that when people say something to the effect, that when explorers / governments venture into 'savage - untamed' societies, and end up ruining their highly functioning groups, it's often tossed in that these ventures and the changes were for the purpose of helping improve their lives, that may be what the recorded history said, as a means of justifying the invasion / intrusion -- in hindsight a propaganda that will eventually be seen through and hopefully people will stop allowing this kind of thing to go on.
If/when there's some sort of Armageddon, we'll all be forced to form these types of small groups anyway. Brings to mind one of my fave movies, Kostner's The Postman.
In addition, from what I hear, things went better when women were the masters of their own bodies, lives, and had equal power and status ... and everybody was content with this arrangement.
Instead of trying to reengineer human psychology and sociology, why not channel humanity's natural selfishness and self-interest to good? When it is unencumbered by corporatism, capitalism is the engine that has created more freedom, wealth, and higher standards of living than any other system in history.
Capitalism does not rely on wishy washy views of selfless minds, but rather suggests that two people acting in self-interest can trade and provide goods to one another for a mutual benefit. I pay you to fix my pipes and you pay me to file your taxes. Trade societies meant that not everyone had to do soul-crushing manual labor to survive, but could be freed of scavenging and hunting to pursue things like cloth-making, pottery, and ship-building.
In North Korea, they are all equal. Equally miserable.
4
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@robot said:
silver
You and I might be the only two people to ever admit to liking that movie. I watched it many times till I gave away my video cassettes.
Ha ha, I think some of the young - and older actors were amazing in it; the theme is right up my alley, one of my favorite parts is where he finds the mail truck and where he's forced to kill that young guy -- I've seen him on x-files ages ago -- he's good.
I confess to watching it again and again, sometimes and yeah, I know at times, it has that Kostner quirkiness (corny) to it.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@mindatrisk - is there any example of such selflessness in nature?
Alturism as opposed to reciprocal altruism?
For example, when one extols the virtue of a self-less economy, is it not an irony when it is done with reference to self-benefits such as increased personal happiness etc?
One must assume that the current system must be the net effect of 'free' human interaction otherwise, we're in the territory of controlled social engineering or say farming - if it is the former then your proposition is seeking to redefine what it means to be human on a global scale (looking at humanity as a single organism) and rather naively the conclusion flows that scaling up into chaos is a reliable extrapolation which by definition it cannot be.
As a new commer, I find the ridiculing tone in this thread very off putting. Had no emphasis been raised on what the op thought or said prior to this post, I could of contributed, but now I just feel like leaving. Thanks.
@ponder said:
As a new commer, I find the ridiculing tone in this thread very off putting. Had no emphasis been raised on what the op thought or said prior to this post, I could of contributed, but now I just feel like leaving. Thanks.
Wow, you must have read completely different posts than I did. Your description sounds completely alien to me. Way to focus on the negative, dude! I thought it was a pretty good thread.
@federica said:
I think mindatrisk may be smarting a little by having his commendable ideologies put under the microscope and stripped to bits.
all really wonderful on paper, but in 'present form' totally imaginary pie-in-the-sky.
mindatrisk, you really would be far better put, to consider an actionable and workable framework of stuff you can actually, physically implement and put into motion, rather than daydream about how wonderful things would be if only....
No, there's no 'smarting' lol. I like exploring ideas, and I love good counter-arguments, critique, etc. I share ideas for the simple purpose of developing them. I mean, did you think that I thought that in sharing these ideas that they'd suddenly be implemented world-wide or something? As for what I would be 'far better put' doing... I enjoy having ideas, it's fun and creative for me, and if no-one shared their daydreams then very little progress would have been made on this planet. I also like taking practical action, but I find it much more meaningful and inspiring when I feel I have a larger vision to work towards. It's funny how people like to tell others how to live their lives, or how they'd be better living their lives, as if me just being me is somehow wrong.
@ponder said:
Actually - don't worry about it - My issue ...
I think sometimes what you might see in this forum is something like 'tough love'. Our minds are rife with delusion, and sometimes the kindest thing is a brutal waft of a sword. Not to say that this is the case in this thread, or that this 'tough love' is wise, for sometimes - many times - our 'help' is born of its own delusions... we think we see something, we think we understand something, but we are mistaken as much as the recipient of our sword. Whatever it is, it is what it is, and I think the best attitude is just to enjoy it.
@Zero said:
mindatrisk - is there any example of such selflessness in nature?
Alturism as opposed to reciprocal altruism?
For example, when one extols the virtue of a self-less economy, is it not an irony when it is done with reference to self-benefits such as increased personal happiness etc?
One must assume that the current system must be the net effect of 'free' human interaction otherwise, we're in the territory of controlled social engineering or say farming - if it is the former then your proposition is seeking to redefine what it means to be human on a global scale (looking at humanity as a single organism) and rather naively the conclusion flows that scaling up into chaos is a reliable extrapolation which by definition it cannot be.
There are no examples in nature of much in our societies now. As a species we seem unique in that we can transcend (on one level) our nature, if that nature is defined by animal instincts etc. Examples of this transcendence are already in abundance in society.
I don't think it is an irony. I'm not sure what the right word is... 'mutual', I guess. Selflessness, compassion etc. is good for all. If you were 'selfless' for your own happiness then you wouldn't actually be being selfless, it would just be a long-winded selfishness.
I don't understand your second paragraph, sorry. Could you break it down for me a little? Thanks.
@DhammaDragon said:
How long do you think the selfless minds will last before we have another communist farce?
If - if - everyone was self-less then i'm not sure how the farces you refer to could arise. For example, how could a gulag occur if everyone was as concerned for the well-being of others as they are themselves. Or is your question more about self-less minds being taken advantage of by rogue selfish minds?
@DhammaDragon said:
The mention of the word "gulag" triggered in me the impression that we have been discussing this issue for ages and nothing has really changed.
Indeed. We continue to have selfish minds that are more concerned with their own well-being than the well-being of others, and, when they have the power to benefit their own well-being at the expense of others, they have no quarrel with doing so.
Look, @mindatrisk, I don't know what part of the world you are, but it's past midnight here.
You can quote me all evening if you want, but I am a doer, not a talker.
Excuse me if I bow out, but honestly, words won't change anything. Never have.
When I wake up in a few hours, I'll figure out ways to be of use to my neighbour and the world.
I will do. Staying up talking here and now will not render my humble bodhisattva efforts more effective.
Metta to you and sleep tight, my friend...
Words change lots! If you are ill and I say 'here take this medicine' and you get better then my words have helped to change your health. 11.30pm here. Sweet dreams.
@mindatrisk said:
A key point of my idea is that of everyone doing what interests them and what they are good at... basically, from childhood onwards, identifying and nurturing each individuals inner genius. This has a few benefits, one of which is the development of much improved technologies which would allow us to, potentially, provide for everyones needs and wants with ease, and without competing for resources or damaging the environment. So, small community living doesn't mean going back to farming the land - we can still enjoy technologies, just in a different context and for different purposes.
I agree with your sentiment of people doing what interests them as key to a more harmonious society. People are naturally going to be good at things they enjoy doing and are interested in. I think a large obstacle to that is the endless list of social constructs we have created and are deeply engrained into our collective psyche, and those constructs seem to pervade everything- from our notions of "worthy careers" to willful ignorance of things that are foreign to us. This decreases our understanding, and subsequently, compassion. For example, the way we deal with crime - we do little to understand many criminals and would rather just set people aside and pretend they aren't there. Addicts, violent offenders, all kinds of people. I think we're squandering our innate curiosities about a wide array of things just because we "aren't" supposed to be curious about those things.
Indeed, well said. I think the value of big ideas - irrespective of how detached from 'reality' they seem - is that they have the potential to create big shifts. We're trying to solve problems on the same level as (and at the same time as) they are being created. It's like we know that things can be different... like, we know that we could have cars, but we're trying to fit a horse with an engine instead of just making the leap into something completely new. I don't think we need to work out our current problems - just as we didn't need to work out how to make horses run faster, and we don't need to reconcile the old with the new. We just need to understand the new, recognise its benefits, and then create it, and, just like car compared to the horse and carriage, its improvement will be self-evident and, without any slighting to the horse and carriage, it will become redundant in favour of the car.
Comments
I don't advocate imposing anything on anyone. My suggestion would be for a country like the UK to take the lead and to then to offer our services to the rest of the world. As brutal as it is, we tend to learn through experiences, as that is what breeds understanding and appreciation. If we developed new models for living and other people wanted them then we would share... selflessly. Example is the greatest advert. If, say, the UK adopted what I have suggested (and more) and we were successful with it and everyone was benefiting and much happier and we had incredible technologies... basically, if it was working, then i'm sure there'd be a high interest and demand for what we have to offer.
And what if people (in the UK) DON'T want them? What are you going to do with all those people who are NOT indigenous to the UK, and are here for ulterior motives? How are you going to integrate religious views to enable everyone to live on equal terms? In order to simplify, believe it or not, you have to spend money. Where is it going to come from?
Where are you actually going to start?
And Russell Brand is an empty-headed, bandwagon-riding wanker. He's a mouthpiece with no substance, and enjoys the fruits of success but never actually puts anything back into the process.
For goodness' sake, don't ever hold that moron up as a 'shining example' of wit and wisdom!
Again, example is the greatest advert. The first thing to do would be to encourage all those who are attracted to this sort of thing to implement it in their lives... commit to living selflessly and forming self-less communities in whatever shape or form to the best of our ability, and be visible with it, and if our way of living if beneficial and we are happier etc. then i'm sure others will be attracted to giving it a go, and so it could spread. There is so much discontent and so much desire for change now that it wouldn't be too difficult for little pockets to take hold. But, there's no quick solution, it would take time, maybe many generations. Although, if it was successful enough in, say, the UK to give us legitimate democratic power then changes could be made quickly. The key then is to introduce selfless thinking lessons into the education system as a priority.
In reading through the thread, I'm surprised nobody pointed out that we have economic systems based on selflessness. It's communism. Take what you need, contribute what you can. Your motivation to produce is everyone's welfare. Selflessness in action.
Looked good on paper, in real life turned into just another oppressive state that enforced conformity and punished innovation. The problem was, the theory neglected to consider people's natural selfishness. Somebody has to be in charge, enforce the rules, make decisions for entire groups of people, and generally consider themselves to be more important to society than others.
I think the difference is that communism is a selfless system that doesn't necessarily entail selfless minds, whereas what I am suggesting is just selfless minds.
How do we get to the selfless minds stage? I've never even met one.
It is an interesting thought experiment. Sorta like trying to imagine the Star Trek society actually operating in real life.
I think @mindatrisk may be smarting a little by having his commendable ideologies put under the microscope and stripped to bits.
all really wonderful on paper, but in 'present form' totally imaginary pie-in-the-sky.
@mindatrisk, you really would be far better put, to consider an actionable and workable framework of stuff you can actually, physically implement and put into motion, rather than daydream about how wonderful things would be if only....
@mindatrisk said:we need new ideas, and we need to encourage new ideas, so we can work out what is do-able and what is best.
>
>
Where human beings have ventured into the simple, uncivilised, (not to say "pre-historic") isolated, secret, primitive worlds of others, to bring about educational and environmental changes "for the better", they have also successfully destroyed, halted, ended and changed for ever, the lives of those very people they intended to help.
You only have to look at the lives of American indians, in reservations, to see the truth of that.
We, educated, civilised, advanced and cultured people, decide that this could do with improvement! They will benefit form this this and this.... we can supply this that and the other - and life, as they knew it, is gone, destroyed and lost, for ever.
we do this to other cultures, and we do this with the environment, too.
We encroach upon Nature to give us what we require, and end up causing such a massive upheaval, such an ecological imbalance, that it has a ripple, knock-on effect, and devastatingly so.
The Amazon jungle is being decimated for profitable reasons, primarily, first and foremost.
The Florida everglades are shrinking as humans encroach upon it to build housing for ever-expanding communities (and that's another thing: Global population!)
>
How far have you actually thought this through? Because I'm honestly ready to hear your solutions to the above issues, truly....
>
>
It's dawned on me more than once, that when people say something to the effect, that when explorers / governments venture into 'savage - untamed' societies, and end up ruining their highly functioning groups, it's often tossed in that these ventures and the changes were for the purpose of helping improve their lives, that may be what the recorded history said, as a means of justifying the invasion / intrusion -- in hindsight a propaganda that will eventually be seen through and hopefully people will stop allowing this kind of thing to go on.
If/when there's some sort of Armageddon, we'll all be forced to form these types of small groups anyway. Brings to mind one of my fave movies, Kostner's The Postman.
In addition, from what I hear, things went better when women were the masters of their own bodies, lives, and had equal power and status ... and everybody was content with this arrangement.
@silver
You and I might be the only two people to ever admit to liking that movie. I watched it many times till I gave away my video cassettes.
>
Make it so. Engage.
Capitalism does not rely on wishy washy views of selfless minds, but rather suggests that two people acting in self-interest can trade and provide goods to one another for a mutual benefit. I pay you to fix my pipes and you pay me to file your taxes. Trade societies meant that not everyone had to do soul-crushing manual labor to survive, but could be freed of scavenging and hunting to pursue things like cloth-making, pottery, and ship-building.
In North Korea, they are all equal. Equally miserable.
Ha ha, I think some of the young - and older actors were amazing in it; the theme is right up my alley, one of my favorite parts is where he finds the mail truck and where he's forced to kill that young guy -- I've seen him on x-files ages ago -- he's good.
I confess to watching it again and again, sometimes and yeah, I know at times, it has that Kostner quirkiness (corny) to it.
The part of the story where he's forced to kill the young guy is very poignant -- I really am NOT into killing and bloodsport -- :#
@mindatrisk - is there any example of such selflessness in nature?
Alturism as opposed to reciprocal altruism?
For example, when one extols the virtue of a self-less economy, is it not an irony when it is done with reference to self-benefits such as increased personal happiness etc?
One must assume that the current system must be the net effect of 'free' human interaction otherwise, we're in the territory of controlled social engineering or say farming - if it is the former then your proposition is seeking to redefine what it means to be human on a global scale (looking at humanity as a single organism) and rather naively the conclusion flows that scaling up into chaos is a reliable extrapolation which by definition it cannot be.
Wow, you must have read completely different posts than I did. Your description sounds completely alien to me. Way to focus on the negative, dude! I thought it was a pretty good thread.
Was I wrong?
No, Dakini, you're right. It was a relatively well-controlled review of the OP's comments.
Actually - don't worry about it - My issue ...
No, there's no 'smarting' lol. I like exploring ideas, and I love good counter-arguments, critique, etc. I share ideas for the simple purpose of developing them. I mean, did you think that I thought that in sharing these ideas that they'd suddenly be implemented world-wide or something? As for what I would be 'far better put' doing... I enjoy having ideas, it's fun and creative for me, and if no-one shared their daydreams then very little progress would have been made on this planet. I also like taking practical action, but I find it much more meaningful and inspiring when I feel I have a larger vision to work towards. It's funny how people like to tell others how to live their lives, or how they'd be better living their lives, as if me just being me is somehow wrong.
I think sometimes what you might see in this forum is something like 'tough love'. Our minds are rife with delusion, and sometimes the kindest thing is a brutal waft of a sword. Not to say that this is the case in this thread, or that this 'tough love' is wise, for sometimes - many times - our 'help' is born of its own delusions... we think we see something, we think we understand something, but we are mistaken as much as the recipient of our sword. Whatever it is, it is what it is, and I think the best attitude is just to enjoy it.
There are no examples in nature of much in our societies now. As a species we seem unique in that we can transcend (on one level) our nature, if that nature is defined by animal instincts etc. Examples of this transcendence are already in abundance in society.
I don't think it is an irony. I'm not sure what the right word is... 'mutual', I guess. Selflessness, compassion etc. is good for all. If you were 'selfless' for your own happiness then you wouldn't actually be being selfless, it would just be a long-winded selfishness.
I don't understand your second paragraph, sorry. Could you break it down for me a little? Thanks.
The Dharma?
If - if - everyone was self-less then i'm not sure how the farces you refer to could arise. For example, how could a gulag occur if everyone was as concerned for the well-being of others as they are themselves. Or is your question more about self-less minds being taken advantage of by rogue selfish minds?
Great. "Animal Farm" and "1984" are back.
Explain?
The mention of the word "gulag" triggered in me the impression that we have been discussing this issue for ages and nothing has really changed.
Indeed. We continue to have selfish minds that are more concerned with their own well-being than the well-being of others, and, when they have the power to benefit their own well-being at the expense of others, they have no quarrel with doing so.
Look, @mindatrisk, I don't know what part of the world you are, but it's past midnight here.
You can quote me all evening if you want, but I am a doer, not a talker.
Excuse me if I bow out, but honestly, words won't change anything. Never have.
When I wake up in a few hours, I'll figure out ways to be of use to my neighbour and the world.
I will do. Staying up talking here and now will not render my humble bodhisattva efforts more effective.
Metta to you and sleep tight, my friend...
Words change lots! If you are ill and I say 'here take this medicine' and you get better then my words have helped to change your health. 11.30pm here. Sweet dreams.
I agree with your sentiment of people doing what interests them as key to a more harmonious society. People are naturally going to be good at things they enjoy doing and are interested in. I think a large obstacle to that is the endless list of social constructs we have created and are deeply engrained into our collective psyche, and those constructs seem to pervade everything- from our notions of "worthy careers" to willful ignorance of things that are foreign to us. This decreases our understanding, and subsequently, compassion. For example, the way we deal with crime - we do little to understand many criminals and would rather just set people aside and pretend they aren't there. Addicts, violent offenders, all kinds of people. I think we're squandering our innate curiosities about a wide array of things just because we "aren't" supposed to be curious about those things.
Indeed, well said. I think the value of big ideas - irrespective of how detached from 'reality' they seem - is that they have the potential to create big shifts. We're trying to solve problems on the same level as (and at the same time as) they are being created. It's like we know that things can be different... like, we know that we could have cars, but we're trying to fit a horse with an engine instead of just making the leap into something completely new. I don't think we need to work out our current problems - just as we didn't need to work out how to make horses run faster, and we don't need to reconcile the old with the new. We just need to understand the new, recognise its benefits, and then create it, and, just like car compared to the horse and carriage, its improvement will be self-evident and, without any slighting to the horse and carriage, it will become redundant in favour of the car.
So since your last series of visits, what have you accomplished?
I learnt how to make a cappuccino in a microwave.