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.
@Hamsaka said:
One part of me keeps challenging what I'm saying with "Buddhist" shoulds and ought to's. How irritating. One thought is that this IS samsara, after all, nothing can be done except avoid rebirth. Except I think that is wrong headed in a lot of ways, at least as a way to conduct yourself while you are alive.
According to Buddhist mythology Samsara moves in ups and downs. Sometimes it is worse and sometimes it is better on earth.
Inbetween is the time when a Buddha can appear. Or something like that.
According to what I remember we are moving towards a Golden Age. very much like the Paradise foretold in Christianity.
The Golden Age will be ruled by a World Monarch and there will be no other means to die other than through hunger. No sickness or disease.
At the end of this Era Buddha Maitreya will appear.
@Hamsaka Very interesting thought that we are to shortlived to see/make a plan that is so big.
But still we change the world all the time?
I think it is a question of shortsightedness too?
But according to statistics people in our age should live until 120 at least. Lets see what happens? According to the Mythology I mentioned in the Golden Age the People will live much much longer. Yaaay!
@Karasti As long as there are so many different ways in different parts of the world that require different cost of living it is going to be difficult to determine what can be called poverty and not.
@Hamsaka, lol, yes. Just like so many Buddhist analogies...a ripple spreads and affects the entire pond. The Butterfly effect if you prefer. Changing ourselves and our habit and thought patterns and then having conversations with others so that it spreads is the easiest way for each of us to do something. Some people are too afraid. My mom has learned so much in the past 20 years. But she is afraid to put it out there to her friends and even her family, because she doesn't want to rock the boat. She doesn't want to challenge the thought patterns of her brother who is a retired Marine drill instructor and deeply conservative and Catholic. She'd rather they maintain what she views as a nice relationship even if it means she has to suppress her thoughts and feelings on something. I'm not really like that, so it gets frustrating to me. She'll call me with something she found, and if I tell her to share it with her sister, or on FB or whatever, she says, "no, no, I'm not ready to put myself out there." It's just so strange to me. But, my sister and I dragged her from her 50s hiding in a shell mentality into the current century, so there is hope for others, lol.
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
A few quotations from the astounding, perceptive and far-seeing Aldous Huxley (author of 'Brave New World'):
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
"Everyone who wants to do good to the human race always ends in universal bullying."
"I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself."
"It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one's life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than 'try to be a little kinder.' "
"There isn't any formula or method. You learn to love by loving - by paying attention and doing what one thereby discovers has to be done."
Astute fellow.....
3
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
You may be interested in this website: Recommended in his blog by Ajahn Sujato.
I don't think that poverty or war can be eradicated as they are core tenets of our social structure and conditioning.
We are inevitably engaged in zero sum and non zero sum games - assuming an equal number of each leads to more chance of competitive games - war in its many guises.
Money is an efficient way of expressing social status and access to resources.
They are one of the balances to growth, born from the same drives within the system that allows us to grow as a species.
To overcome them, I suppose we would need to overcome our limitations as a species, which would no longer make us human as we would recognise it now.
I think that a Buddhist practice is about doing whatever is appropriate towards ceasing from evil, doing only good and purifying your heart/mind.
Fortunately, the idea that this will or will not transform the human condition into some level of purity, is not required for practice.
And, SADLY, the evidence is on our side. It's not easy picking a time when civilization began, but I'll pick 12,000 years ago.
Years with poverty = 12,000.
Year without poverty = 0.
Years with widespread conflict = 12,000.
Years without widespread conflict = 0.
Interesting!
If I might ask where the statistics come from?
And out of curiosity.
Why start at when Civilization began?
Why not start at the beginning of mankind some 1 million years ago?
How does this study define Civilization, Poverty and Conflict?
@Zero said:
To overcome them, I suppose we would need to overcome our limitations as a species, which would no longer make us human as we would recognise it now.
So wheres the rub? .
I do not mind evolving. After all isn't that what the Dhamma is about?
Not far ago we were apes and before that rodents and even before that goo.
Some still are...come to think of it. lol.
But maybe we do not need such a rash change? Hamsaka was a little bit into the same reasoning when she said we are too shortlived to harness such a tall idea...
@Victorious said:
If I might ask where the statistics come from?
And out of curiosity.
Why start at when Civilization began?
Why not start at the beginning of mankind some 1 million years ago?
How does this study define Civilization, Poverty and Conflict?
1: it's not a study. It's just pointing out that there is no time in human history where there was peace and no poverty.
2: try seeing both the forest and the trees.
But don't forget, I wish poverty would be eliminated and war would vanish. But the evidence for that happening is simply not there.
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
(formatting is a bit of a mess currently. Just trying to help... )
@Victorious said:
But maybe we do not need such a rash change? Hamsaka was a little bit into the same reasoning when she said we are too shortlived to harness such a tall idea...
If the proposition was how can we alleviate the effects of poverty or war then I'd be inclined to agree with you.
Eradicating them however is a different proposition.
The battle against poverty or war is a paradox as they are a natural corollary to the system that promotes the conditions that battle the 'evil'.
@how said:
I think that a Buddhist practice is about doing whatever is appropriate towards ceasing from evil, doing only good and purifying your heart/mind.
Seems civilised to me.
Wonder what our 'riches' and peace cries will be?
How about being poor, nomadic and harmless? Probably best not to group too much . . .
I noticed nobody brought up the United Nations, the only world organization with the express purpose of fostering world peace and fighting poverty and hunger. Have we turned this once great bastion of enlightenment into such a joke that nobody even pays lip service to it anymore?
I mean, the only practical way to even get a start on world peace is to work with the governments that own the armies. All the volunteer organizations in the world won't stop one soldier from firing on another.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Cinorjer said:
I noticed nobody brought up the United Nations, the only world organization with the express purpose of fostering world peace and fighting poverty and hunger. Have we turned this once great bastion of enlightenment into such a joke that nobody even pays lip service to it anymore?
I mean, the only practical way to even get a start on world peace is to work with the governments that own the armies. All the volunteer organizations in the world won't stop one soldier from firing on another.
Actually, I mentioned it earlier, along with the League Of Nations. In terms of the overarching goal of UN, I would call it a failure, but in smaller area (e.g., WHO) it does some good. And, if we were to abolish the UN, we would simply reinvent something similar.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I agree. I sense @Zero with his zero sum games was hitting at the same angle I was. Ending 'armies' and military dictatorships fueled by Allah/Jehovah/Whoever would only be half the battle. The subjected citizens have adapted well to those conditions, with a healthy dose of mistrust and hostility toward who would govern them. Look at the US. We're having a measles outbreak because so many citizens no longer trust the medical authorities. Granted, those same authorities have violated our trust and to some degree earned some responsibility in this. Think 'the Tuskegee Study' for starters.
Imagine the oppressed billions suddenly freed from their vile leaders, still conditioned from generations back in god knows what variety of ways thanks to being oppressed in the first place.
Grassroots change might only be effective (much less possible) as one individual sets an example and thus influences another and another until some critical mass is reached (think Martin Luther King, Roe vs Wade, Matthew Shephard's murder).
If you really do not want to see any possibility there are ample opportunities in history. Agreed.
But that does not mean that there has not been times of peace and prosperity for lots of people.
Sweden has not been involved in a war for 200 years. The social benefits here are among the best in the world. So it is possible.
Another thing is that a Goal that cannot be reached now might still be worth pursuing anyway.
The Swedish Traffic Department are pursuing the goal of 0 deaths in traffic. It is easily understood that it is not possible with their current resources but still worth pursuing?
@vinlyn said:
Actually, I mentioned it earlier, along with the League Of Nations. In terms of the overarching goal of UN, I would call it a failure, but in smaller area (e.g., WHO) it does some good. And, if we were to abolish the UN, we would simply reinvent something similar.
I agree. That was why I was looking for something more hands on.
@Zero said:
The battle against poverty or war is a paradox as they are a natural corollary to the system that promotes the conditions that battle the 'evil'.
What I would suggest then is to aim to change that system?
@Victorious said: What I would suggest then is to aim to change that system? Is that not the rational thing to do?
In my view, no.
When I was a principal, in planning meetings we often starting with: "What would we do if there were no limits?" Then after brainstorming for a bit we would get down to: "What is actually do-able?"
What you are suggesting is the former.
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
Generally speaking if you need to get things done and it seems impossible to do due to one system or another the best thing to do is to chuck that system and look at the problem from another.
If someone says to you that something cannot be done because of the laws of physics it is most probably not the laws of physics that is the problem but the mental/intellectual disposition of the person claiming that.
What we are saying when exclaiming "That cant be done" is, lets be honest, that "I cannot see a way of doing that".
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
If someone says to you that something cannot be done because of the laws of physics it is most probably not the laws of physics that is the problem but the mental/intellectual disposition of the person claiming that.
What we are saying when exclaiming "That cant be done" is, lets be honest, that "I cannot see a way of doing that".
The laws of physics are pretty strict . . . I'll wager the person claiming that may not understand the rules of physics they purport to know Fortunately (as far as we know) the laws of physics don't preclude human beings learning a nonviolent way to interrelate with other sentient beings. I don't think, anyway.
Then I think of black holes, and that the Andromeda galaxy and ours are headed for a collision in 3 or 4 billion years (right around the time the Maitreya is supposed to show up, what luck!). Even the cosmos is one thing eating another thing, stealing gasses, playing bumper cars. I've wondered, while thinking about how life on Earth behaves, if 'we' are just behaving like the checks and balances of matter, mass and energy. Well, not thinking per se, not smart enough, but I can't help but see the parallels. There's a term for that, seeing patterns where there may not be any . . .
I agree with you that things like 'human nature' may be entrenched but I've witnessed myself change from being pretty primitive and reactive to being somewhat less so. As a species we're doing far better, and we got through the Cold War without blowing ourselves to Kingdome Come. Maybe the process of species evolution, from scarcity mentality omnivores pissing out the boundaries of our territory into more mindful stewards of our home and earth family will take hundreds of years. That's why I don't think we need to exploit or improve our life spans. To see these things through, more. Heck, imagine the maturity of a 178 year old person. Talk about delaying gratification.
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 February 2015
@Victorious said:My outset with this thread was to see if there were any efforts that I might consider joining. I even said I was unwilling to pull this kind of thing....
"He who deliberates fully before taking each step, will send his entire life on one leg."
@Hamsaka If any anti-vaxxer actually ever made an argument that they don't trust the medical establishment because of Tuskegee studies (or something similar) I might actually listen to them. But they don't. Their arguments come from websites that have no basis in science, or other internet sources that have no studies, no science, no medical basis to back them up. The one study that was linked that started all this has been long discredited that the author was a liar and completely incredible, but the damage was long done.
But anyhow, @Victorious I certainly can't claim to have the answers. But I do find it kind of amusing that you seem to have a clear picture of some sort in mind, but instead of being willing to look into how to put yourself out there to figure out what is possible, you want someone else to do it so you can just follow along Sometimes, there is a need others cannot see until that need becomes a cause that has a leader. Trying to convince everyone else that someone else should become that leader is likely to get no where. Look at any one successful charity organization. They all started with someone with a desire to change something, bring something to the attention to others. Susan G Komen Breast Cancer fund started with a woman who promised her sister (Susan) to work towards a cure for breast cancer as Susan was dying. In less than 20 years it became one of the biggest, most successful and most recognizable resources in raising money for breast cancer. And not to knock cancer of any sort, but breast cancer is a drop in the bucket when you compare those affected by it versus poverty. Half the world's population lives in poverty every day. If you think a change is needed, then maybe you do need to be the one to step up. Someone has to.
@federica said:
"He who deliberates fully before taking each step, will send his entire life on one leg."
Confucius, he say......
The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.
Said by a Son of some Zoo.
Incidentally I took my alias from this quote by the same bloke:
He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be Victorious.
@Hamsaka said:
Victorius said:
I agree with you that things like 'human nature' may be entrenched but ...
I did not mean to sound like I think that human nature is entrenched. I think the opposite is true. Specially over the ages.
I am silly set on living until 120. That was what I was promised at school by extrapolation of the life expectancy then. And I am sure that there actually is no limit on the age a person can achive despite what people say.
And don't tell lobster that Maitreya will be late. E was expecting him in 500 years or so...
@karasti said:
But anyhow, Victorious I certainly can't claim to have the answers. But I do find it kind of amusing that you seem to have a clear picture of some sort in mind, but instead of being willing to look into how to put yourself out there to figure out what is possible, you want someone else to do it so you can just follow along Sometimes, there is a need others cannot see until that need becomes a cause that has a leader.
I have all my life run away from responsibility as fast as I can.
And by Jove I am not about to stop now!
lol.
Naaa not really. But a man chooses his fights. I have children and family and my top responsibility is to them right now.
Oh yes and did I ever say to you
He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be Victorious.
@Victorious said:
What I would suggest then is to aim to change that system? Is that not the rational thing to do?
Perhaps it may seem so in response, in seeking control in this free-fall. However it is not a system that 'we' put in place as such - for example, we do not choose to be hungry, we just are and we choose to respond to it or not - considering the system from this angle is to consider the net effect of our interactions and there is a finite limit to our cognition and ability to correlate which in turn defines what a correlation is - such a finite limit is very very small (if there is such a thing) - by this I mean unimaginably small, so small that it needs a fictional measure of its own to stand apart (even metaphorically / fictionally) from being unrecognisable as against the infinity paradox.
Rational in this sense I think means something akin to, 'pursuant to cognitive correlations' however a paradox is the limit of that recognition beyond which recognition is a farce - it is a fictional notion as such and therefore a paradox is not a physical thing, a nut to crack but rather it is an indication of the limits of recognition, the limits of nut-cracking.
@Victorious said:
The only limits I believe in are sickness, old age and death. Many many times in life to this date I have accomplished things, alone and in group, that I myself or others thought were impossible. I am not saying that everything is possible. Just that much you think is impossible is in fact possible If you think outside the box. Plus it is a fun way to live and lead life.
I have never seen anyone achieve the impossible. Perhaps it is a fun way to live and lead life but then it is said that 'ignorance is bliss' right? That bliss is fun in some sense?
The irony is that it is this very limit which manifests as things that are not so fun and not so blissful.
So the question is, how can 'this or a' fun and bliss be spread universally as a panacea to anything that is, along the chain of causation, not fun and bliss?
I think the rational proposition must therefore be that it is the recognition of fun and bliss that is the limit - that it is not perceived in it's 'full' causal capacity - the objective we seek and for lack of it, then create to support the subjective
Perhaps we're not so far apart though - you say 'think outside the box' and I say ' you wouldn't recognise the human who could achieve it as a human now'... outside the human box.
Only you know what you are truly capable of doing or not doing. But don't let fear or the unknown stop you, either. You never know where taking a leap will lead you and your family, never mind the example you would set for your children. It's easy to stay in a comfortable life and talk about your values and what you wish the world was like. It does take a special person to be able to walk outside of that. Not all of us are special in that way. I'm certainly not. The guy who started the group that brought our state a marriage equality law is now a strategist with a national group that is working to bring it to the whole US. No doubt that position brings opportunity to him and his family that he couldn't have imagined a few years ago. But it took him having a vision that he put together and turned into one of the most successful grass roots efforts ever.
Just make sure you are not selling yourself short. Everyone has visions and talents, and when you are too afraid, or make reasons why you are unable to make them happen, then you don't just deny yourself. You deny the whole planet. It is our job to recognize our talents and use them to help humanity. If you feel you are doing that to the fullest extent where you are now, then that's terrific.
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I think @Karasti the idea you might willingly do something to hurt your child is enough for people to want to look for more reasons not to do it. The anti-vax parents never had measles or mumps or any of that, it's not exactly 'real' to them perhaps. Another example of how short our memories are.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I did not mean to sound like I think that human nature is entrenched. I think the opposite is true. Specially over the ages.
I think I think there are aspects of human nature that are entrenched (sorry about the projection there), but when I say entrenched I mean stubborn rather than unchangeable. We have done away with all kinds of stuff, or toned it down and call it different names
I see Buddhist practice as a way to reshape some of that stubborn stuff like aggression and tribalism. They are sort of like defaults, but we aren't doomed to them, at least individuals aren't. Just learning to be mindful thwarts a lot of impulsive, instinctive behavior or reactions. If a critical mass of individuals in a group becomes mindful enough, there will be pressure on the rest to get with the program.
It is our job to recognize our talents and use them to help humanity.
We duz haz plan! Boddhisattva CV now available . . .
. . . cue mission possible music
Your mission [Victorious/insert name] should you choose/decide to accept it, ...
As always, should you or any of your I.M. Force be caught or enlightened, the Buddha will utilise any knowledge from your actions. This message will self-construct in five seconds. Good luck
I woke up this morning thinking about a dream I had (about students being bullied by a teacher) and this thread. And spending a little time on the issue clarified for me why I am so turned off by the general concept of what is proposed by this thread.
And there are two issues I have with it. It would be a wonderful world if there were no more wars. But that assumes that every leader (and all the leaders) of every country are going to suddenly decide that war is not the answer to their various problems.
So, @Victorious, I was thinking of your situation. As I recall, you're from Sweden. And you made a comment that Sweden has not been involved in a war for 200 years. Well, I find it just a tad convenient that you chose that particular time frame, but okay. But it's also true that Sweden cooperated with Germany in World War I, and concurrently provided volunteers to fight against Russians in the Finnish Civil War. In WWII, Sweden again cooperated with Germany, supplied war materials to Germany and supplied volunteers to fight in a number of war-related efforts. Today, Sweden is officially non-aligned, although your military cooperates in joint military exercises with NATO, "Swedish companies export weapons that were used by the American military in Iraq", and participates in international military operations, including Afghanistan.
But even putting that aside, let's look at a couple of scenarios. Scenario 1: Russia decides to take over Sweden. Oh I know, it's ridiculous to think that in today's Europe that one nation would attempt to take over another; the borders are all stable. Oh wait...excluding what's currently happening in Ukraine. Scenario 2: Some nutty group begins proposing ethnic cleansing in Sweden. Oh I know, it's ridiculous to think that ethnic cleansing could occur in civilized Europe (except of course in Armenia, Austria, Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Croatia, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Georgia, Herzegovina, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Russia, Romania, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Did I leave any out?
And no, I'm not forgetting what my own country has done, and still may do (American Indians, African slaves, the Vietnam War, Cambodia, etc.). I fully expect to see a rising tide of anti-Muslim fervor right here in the United States.
Rather than trying to end war, which I believe is unfathomable, I would suggest tackling some of the ingredients that eventually come together to cause war. Maybe, in some cases, that's what could be tackled more successfully because it's a more manageable target.
But, if you really want to end all war, buy a ticket to Syria and sit down and have a nice friendly chat with ISIS. That's starting small! Let us know how that goes.
And then we can start on hunger!
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
Then I guess I misunderstood his comment above: "Sweden has not been involved in a war for 200 years. The social benefits here are among the best in the world. So it is possible."
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 February 2015
His IP number states he's communicating from a different country.
Comments
According to Buddhist mythology Samsara moves in ups and downs. Sometimes it is worse and sometimes it is better on earth.
Inbetween is the time when a Buddha can appear. Or something like that.
According to what I remember we are moving towards a Golden Age. very much like the Paradise foretold in Christianity.
The Golden Age will be ruled by a World Monarch and there will be no other means to die other than through hunger. No sickness or disease.
At the end of this Era Buddha Maitreya will appear.
So even mythologically speaking there is hope.
/Victor
@Hamsaka Very interesting thought that we are to shortlived to see/make a plan that is so big.
But still we change the world all the time?
I think it is a question of shortsightedness too?
But according to statistics people in our age should live until 120 at least. Lets see what happens? According to the Mythology I mentioned in the Golden Age the People will live much much longer. Yaaay!
@Karasti As long as there are so many different ways in different parts of the world that require different cost of living it is going to be difficult to determine what can be called poverty and not.
To start off the discussion we might start here
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Is this not the line between poverty and wealth?
Who has these rights and who doesn't?
What in terms of possession and wealth is needed to ensure each and every individual these rights?
/Victor
Err seems like a short time for the teachings of Gotama to die out, the oaceans to dry out and people to start living for 80000 years...Dont ya think?
Oh but I do!
Perhaps, perhaps not.
etc etc is happening fast.
Oceans drying out, not heard that one but then I don't believe everything I read, say or think . . .
lol or Awesome? ? ?
I Just Havent Got The Power Te Decide Captain!
Aaah you get a awsome lol.
/Victor
@Hamsaka, lol, yes. Just like so many Buddhist analogies...a ripple spreads and affects the entire pond. The Butterfly effect if you prefer. Changing ourselves and our habit and thought patterns and then having conversations with others so that it spreads is the easiest way for each of us to do something. Some people are too afraid. My mom has learned so much in the past 20 years. But she is afraid to put it out there to her friends and even her family, because she doesn't want to rock the boat. She doesn't want to challenge the thought patterns of her brother who is a retired Marine drill instructor and deeply conservative and Catholic. She'd rather they maintain what she views as a nice relationship even if it means she has to suppress her thoughts and feelings on something. I'm not really like that, so it gets frustrating to me. She'll call me with something she found, and if I tell her to share it with her sister, or on FB or whatever, she says, "no, no, I'm not ready to put myself out there." It's just so strange to me. But, my sister and I dragged her from her 50s hiding in a shell mentality into the current century, so there is hope for others, lol.
A few quotations from the astounding, perceptive and far-seeing Aldous Huxley (author of 'Brave New World'):
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
"Everyone who wants to do good to the human race always ends in universal bullying."
"I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself."
"It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one's life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than 'try to be a little kinder.' "
"There isn't any formula or method. You learn to love by loving - by paying attention and doing what one thereby discovers has to be done."
Astute fellow.....
You may be interested in this website: Recommended in his blog by Ajahn Sujato.
I don't think that poverty or war can be eradicated as they are core tenets of our social structure and conditioning.
We are inevitably engaged in zero sum and non zero sum games - assuming an equal number of each leads to more chance of competitive games - war in its many guises.
Money is an efficient way of expressing social status and access to resources.
They are one of the balances to growth, born from the same drives within the system that allows us to grow as a species.
To overcome them, I suppose we would need to overcome our limitations as a species, which would no longer make us human as we would recognise it now.
I agree, @zero.
And, SADLY, the evidence is on our side. It's not easy picking a time when civilization began, but I'll pick 12,000 years ago.
Years with poverty = 12,000.
Year without poverty = 0.
Years with widespread conflict = 12,000.
Years without widespread conflict = 0.
I think that a Buddhist practice is about doing whatever is appropriate towards ceasing from evil, doing only good and purifying your heart/mind.
Fortunately, the idea that this will or will not transform the human condition into some level of purity, is not required for practice.
Thanks.
Interesting!
If I might ask where the statistics come from?
And out of curiosity.
Why start at when Civilization began?
Why not start at the beginning of mankind some 1 million years ago?
How does this study define Civilization, Poverty and Conflict?
/Victor
So wheres the rub?
.
I do not mind evolving. After all isn't that what the Dhamma is about?
Not far ago we were apes and before that rodents and even before that goo.
Some still are...come to think of it. lol.
But maybe we do not need such a rash change? Hamsaka was a little bit into the same reasoning when she said we are too shortlived to harness such a tall idea...
1: it's not a study. It's just pointing out that there is no time in human history where there was peace and no poverty.
2: try seeing both the forest and the trees.
But don't forget, I wish poverty would be eliminated and war would vanish. But the evidence for that happening is simply not there.
(formatting is a bit of a mess currently. Just trying to help...
)
Cool. Thanks!
If the proposition was how can we alleviate the effects of poverty or war then I'd be inclined to agree with you.
Eradicating them however is a different proposition.
The battle against poverty or war is a paradox as they are a natural corollary to the system that promotes the conditions that battle the 'evil'.
Seems civilised to me.
Wonder what our 'riches' and peace cries will be?
How about being poor, nomadic and harmless? Probably best not to group too much . . .
. . . and now back to 'no planz' . . .
I noticed nobody brought up the United Nations, the only world organization with the express purpose of fostering world peace and fighting poverty and hunger. Have we turned this once great bastion of enlightenment into such a joke that nobody even pays lip service to it anymore?
I mean, the only practical way to even get a start on world peace is to work with the governments that own the armies. All the volunteer organizations in the world won't stop one soldier from firing on another.
I guess this answers your question @Cinorjer
In their favor, if they didn't do what they do and are doing, it would probably be worse.
Actually, I mentioned it earlier, along with the League Of Nations. In terms of the overarching goal of UN, I would call it a failure, but in smaller area (e.g., WHO) it does some good. And, if we were to abolish the UN, we would simply reinvent something similar.
I agree. I sense @Zero with his zero sum games was hitting at the same angle I was. Ending 'armies' and military dictatorships fueled by Allah/Jehovah/Whoever would only be half the battle. The subjected citizens have adapted well to those conditions, with a healthy dose of mistrust and hostility toward who would govern them. Look at the US. We're having a measles outbreak because so many citizens no longer trust the medical authorities. Granted, those same authorities have violated our trust and to some degree earned some responsibility in this. Think 'the Tuskegee Study' for starters.
Imagine the oppressed billions suddenly freed from their vile leaders, still conditioned from generations back in god knows what variety of ways thanks to being oppressed in the first place.
Grassroots change might only be effective (much less possible) as one individual sets an example and thus influences another and another until some critical mass is reached (think Martin Luther King, Roe vs Wade, Matthew Shephard's murder).
The bigger problem is that -- in general -- those vile leaders aren't that much different than the masses.
I think I figured.
.
If you really do not want to see any possibility there are ample opportunities in history. Agreed.
But that does not mean that there has not been times of peace and prosperity for lots of people.
Sweden has not been involved in a war for 200 years. The social benefits here are among the best in the world. So it is possible.
Another thing is that a Goal that cannot be reached now might still be worth pursuing anyway.
The Swedish Traffic Department are pursuing the goal of 0 deaths in traffic. It is easily understood that it is not possible with their current resources but still worth pursuing?
Just a thought.
/Victor
I agree. That was why I was looking for something more hands on.
What I would suggest then is to aim to change that system?
Is that not the rational thing to do?
In my view, no.
When I was a principal, in planning meetings we often starting with: "What would we do if there were no limits?" Then after brainstorming for a bit we would get down to: "What is actually do-able?"
What you are suggesting is the former.
How? Rationality is fine in theory.
Where are YOU going to start?
[put your hand down Mr Cushion - nobody likes a know it all]
We needz PERFECT plan? We haz pl. . . no actually we don't . . .
Only ten months or so till Christmas . . . then we be ready . . .
OMBUG!
Oh no you don't get to say that!
.
My outset with this thread was to see if there were any efforts that I might consider joining. I even said I was unwilling to pull this kind of thing.
But you do get an A for Effort!
.
And next time you might trick me.
/Victor
The only limits I believe in are sickness, old age and death.
Many many times in life to this date I have accomplished things, alone and in group, that I myself or others thought were impossible.
I am not saying that everything is possible.
Just that much you think is impossible is in fact possible If you think outside the box.
Plus it is a fun way to live and lead life.
/Victor
@vinlyn and @federica
Generally speaking if you need to get things done and it seems impossible to do due to one system or another the best thing to do is to chuck that system and look at the problem from another.
If someone says to you that something cannot be done because of the laws of physics it is most probably not the laws of physics that is the problem but the mental/intellectual disposition of the person claiming that.
What we are saying when exclaiming "That cant be done" is, lets be honest, that "I cannot see a way of doing that".
@Victorius said:
The laws of physics are pretty strict . . . I'll wager the person claiming that may not understand the rules of physics they purport to know
Fortunately (as far as we know) the laws of physics don't preclude human beings learning a nonviolent way to interrelate with other sentient beings. I don't think, anyway.
Then I think of black holes, and that the Andromeda galaxy and ours are headed for a collision in 3 or 4 billion years (right around the time the Maitreya is supposed to show up, what luck!). Even the cosmos is one thing eating another thing, stealing gasses, playing bumper cars. I've wondered, while thinking about how life on Earth behaves, if 'we' are just behaving like the checks and balances of matter, mass and energy. Well, not thinking per se, not smart enough, but I can't help but see the parallels. There's a term for that, seeing patterns where there may not be any . . .
I agree with you that things like 'human nature' may be entrenched but I've witnessed myself change from being pretty primitive and reactive to being somewhat less so. As a species we're doing far better, and we got through the Cold War without blowing ourselves to Kingdome Come. Maybe the process of species evolution, from scarcity mentality omnivores pissing out the boundaries of our territory into more mindful stewards of our home and earth family will take hundreds of years. That's why I don't think we need to exploit or improve our life spans. To see these things through, more. Heck, imagine the maturity of a 178 year old person. Talk about delaying gratification.
"He who deliberates fully before taking each step, will send his entire life on one leg."
Confucius, he say......
@Hamsaka If any anti-vaxxer actually ever made an argument that they don't trust the medical establishment because of Tuskegee studies (or something similar) I might actually listen to them. But they don't. Their arguments come from websites that have no basis in science, or other internet sources that have no studies, no science, no medical basis to back them up. The one study that was linked that started all this has been long discredited that the author was a liar and completely incredible, but the damage was long done.
But anyhow, @Victorious I certainly can't claim to have the answers. But I do find it kind of amusing that you seem to have a clear picture of some sort in mind, but instead of being willing to look into how to put yourself out there to figure out what is possible, you want someone else to do it so you can just follow along
Sometimes, there is a need others cannot see until that need becomes a cause that has a leader. Trying to convince everyone else that someone else should become that leader is likely to get no where. Look at any one successful charity organization. They all started with someone with a desire to change something, bring something to the attention to others. Susan G Komen Breast Cancer fund started with a woman who promised her sister (Susan) to work towards a cure for breast cancer as Susan was dying. In less than 20 years it became one of the biggest, most successful and most recognizable resources in raising money for breast cancer. And not to knock cancer of any sort, but breast cancer is a drop in the bucket when you compare those affected by it versus poverty. Half the world's population lives in poverty every day. If you think a change is needed, then maybe you do need to be the one to step up. Someone has to.
The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.
Said by a Son of some Zoo.
Incidentally I took my alias from this quote by the same bloke:
He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be Victorious.
I did not mean to sound like I think that human nature is entrenched. I think the opposite is true. Specially over the ages.
I am silly set on living until 120. That was what I was promised at school by extrapolation of the life expectancy then. And I am sure that there actually is no limit on the age a person can achive despite what people say.
And don't tell lobster that Maitreya will be late. E was expecting him in 500 years or so...
I have all my life run away from responsibility as fast as I can.
And by Jove I am not about to stop now!
lol.
Naaa not really. But a man chooses his fights. I have children and family and my top responsibility is to them right now.
Oh yes and did I ever say to you
He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be Victorious.
/Victor
Perhaps it may seem so in response, in seeking control in this free-fall. However it is not a system that 'we' put in place as such - for example, we do not choose to be hungry, we just are and we choose to respond to it or not - considering the system from this angle is to consider the net effect of our interactions and there is a finite limit to our cognition and ability to correlate which in turn defines what a correlation is - such a finite limit is very very small (if there is such a thing) - by this I mean unimaginably small, so small that it needs a fictional measure of its own to stand apart (even metaphorically / fictionally) from being unrecognisable as against the infinity paradox.
Rational in this sense I think means something akin to, 'pursuant to cognitive correlations' however a paradox is the limit of that recognition beyond which recognition is a farce - it is a fictional notion as such and therefore a paradox is not a physical thing, a nut to crack but rather it is an indication of the limits of recognition, the limits of nut-cracking.
I have never seen anyone achieve the impossible. Perhaps it is a fun way to live and lead life but then it is said that 'ignorance is bliss' right? That bliss is fun in some sense?
The irony is that it is this very limit which manifests as things that are not so fun and not so blissful.
So the question is, how can 'this or a' fun and bliss be spread universally as a panacea to anything that is, along the chain of causation, not fun and bliss?
I think the rational proposition must therefore be that it is the recognition of fun and bliss that is the limit - that it is not perceived in it's 'full' causal capacity - the objective we seek and for lack of it, then create to support the subjective
Perhaps we're not so far apart though - you say 'think outside the box' and I say ' you wouldn't recognise the human who could achieve it as a human now'... outside the human box.
Only you know what you are truly capable of doing or not doing. But don't let fear or the unknown stop you, either. You never know where taking a leap will lead you and your family, never mind the example you would set for your children. It's easy to stay in a comfortable life and talk about your values and what you wish the world was like. It does take a special person to be able to walk outside of that. Not all of us are special in that way. I'm certainly not. The guy who started the group that brought our state a marriage equality law is now a strategist with a national group that is working to bring it to the whole US. No doubt that position brings opportunity to him and his family that he couldn't have imagined a few years ago. But it took him having a vision that he put together and turned into one of the most successful grass roots efforts ever.
Just make sure you are not selling yourself short. Everyone has visions and talents, and when you are too afraid, or make reasons why you are unable to make them happen, then you don't just deny yourself. You deny the whole planet. It is our job to recognize our talents and use them to help humanity. If you feel you are doing that to the fullest extent where you are now, then that's terrific.
I think @Karasti the idea you might willingly do something to hurt your child is enough for people to want to look for more reasons not to do it. The anti-vax parents never had measles or mumps or any of that, it's not exactly 'real' to them perhaps. Another example of how short our memories are.
@Victorious said:
I think I think there are aspects of human nature that are entrenched (sorry about the projection there), but when I say entrenched I mean stubborn rather than unchangeable. We have done away with all kinds of stuff, or toned it down and call it different names
I see Buddhist practice as a way to reshape some of that stubborn stuff like aggression and tribalism. They are sort of like defaults, but we aren't doomed to them, at least individuals aren't. Just learning to be mindful thwarts a lot of impulsive, instinctive behavior or reactions. If a critical mass of individuals in a group becomes mindful enough, there will be pressure on the rest to get with the program.
We duz haz plan! Boddhisattva CV now available . . .
. . . cue mission possible music
Your mission [Victorious/insert name] should you choose/decide to accept it, ...
As always, should you or any of your I.M. Force be caught or enlightened, the Buddha will utilise any knowledge from your actions. This message will self-construct in five seconds. Good luck
I woke up this morning thinking about a dream I had (about students being bullied by a teacher) and this thread. And spending a little time on the issue clarified for me why I am so turned off by the general concept of what is proposed by this thread.
And there are two issues I have with it. It would be a wonderful world if there were no more wars. But that assumes that every leader (and all the leaders) of every country are going to suddenly decide that war is not the answer to their various problems.
So, @Victorious, I was thinking of your situation. As I recall, you're from Sweden. And you made a comment that Sweden has not been involved in a war for 200 years. Well, I find it just a tad convenient that you chose that particular time frame, but okay. But it's also true that Sweden cooperated with Germany in World War I, and concurrently provided volunteers to fight against Russians in the Finnish Civil War. In WWII, Sweden again cooperated with Germany, supplied war materials to Germany and supplied volunteers to fight in a number of war-related efforts. Today, Sweden is officially non-aligned, although your military cooperates in joint military exercises with NATO, "Swedish companies export weapons that were used by the American military in Iraq", and participates in international military operations, including Afghanistan.
But even putting that aside, let's look at a couple of scenarios. Scenario 1: Russia decides to take over Sweden. Oh I know, it's ridiculous to think that in today's Europe that one nation would attempt to take over another; the borders are all stable. Oh wait...excluding what's currently happening in Ukraine. Scenario 2: Some nutty group begins proposing ethnic cleansing in Sweden. Oh I know, it's ridiculous to think that ethnic cleansing could occur in civilized Europe (except of course in Armenia, Austria, Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Croatia, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Georgia, Herzegovina, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Russia, Romania, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Did I leave any out?
And no, I'm not forgetting what my own country has done, and still may do (American Indians, African slaves, the Vietnam War, Cambodia, etc.). I fully expect to see a rising tide of anti-Muslim fervor right here in the United States.
Rather than trying to end war, which I believe is unfathomable, I would suggest tackling some of the ingredients that eventually come together to cause war. Maybe, in some cases, that's what could be tackled more successfully because it's a more manageable target.
But, if you really want to end all war, buy a ticket to Syria and sit down and have a nice friendly chat with ISIS. That's starting small! Let us know how that goes.
And then we can start on hunger!
He's not from Sweden, @vinlyn ....
Then I guess I misunderstood his comment above: "Sweden has not been involved in a war for 200 years. The social benefits here are among the best in the world. So it is possible."
His IP number states he's communicating from a different country.
I'm just going by his post.
He might have accidentally missed the 't' out from 'there' and it looks like 'here'...
I take your point though.
We'll just have to let him sort the confusion out....
I am actually living in Sweden.
.
But originally I am from Sri Lanka.
That might be a tad bit confusing.