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.
So tell me.....In this world without government of yours what's to stop me from robbing you blind? Who's going to build the roads you travel on? Who's going to regulate commerce? Who's going to provide the education for your children? Who's going to manage resources? Who's going to keep someone from walking into your home, saying "this is mine now" and forcing you and your family out? I could go on and on.
Oh, and another thing: can we stop idealizing the "founding fathers" already? They were a group of wealthy, white slaveowners who said "all men are created equal", and who then, to show this equality, decided that only white, male landowners could vote. All in all the founding fathers were pretty elitist themselves.
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
To a system in which all individuals of the world have determination over their lives.
They already have. It's called free will & Choice. something a "State" or "System" has when you understand that the system and state both consist of human beings holding the pens.....
Now it is easy to label this "a dreamy idealism," but that plays into the hands of the system we have now.
Which particular system are you actually referring to...?
You see, control is becoming focussed more and more into fewer and fewer systems (UN, IMF...). We are moving away from this peacful ideal, not towards it.
Who's "We"...? You? me? those in the system? Those managing the state?
That is the problem, I am not saying "Bring me Utopia," I am saying, let us at least, as a planet, change direction towards this ideal.
oh, so a small thing like the system or state, cannot be influenced, but the planet can do something about it...
Interesting......
So tell me.....In this world without government of yours what's to stop me from robbing you blind?
What's to stop me from doing it even with a government in place? Doesn't robbery still occur in places that have governments. People who are going to do drugs are going to do them, regardless of whether it's legal or not, and people who aren't going to do drugs aren't going to do them regardless of whether it's legal or not.
The only reason people think they need government is because they don't trust others. "well, anarchism would be fine for me, since I'm good and won't hurt anyone, it's the other people who go around stealing and hurting".
No human being feels the need to hurt someone else, unless they themselves believe that they are being hurt.
everyone supports each other; the society, at whatever scale doesn't tolerate those who rob others, for instance, and deals with those people autonomous of a centralized government.
Oh, and another thing: can we stop idealizing the "founding fathers" already? They were a group of wealthy, white slaveowners who said "all men are created equal", and who then, to show this equality, decided that only white, male landowners could vote. All in all the founding fathers were pretty elitist themselves.
They were subjectively trailblazers though. Would you call Plato and idiot because he didn't understand computers? Also, slavery and the abolition of the practice was a white hot issue from day one, all the way until it vibrated the union apart.
Making it so black and white... then judging the founding fathers as such... is as out of sorts as deifying them.
So tell me.....In this world without government of yours what's to stop me from robbing you blind?
We would need security and protection. So we would need to come up with ways to do that. Why not a police force? A police force that exists solely to protect people and solve crimes is a very different beast to one that exists to enforce unfair laws etc
Who's going to build the roads you travel on?
The free market? Local collectives? A paid transport agency? The robot road maintainace army?
Who's going to regulate commerce?
Nobody, let the market self-regulate?
Who's going to provide the education for your children?
Schools and universities, natch.
Who's going to manage resources?
The market, the community, the gloabal collective?
Who's going to keep someone from walking into your home, saying "this is mine now" and forcing you and your family out?
The community?
the police (see above)?
I could go on and on.
Yes, but all you are doing is saying to me, with each question,. "Hey bozo, because you don't have the answer to this question the entire notion you are suggesting as better than what we have now much be flawed!! "
I don't have the answers to questions about the inner workings of something that doesn't yet exists. That doesn't mean that the world wouldn't be better without government or with radically less government.
Your questions are pointless relevant to the actual issues, they are like someone asking how internet video would work in 1990. We just don't know, but that doesn't meant it cant be done.
So, rather than these issues, which need to be answered in as part of the process of change because they cant be answered before, you should be asking yourself about the system we have now.
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
We would need security and protection. So we would need to come up with ways to do that. Why not a police force? A police force that exists solely to protect people and solve crimes is a very different beast to one that exists to enforce unfair laws etc
What unfair laws?
You think people just sit there and make them up as they go along?
The USA has a constitution. The UK has no single constitution, but it's said by those in Law that 'we have a constitution...it's just written on different bits of paper.' You think somebody sat in a room, lit by one candle, and chewing on his pencil, just wrote a few bits and pieces down, because he thought they seemed like a good idea at the time...?
Here and now, please, give me an example of an unfair law.
Yes, but all you are doing is saying to me, with each question,. "Hey bozo, because you don't have the answer to this question the entire notion you are suggesting as better than what we have now much be flawed!!"
No, what we're saying is that if you view the entire current system as flawed, you need a damn good reason as to why you think it's flawed, and a really good plan to put into practice BEFORE you end it.
You cannot complain about a system, and state it needs changing, yet have nothing in place as a secondary option or back-up plan to keep maintain and support the equilibrium. Criticise, by all means, but have a logical and ready, workable alternative.
If the rope bridge across the chasm is so rickety, that it poses more problems to use it, than solutions on how to traverse the chasm, you need to have a damn good workable plan to put into place, to get across the chasm, before you remove the old bridge.
I don't have the answers to questions about the inner workings of something that doesn't yet exists. That doesn't mean that the world wouldn't be better without government or with radically less government.
Not a logical or coherent answer, unfortunately.
Because if you remove one system and replace it with a new one - what guarantees do you have that the replacement system will be better, or will not be open to corruption, exploitation or manipulation?
If your ideas prompt questions, you need to provide answers. Otherwise, they are pointless ideas.
Your questions are pointless relevant to the actual issues, they are like someone asking how internet video would work in 1990. We just don't know, but that doesn't meant it cant be done.
No, they're not, because we now have the benefit of hindsight. Just as we know that certain previously existent ideas would now be utterly unworkable now.
So, rather than these issues, which need to be answered in as part of the process of change because they cant be answered before, you should be asking yourself about the system we have now.
People ask themselves about the system we have now, all the time. Which is why it's not set in stone, and which is why it is evolving and adapting.
You cannot unlearn what you have learnt. You can only build on it.
Your system once existed, and the system was biased, cruel, feudal and totally unfair.
The haves took more and more, and the have-nots got less and less.
the Laws were very unfair then.... and this is basically what you'd be returning to.
Here and now, please, give me an example of an unfair law.
UK: Digital Economy Act 2010
USA: Three Strikes Law
You cannot complain about a system, and state it needs changing, yet have nothing in place as a secondary option or back-up plan to keep maintain and support the equilibrium. Criticise, by all means, but have a logical and ready, workable alternative.
As I posted above, nobody has the answers to these individual issues yet. And I am certainly not suggesting a straight replacement. Rather a gradual process of change towards less government that would take place over decades and be self correcting as it goes.
Because if you remove one system and replace it with a new one - what guarantees do you have that the replacement system will be better,
As said, not a sudden replacement, a gradual alteration correcting and progressing as it changes over decades.
And if you really really think this system is fine and just and good and fair, take a look to the rest of the world and see if its such a great thing....
or will not be open to corruption, exploitation or manipulation
More than already? Oh, Please!
One of the first changes I would want is the total removal of secrecy in government... this would have the most important chnage of system.
If your ideas prompt questions, you need to provide answers. Otherwise, they are pointless ideas.
What do you think we should do about the world then? Keep it going on with the concentration of weather and power higher and higher up the pyramid?
People ask themselves about the system we have now, all the time. Which is why it's not set in stone, and which is why it is evolving and adapting.
Ummmm... do you think it is evolving well? Really? Is it increasing peace and truth and happiness rather than war and deception and suffering?
I cannot educate you about the reality above us, you need to do that yousrelf. I suggest you start by keeping away from the mainstream media....
Your system once existed, and the system was biased, cruel, feudal and totally unfair.
Where did a modern open technological governmentless system exist before please?
namaste
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
What's unfair about this?
if a criminal knows he's on borrowed time, then he'd better keep his nose clean. if he transgresses the law, he's got it coming.....
Simply because you disagree with it, or don't like it, doesn't make it an unfair Law. I'm talking about a Law that is judicially unfair. A law that is patently incorrect and would need judicial review. Not laws that you just don't like...
As to the rest of your post, you're missing my point.
A point I made earlier.
It little matters which systems are removed, outlawed, replaced, modified, changed, deleted, implemented, supported or condemned.
It's people who have to remove, outlaw, replace, modify, change, delete, implement, support or condemn these systems.
These systems all originate from the minds and hearts of individual people.
You said the Dhamma could not be applied to these systems.
Whichever way they go, whichever way they're taken, it's people who are at the conception of them.
Dharma is the best thing that has happened to me, daily I feel blessed by it. But it is not the solution to all the problems of the world. To me that is very much wrong View.
You have certain proposals you feel it would be right to implement.
You're a person.
You are at the helm of the conception of your ideas.
The Dhamma can be used by you to implement your ideas, thoughts and notions, skilfully.
So why would this not be applicable to the systems either in existence today, or ones you'd prefer to see replace them?
As to the rest of your post, you're missing my point.
Yes, I guess I am. It seems we have gone from the root unfairness of the global corpotocracy, and how it concentrates that unfairness, to me having to justify it by quibbling about which laws and principals are unfair....
Lets assume all laws are fair. Fine.
Still my point remains that the system we have now, that rewards and promotes the three defilements on an immense scale, needs to change direction.
I am not sure as a Buddhist why you would think otherwise.
These systems all originate from the minds and hearts of individual people.... Whichever way they go, whichever way they're taken, it's people who are at the conception of them.
Sure,in part, but the people at the top, not the people. But also you need to understand how a Corporation IS A PERSON in terms of its rights, but not its responsibilities.
I guess you think we live in a real democracy?
The Dhamma can be used by you to implement your ideas, thoughts and notions, skilfully.
Absolutly, and it is. This is what this thread is about.
Unfortunately the system simply does not encourage people to be their own light. It has evolved to profit from their coercion and homogenisation. That's how it works.
namaste
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
What I asked you was to give an example of a law or laws that are judicially unfair, as opposed to Laws you feel are unfair simply because you don't like them. Remember, it is you, not we, who is declaring that the current system isn't working, and should be changed. We're asking you to provide logical, coherent unprejudiced, specific, unbiased legitimate and non-partisan reasons why the system is wrong. Not based on your likes or dislikes, but based on cogent and logical argument as to what factors need changing, and why.
A dislike of something does not mean it should change.
Still my point remains that the system we have now, that rewards and promotes the three defilements on an immense scale, needs to change direction.
Ah.... The Three Defilements. Given that these are part of the Dhamma - you must therefore acknowledge that the opposite of these three defilements should be applied "On an immense scale". Which is what I was saying....but one person at a time.
As Mother Teresa once said: “There are thousands and thousands of poor, but I think of only one at a time,” she said. …you can save only one at a time. We can only love one at a time.” And so it is that water can pierce a stone. One drop at a time....
I am not sure as a Buddhist why you would think otherwise.
Ah ok.
Sorry...
Where did I say that?
Where did I say or even imply that I think otherwise?
Sure,in part, but the people at the top, not the people. But also you need to understand how a Corporation IS A PERSON in terms of its rights, but not its responsibilities.
The person at the top, is still a person.
And a Corporation is made up of people on all levels, but if the top is right, the rest will bleed down, as being Right.
Remember Lee Iacocca - the CEO of Chrysler cars - often worked on the production line, under supervision and command of the managers there. Remember that he maintained a company could function very well without its CEO for three days, but that it could not function for the same amount of time, without the office and lavatory cleaners.....A corporation is only as good as the person at the top. And the person at the top is still just a person.
I guess you think we live in a real democracy?
Why, do you think we don't?
Why do YOU think we don't?
(And again, don't give me your opinions in like-dislike, agree/disagree. Give me clear concise examples of why you think this Democracy isn't a democracy.)
Unfortunately the system simply does not encourage people to be their own light. It has evolved to profit from their coercion and homogenisation. That's how it works.
Nope, I think you need to give me examples again, and why the system is flawed. Where do you see the flaw?
And I think you need to define just what "The System" is. You keep banging on about 'the system'. Which system do you mean? the American? The British? The European? The Ugandan? They're all systems, and there are differences between them. Which 'System' is it that you feel specifically, needs changing?
Because until you can be specific about 'the system' your arguments flounder on simple premises of what you like and don't like, which is no basis at all.
What I asked you was to give an example of a law or laws that are judicially unfair, as opposed to Laws you feel are unfair simply because you don't like them. Remember, it is you, not we, who is declaring that the current system isn't working, and should be changed. We're asking you to provide logical, coherent unprejudiced, specific, unbiased legitimate and non-partisan reasons why the system is wrong. Not based on your likes or dislikes, but based on cogent and logical argument as to what factors need changing, and why.
A dislike of something does not mean it should change.
Federica... if you would like I can put up a whole list of links, news stories, videos as they come and then you can decide yourself if these are right?
And, as said, it isnt just the laws, its the whole system.
Do you think the bank bailout is fair?
Do you think the exploitation of the developing world is fair?
Do you think the phoney war on drugs, terror are right?
Are you pleased with the way the media is controlled?
Ah.... The Three Defilements. Given that these are part of the Dhamma - you must therefore acknowledge that the opposite of these three defilements should be applied "On an immense scale". Which is what I was saying....but one person at a time.
And I am saying that no, systematic changes are needed AS WELL. Without those changes then we end up more and more enslaves by the dominating systems....
I find it astonishing that you trust corporations and a free market over government.
And you claim the Dalai Lama is dreaming!
You are obviously quite passionate about Anarchy... good for you. I feel it would be just another stage for the same delusional actors and actresses... one with even less accountability.
I find it astonishing that you trust corporations and a free market over government.
You should pay more attention Matt.
Do you think maybe when you read others posts, rather than thinking about what they write, you are thinking about your reply? I used to be like that.
I am very clearly against corporations.
And you claim the Dalai Lama is dreaming!
No I don't not have I said such.
You are obviously quite passionate about Anarchy... good for you.
I am passionate about the fact changes have to be made to the inhuman systems of the world. I think anyone who is geopolitically aware and informed would be.
If you have a better solution than less Government I would love to hear it.
If you have no solution... well.. its easy to criticise and patronise.
I feel it would be just another stage for the same delusional actors and actresses... one with even less accountability.
I am passionate about the fact changes have to be made to the inhuman systems of the world. I think anyone who is geopolitically aware and informed would be.
I think everyone agree that no significant change can come without people dealing with themselves, their suffering, cravings, greed ect...
right? everyone agree?
So the way to change is through the Dhamma.
Now if people do eventually change themselves, If they would opt for maintaining a government then this government would behave much differently, since we can all imagine the great benefit of a good government (health care, stability ect...) this would make the abolition of the government and anarchy needless.
I give up... we go in circles and I see it starts getting conflicty (Is that a word?)
This is what US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers have to say on these issues:
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson, US President
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." Thomas Jefferson, US President
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America rise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." John Adams, US President
"You are a den of vipers! I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." Andrew Jackson, US President
"From the time I took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer I began to learn that the State held, in the face of the Bank and the City, an essentially false position as to finance. The Government was not to be the substantive power, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned." William Gladstone, English Prime Minister
"It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am." George Washington, US President
"I have two great enemies, the southern army in front of me and the financial institutions, in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is the greatest enemy... I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war." Abraham Lincoln, US President
"Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."James Garfield, US President
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." Woodrow Wilson, US President
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson" Franklin Roosevelt, US President
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed." John F Kennedy, US President
"From the days of Sparticus Wieshophf, Karl Marx, Trotski, Belacoon, Rosa Luxenburg, and Ema Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." Winston Churchill , English Prime Minister
"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables." Thomas Jefferson, US President
"The press is the hired agent of a monied system, and set up for no other purpose than to tell lies where the interests are involved. One can trust nobody and nothing." Henry Adams
"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarch, more insolent than autocracy and more selfish than a bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes." Abraham Lincoln, US President
"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight." John J Kennedy, US President
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." —Woodrow Wilson, US President
And this some others.....
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. " Winston Churchill, English Prime Minister
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Amschel Mayer Rothschild, Banker
"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Nathan Rothschild, Banker
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Amschel Mayer Rothschild, Banker
"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press... They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers." Oscar Callaway, US Congressman
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the [public] is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." Edward Bernays
The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes - Justice Felix Frankfurter
Those who formally rule take their signals and commands not from the electorate as a body, but from a small group of men. This group will be called the Establishment. It exists even though that existence is stoutly denied. It is one of the secrets of the American social order... A second secret is the fact that the existence of the Establishment - the ruling class - is not supposed to be discussed." Arthur S Miller
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe
"Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government. "Jeremy Bentham
"The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots and the bankers went anew to grab the riches. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it to systematically corrupt modern civilization." Otto Von Bismark, German Chancellor
"By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." Lord John Maynard Keynes
The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again...Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit." Sir Jposeph Stamp, Director of the Bank of England
"The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them." Albert Einstein
"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Nathan Rothschild, Banker
"We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." J Edgar Hoover
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." William COlby, Director of the CIA
"I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do 'create' money, and they who control the credit of a nation direct the policy of the government and hold in the hollow of their hands, the destiny of the people." Reginald McKenna, Chancellor of the Exchequer
"Doubt everything, Be your own Light," Lord Buddha
Maybe make all the greedy powerful people nice by sending them "What The Buddha Taught?" in book and "The Art of Happiness" on CD?
silly silly...
enlighten world. Think of it as spreading like the green movement.
Slowly taking over the world. Changing how we educate our kids and live etc...
Again, as unlikely as you think this is to happen, what alternative exist?
To take out the government would leave us with billions of people suffering from their own Dukkha, violence, instability, chaos etc...
We are all the same, the people ruled by the rulers are as greedy and clinging as the rulers.
Those with political power are blessed to be in a position where they can help educate and contribute to the health of many people.
Yes, of course! I get that. Unfortunately it is a dream. Take a look at the noble intentions of the founding fathers and what their dream has become.
The quote is an approximate sentiment from the video of the Dalai Lama I posted in the beginning of the thread. You very directly call it a dream.
I have not been thinking up responses while I read your words, and I have been sitting with your words, attempting to digest them before responding. Your view is interesting to me.
What I am finding is that "Anarchy" sounds like a solution to "Government" in your eyes, while my point is that I feel Anarchy and Government both lead to oppression without other studies involved.
Do you really think that "goodness of peoples hearts" would be more influential in an anarchy? This is where I think you're dreaming. If we do not uproot the delusion and greed that is inside human beings, no matter what system arises there will be similar oppressions.
The quote is an approximate sentiment from the video of the Dalai Lama I posted in the beginning of the thread. You very directly call it a dream.
You are very wrong. For starters, HHDL has no political power. More importantly and generally, those with political power are not the bulk of domination above us - please refer to the countless quotes of US presidents I posted if you still don't get this.
So please try not to misrepresent me, I have enough trouble trying to represent myself sometimes. You are clearly very confident in you're own words! I recommend you don't extend that confidence to the words of others.
What I am finding is that "Anarchy" sounds like a solution to "Government" in your eyes, while my point is that I feel Anarchy and Government both lead to oppression without other studies involved.
Rather than telling me that you feel anarchy leads to oppression, how's about some reason or evidence supporting your feeling. There haven't been many cases of anarchic communities, and no modern technologically advanced once. Moreover there certainly haven't been any movements towards the kind of Anarchy that modern anarchists have in mind; ever onwards we move to more government not less.
Do you really think that "goodness of peoples hearts" would be more influential in an anarchy?
I don't know, as I keep on saying to deaf ears, at the huge scale I'm talking about, it doesn't make that much difference we have nice Buddhists or nasty oligarchs at the "top."
This is where I think you're dreaming. If we do not uproot the delusion and greed that is inside human beings, no matter what system arises there will be similar oppressions.
Again you don't get what I'm saying:) I am not at all nor have I ever said that we don't need to worry about the human issues. And I am sure we both agree dharma is the best way for that.
Nonetheless, the monster that has evolved is more than the sum of its parts. It is an emergent hyper-complex that has won the battle of social dominance. It is the fittest system to make profit and focus power; at the expense of individual well-being.
We need much less government, one day, ideally none.
You are very wrong. For starters, HHDL has no political power. More importantly and generally, those with political power are not the bulk of domination above us - please refer to the countless quotes of US presidents I posted if you still don't get this.
I am not saying that the Dalai Lama is blessed with power. I am saying that the Dalai Lama regards those in power as blessed, based off what he is saying in the video. It is not *my* sentiment you said is "dreaming", it is his. I bring this up for clarity only, HHDL is not the end all of political insight.
So please try not to misrepresent me, I have enough trouble trying to represent myself sometimes. You are clearly very confident in you're own words! I recommend you don't extend that confidence to the words of others.
I am saying what I am seeing. I don't feel that confident, I think words just fit together like that for me. I am attempting to penetrate the issue that sits between us... logically, compassionately and wisely. If I come across as certain, well, I have no direct explanation of why that might be.
Rather than telling me that you feel anarchy leads to oppression, how's about some reason or evidence supporting your feeling. There haven't been many cases of anarchic communities, and no modern technologically advanced once. Moreover there certainly haven't been any movements towards the kind of Anarchy that modern anarchists have in mind; ever onwards we move to more government not less.
My "feeling" comes from my observation of people moving across systems with the same mentality. They come to experience the same oppressive energy and simply attribute it to the new system instead of faulty internal processing. In the words of the Moody Blues: "New boss just like the old boss"
Also, what is it in an anarchy that stops the exploitation and monopolistic practices that greedy humans tend to favor? I have never seen a large anarchy work. Only small scale, solidly ideological and compatible views. Do you have an example of a successful anarchy state more than lets say, 5,000 people?
Nonetheless, the monster that has evolved is more than the sum of its parts. It is an emergent hyper-complex that has won the battle of social dominance. It is the fittest system to make profit and focus power; at the expense of individual well-being.
Yes, I see that this is the world you see. I continue to see a system that is exactly of the sum of its parts. If you look for that monster outside of human projection, I'd bet money that you'll never find it.
Also, what is it in an anarchy that stops the exploitation and monopolistic practices that greedy humans tend to favor? I have never seen a large anarchy work. Only small scale, solidly ideological and compatible views. Do you have an example of a successful anarchy state more than lets say, 5,000 people?
in the spanish revolution, there was a veritable efficient and cooperative anarchist commune
albeit it occurred in unison with the spanish civil war
i dont know if that's where it got its fuel
but it is the most well known successful experiment in mass-scale anarchism involving millions of spaniards
or something like that
vewy intawesting
in the spanish revolution, there was a veritable efficient and cooperative anarchist commune
albeit it occurred in unison with the spanish civil war
i dont know if that's where it got its fuel
but it is the most well known successful experiment in mass-scale anarchism involving millions of spaniards
or something like that
vewy intawesting
Yes, anarcho-syndicalists in Spain had a fair amount of success before Franco's victory. A somewhat similar situation occurred in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution (for more information, see Peter Arshinov's History of the Makhnovist Movement).
Of course it wont stop these things the point is it isn't structured to reward them. Unlike the systems we have now...
But wouldn't it also be less capable of regulating them?
You got to keep on practising that "reading other people" skill.
As said, I am talking about a system of much less government powered by openness and technology. It hasn't existed yet, that doesn't mean it cant.
You seem agitated to make such a comment about my listening skills. I was wondering if there is a macro example of any kind of success outside "theory land"... not saying it is impossible. I'm guessing you heard my question as proof it wasn't feasible. It was just a question.
Sigh, you would do well to not tell other people what they see. I am pretty sure I am seeing what you're seeing... when I look through your subjective interpretation of reality (based off the words of your postings in this thread.) Because you continue to doubt this, I'll do my best to describe it:
The current systems of government that dominate humankind (or at least the modern world) are set up in a way that they corrupt the people who enter into them, much like a runaway horse... through the continuing rewarding of the defilements. These structures are pervasive in scale and monstrous in nature. Through relatively recent developments technology and ideology, including mass communication and so on, moving into an era of less government is a feasible and practical solution to this monster... weaning humankind off the need for government in general when idealistically it wouldn't be necessary at all. Did I miss anything? Is this a decent approximation of your view? Semantics aside of course.
But wouldn't it also be less capable of regulating them?
Why?
You seem agitated to make such a comment about my listening skills.
I feel a bit like I am debating with a flatearther, only one who demonstrably doesn't actually pay much attention to the chat, just to their responces...
I was wondering if there is a macro example of any kind of success outside "theory land"... not saying it is impossible.
Clearly not in terms of government, no. But you can see how community and technology can work together to produce things like Firefox.
Firefox is is the result of anarchistic principles.
Sigh, you would do well to not tell other people what they see.
Please note I am only doing that when you say you see what I see! LOL. See what I mean?:crazy:
I am pretty sure I am seeing what you're seeing...
If you don't believe in holistic/emergent system behaviours, which you explicitly state you don't when you say that its exactly the sum of its human parts, then catageorically we don't see the same thing:)
To your description...
humankind (or at least the modern world) are set up in a way that they corrupt the people who enter into them, much like a runaway horse... through the continuing rewarding of the defilements.
Yes, natch, the system rewards "defilers." But that is not just it, the system itself creates influences that are malign based not on human decisions but on its own inner tensions and workings.
As I keep saying, if we replaced all the bad apples above us with good ones we would still have issues because the system has evolved with money and power as success criterion rather than more wholesome criteria, like liberty and equality.
Through relatively recent developments technology and ideology, including mass communication and so on, moving into an era of less government is a feasible and practical solution to this monster... weaning humankind off the need for government in general when idealistically it wouldn't be necessary at all.
Yep happy with that:)
Did I miss anything?
Just the emergent badness aspect that you for some reason wont accept/see/understand. This is the most important part of this topic, I think.
Umm... with little to no centralized governments, what force would provide checks and balances to the corporate and/or monopolies?
I feel a bit like I am debating with a flatearther, only one who demonstrably doesn't actually pay much attention to the chat, just to their responces...
Which is odd, because I have been directly and periodically validating your position. I wonder if you're suffering from "mirror syndrome" where you are performing the behavior you are attributing to me. I have been reading and sitting with your ideas at every turn.
Please note I am only doing that when you say you see what I see! LOL. See what I mean?:crazy:
I am saying that I think I am seeing your points and arguments, which are based off your vision of your subjective reality. You seem to be telling me I am not because I don't agree with you.
If you don't believe in holistic/emergent system behaviours, which you explicitly state you don't when you say that its exactly the sum of its human parts, then catageorically we don't see the same thing:)
Just because I say I see what you're describing does not mean that I accept your vision of reality as anything other than subjective. I accept that you see a system that operates outside of the minds of people who exist in it.... bigger than the sum of its parts. You're right to say that I don't see things this way. Its not because I don't see, its because I see something different.
I accept forces like groupthink and other psycho-social motivations that can influence the mind to do things it would not normally do, but that is a huge leap to a system existing outside the minds of the social participants.
Just the emergent badness aspect that you for some reason wont accept/see/understand. This is the most important part of this topic, I think.
Ah, then lets sit with this for a moment. The question seems then: can systems hold qualities that are greater than the sum of the minds who engage in the system? You say yes... I say no. Where does my no come from? From anatta and sunyata. Forms do not have qualities to them that exist outside of the observers fixed notions of what they are. If you have spent any time in meditation, then this is a truth that should be available. Objects have no fixed meaning.
Lets say there is a house where many bad things have happened to people inside. People around town all look at the house and remember all of the bad memories. People who are especially attracted to those bad memories enter into the house where they have more bad things happen to them. So how do you approach the house? How do you heal the "bad place"?
In my view, the house has no qualities to it at all. It only has the qualities that the people in the town attribute, or project onto the house. It is not bad on its own. If you destroy the house, the dysfunction will simply arise again in another form, the only way to heal the house is to enter into communion with the minds making the false projections and have them stop.
In the case of delusion and greed present in the systems, they can simply have no form outside the projections people put on them. There is an emptiness that is present in all conceptions... and that emptiness is present in the systems of governance as well. This means that solving the grand delusion of impractical or imperial governing happens in the minds of the citizens who make the system.
What do you think? Have you looked upon the emptiness of reality?
Which is odd, because I have been directly and periodically validating your position.
Apart from that you missrepresnt my ideas to yourself:) But lets try to keep this to the "ideas" rather than personalities as much as possible (I know I'm guilty too!)
Ah, then lets sit with this for a moment. The question seems then: can systems hold qualities that are greater than the sum of the minds who engage in the system? You say yes... I say no.
Right, so we agree that we disagree, we are getting somewhere now!:)
Where does my no come from? From anatta and sunyata. Forms do not have qualities to them that exist outside of the observers fixed notions of what they are.
I assume you mean anataman and sunyata, as they are pretty much the same thing?
Even so, this isn't an issue of observers or the prescription of properties onto systems. I am speaking about the emergence of new properties from subsystems. In this case new properties that are "bad" even if all the humans in the subsystems are "good".
Lets say there is a house where many bad things have happened to people inside. People around town all look at the house and remember all of the bad memories. People who are especially attracted to those bad memories enter into the house where they have more bad things happen to them. So how do you approach the house? How do you heal the "bad place"?
In my view, the house has no qualities to it at all. It only has the qualities that the people in the town attribute, or project onto the house. It is not bad on its own. If you destroy the house, the dysfunction will simply arise again in another form, the only way to heal the house is to enter into communion with the minds making the false projections and have them stop
.
Sure, that works for for the simple static example of an imaginary house.
But the reality of this world's as a system isn't like that. It is an complex system people, principles, economies, resources, laws, institutions and on and on that are all interconnected and all nondelimmited (anataman!). And this system that is huge in scope, space and time produces emergent effects that cannot necessarily be found in any singular part of the system, That is what it is, that is the Monster.
If you really think its just composed of individuals acting in groups them again, I am not sure what to say.
Have you looked upon the emptiness of reality?
Yes, very much so and in many different ways. Though I don't really see the relevance to the problem of ever increasing government etc....
Sure, that works for for the simple static example of an imaginary house.
But the reality of this world's as a system isn't like that. It is an complex system people, principles, economies, resources, laws, institutions and on and on that are all interconnected and all nondelimmited (anataman!). And this system that is huge in scope, space and time produces emergent effects that cannot necessarily be found in any singular part of the system, That is what it is, that is the Monster.
I consider this to be a deluded wrong view. No matter how complex a structure appears, it is nothing more than illusion... and so it is like any other projection... dismantling it happens in the mind, not the environment. When you say that Buddhist principles aren't helpful except in small static imaginary scales, then you lose me. Micro and macro are the same, and based off the same principles of formlessness taught in the lessons of sunyata.
I will go even further to say that those who perceive the system as a monster are less likely to be able to skillfully interact with it as someone who sees it as empty. Skillful means arises only as anatta, annica and dukkha are seen.
I consider this to be a deluded wrong view. No matter how complex a structure appears, it is nothing more than illusion... and so it is like any other projection... dismantling it happens in the mind, not the environment.
Ummmm.. I don't see that at all. I am an realist when it comes to reality.
Systems and structures can be external to the mind, and most are.
If you think this is wrong view( many buddhists do) thats cool by me but I disagree.
When you say that Buddhist principles aren't helpful except in small static imaginary scales, then you lose me.
That isn't what I said, I said your imaginary house example was about a small and static "system" not the global hyper-complex.
For the record, I believe the dharmic truths apply to all systems, small and simple to galactic and complex. But they simply do not exclude other emmergent properties that are consistent with them.
Micro and macro are the same, and based off the same principles of formlessness taught in the lessons of sunyata.
Be careful not to confuse the abstraction with abstracted. Micro and macro are abstractions, they are layers of apprehension applied to systems and structures.
Consider this to illustrate: It is a collection of atoms of carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen... It is a structure of molecules... it is a shape I stare at bigger than my head, it is a human shape.. it is a representation of a man who once lived... it is a focal point for my contemplations on the Buddha.... it is a spiritual object to me.
These are all the same thing, my Buddha statue, but depending on the level of abstraction we choose there are many descriptions, micro and macro and mental and none of them refer to a discrete thing.
I imagine we agree on this, but as I said in my last post, I don't see the relevance to this discussion.
I will go even further to say that those who perceive the system as a monster are less likely to be able to skillfully interact with it as someone who sees it as empty. Skillful means arises only as anatta, annica and dukkha are seen.
Sure sure, but telling me I don't understanding dharma (which maybe I dont) doesn't show me that you understand how emergent properties can arise which are not contained in the systems they arose from.
And until you get this principles, which I consider fundamental to understanding dependent origination and thus dharma as well as fundamental to understating how "Babylon" the monster causes so much suffering in the systems it contains, then, i fear we will never get far.
Still, it is a fun chat and interesting for us both i hope:)
Systems and structures can be external to the mind, and most are.
How? The mind is what projects any kind of meaning onto the form. I don't mean to suggest absolute nothingness exists outside the mind, but there is no attributional quality that is an inherent part of any phenomena. A house or a system of government.
For the record, I believe the dharmic truths apply to all systems, small and simple to galactic and complex. But they simply do not exclude other emmergent properties that are consistent with them.
I continue to hear you saying "Buddhism is traditionally oblivious" with things like this. As though the house can get so big that it begins to have its own static qualities that exist independent of our interaction with it... and somehow Buddhism is ignorant of this? Or just I am ignorant of this?
As a house with no timbers cannot stand, a corrupt government cannot exist without corrupted minds.
Be careful not to confuse the abstraction with abstracted. Micro and macro are abstractions, they are layers of apprehension applied to systems and structures.
Consider this to illustrate: It is a collection of atoms of carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen... It is a structure of molecules... it is a shape I stare at bigger than my head, it is a human shape.. it is a representation of a man who once lived... it is a focal point for my contemplations on the Buddha.... it is a spiritual object to me.
These are all the same thing, my Buddha statue, but depending on the level of abstraction we choose there are many descriptions, micro and macro and mental and none of them refer to a discrete thing.
This statue metaphor then!
Without a mind to call it names, it would never be any of those things at any level. Imagine if you will that it is the nitrogen in the pattern that is causing suffering (lets say nitrogen is greed, at the mental level and the governmental level for the sake of the metaphor)
Its basic elements are consistent no matter the label or the scope of the view... if its a statue of Hitler or Buddha, Communism or Anarchy, it has no inherent difference in qualities. If you smash it into a million pieces, it will still have all the same components... nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen. If nitrogen is the dukkha that created the statue's ill, then only by removing it will it be ousted. If you rebuild the statue in any form (ie, Anarchy state, Communist state, Socialist state, Utopian state, Globalized state) it will continue to reflect the qualities that nitrogen bring to the party.
Smashing the statue in this case would do no good. Destroying the system is no good. If we uproot the tendencies, as in the nitrogen, then the qualities that emerge at the global scale also dissolve.
Sure sure, but telling me I don't understanding dharma (which maybe I dont) doesn't show me that you understand how emergent properties can arise which are not contained in the systems they arose from.
By "get the principle" you seem to mean "agree to it" which I don't. It isn't from a lack of understanding where the view arises, I understand why you might think that a governmental system exists independently, but I continue to see it as a faulty view of reality. How can an "emergent property" have a quality that is not attributed to it? There is "no-self" but there "is-monster"? Internally there are no qualities but externally there are qualities?
Its like saying that gold has some kind of quality that makes people greedy. No matter how deeply rooted the perceptions of things are in our minds, the external does not create the qualities in us. Do you think that the IMF or the WTO could corrupt the Buddha?
You continue to fault me for "not seeing" how this could be, but offer no insight into how this could possibly be. How can you have something like government exist without a mind? How can you have "corrupted system" outside of a mind?
I find the conversation interesting, certainly... both in content and reflection.
How? The mind is what projects any kind of meaning onto the form. I don't mean to suggest absolute nothingness exists outside the mind, but there is no attributional quality that is an inherent part of any phenomena. A house or a system of government.
I agree, all qualities (apart from maybe QM and logical/mathematical qualities??) arise from the interconnectivity of systems.
Those systems, however, are independent of the mind. There was before mind and there be after mind and, in places of the universe where there are no minds, there too.
So I don't know if we agree or disagree on this.
I continue to hear you saying "Buddhism is traditionally oblivious" with things like this.
Don't generalise what I said:) Specifically, Buddhism is oblivious to the modern hypercomplexes (I'll use that term to refer to the current world system). That doesn't mean that DHarma doesn't apply to them, rather that its not clear from traditional Buddhism how it should ( other in the most fundemental senses in which the eightfold path applies to the hyercomplexes?)
As though the house can get so big that it begins to have its own static qualities that exist independent of our interaction with it... and somehow Buddhism is ignorant of this? Or just I am ignorant of this?
The house analogy really doesn't work I'm afraid. It is too simple! In most cases the simple example is the best, except, i guess, when we are dealing with emergent complex systems, like the global hypercomplex.
As a house with no timbers cannot stand, a corrupt government cannot exist without corrupted minds.
Mehhhhh.. I don't know the answer to this. I certainly don't have your confidence in its negation:)
It isn't just corruption that makes the hypercomplex "bad," its other less obnoxious forces like job security, debt, perceived opinion, actual opinion.. and on... and on.... all these forces work in unison and the emergent result is a system that, with or without corruption, increases global suffering.
This is my point throughout the thread, with you and others, people or not the only causes of suffering in the world. the way people are organised and restrcited or encourages etc is also.
I had this realisation a few weeks ago: these conspiracy nuts worry about the hidden rules of the world when, in fact, I am pretty sure the reality is far worse. The world is a self governing organism that has evolved to devour happiness and liberty.
This statue metaphor...Without a mind to call it names, it would never be any of those things at any level.
I half agree, I think you are again confusing abstracted with abstraction... It would still be atoms in arrangement. Imagine in a valley on Uranus that there is an ice-rock shaped like a human head, just by chance. Nobody will ever see it or know its there. But its still there, the water molecules or whatever....
Imagine if you will that it is the nitrogen in the pattern that is causing suffering (lets say nitrogen is greed, at the mental level and the governmental level for the sake of the metaphor)
I tried to see what you mean by this but need more help please!
Its basic elements are consistent no matter the label or the scope of the view... if its a statue of Hitler or Buddha,
hmmm.. I don't know. I guess that it cant be the same structure and either hitler or buddha. One precludes the possibility of the other, with or without minds. Imagine which description involves "a narrow moustache with edges roughly in parallel to the outer edges of the nasal apatures" (If anyone wants any other kind of moustache definitions please PM me, I am really good at them, in fact its probably what I am best at. Note, don't ask for Goatee as I am still working on that.)
Communism or Anarchy, it has no inherent difference in qualities.
That's just not true. For the same point as with hitler/buddha, but it is more clear in this case.
We can see this simply by seeing that both terms have different satisfaction criteria. In one there is government, pretty total government that runs the show, in the other there is no government.
No government, no moustache.
If you smash it into a million pieces, it will still have all the same components... nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen.
Matt, really you think that is what is important? That strikes me as so undharmic! Do you see how that contradicts anataman?
What is important/meaningful is not the components, but how they are structured.
It doesn't matter what the "points" are to be the statue, they can even by pixels, it is how they are arranged that is important; what they are composed of is the kind of metaphysics that none of us can answer.
If nitrogen is the dukkha that created the statue's ill, then only by removing it will it be ousted. If you rebuild the statue in any form (ie, Anarchy state, Communist state, Socialist state, Utopian state, Globalized state) it will continue to reflect the qualities that nitrogen bring to the party.
Right, I kind of see where you are going with this. You are saying that the properties of the systems inherit the properties of their parts.
This isn't true, because of emergence. A classroom of poor artists might produce a masterpiece. Many pixels may produce the experience of a colour not contained in any of the pixels.
In the case of the Dharmic properties you refer to, I agree that all systems must contain them, but not for the reasons you seem think. Dharma is true of all points in reality because that is how reality must be, it couldn't be any other way. It isnt true of all points because of the kind of enforced transitivity you think exists.
Smashing the statue in this case would do no good. Destroying the system is no good. If we uproot the tendencies, as in the nitrogen, then the qualities that emerge at the global scale also dissolve.
Its for these kid of reasons in what you just said that makes me think you don't really think about what I'm saying:)
I believe categorically that the reduction of suffering is not significantly possible, especially on the spiritual level of abstraction, without an understanding of Dharma and a diligent practice of it.
Its like saying that gold has some kind of quality that makes people greedy. No matter how deeply rooted the perceptions of things are in our minds, the external does not create the qualities in us.
No its not like saying that. Golds has its value from within the system for reasons of its availability yada yada... again it seems you slip from a firm belief in anataman?
How can an "emergent property" have a quality that is not attributed to it? There is "no-self" but there "is-monster"? Internally there are no qualities but externally there are qualities?
The monster, the hypercomplex, babylon whatever you want to call it, it is no more real than your ego. You and I and everyone and every law and memory and intention and dollar and yuan are its neurons and synapses and spiking frequencies.
There is no monster, yet still it makes us suffer so......
Do you think that the IMF or the WTO could corrupt the Buddha?
You continue to fault me for "not seeing" how this could be, but offer no insight into how this could possibly be.
Sorry on not explaining well enough so far, I keep trying. Its good to try for one's own understanding too, so i am not getting frustrated here:) I'm not sorry on the faulting you, I think your wrong, you think I'm wrong. Respect to you as we seem to be keeping it pretty cool!:)
The more we chat the more I see....
It is simply naive, and I think irresponsible as Buddhists to think dharma is all we need to make things right. We also need fair governing (of which anarchy is a kind) and good science and medicine and industry and planning. There are billions of us and we get more and more and more.
As a house with no timbers cannot stand, a corrupt government cannot exist without corrupted minds.
It isn't just corruption that makes the hypercomplex "bad," its other less obnoxious forces like job security, debt, perceived opinion, actual opinion.. and on... and on.... all these forces work in unison and the emergent result is a system that, with or without corruption, increases global suffering.
a corrupted mind is a mind deluded by the illusion of the false self.
job security, debt, perceived opinion, stress etc... and corruption is all the same thing and come from the same place, the human mind.
people are not the only causes of suffering in the world. the way people are organised and restrcited or encourages etc is also.
again, forces like job security, debt, perceived opinion, actual opinion.. and on... and on.... come from people mind, the ego.
All suffering come from peoples mind.
if it not these, it would be something else.
What is the most efficient system to deal with 7 billions egos? all craving for more, trying to get more...?
Obviously there should be some change in the current system to prevent the most destructive elements... but anarchy with 7 billions egos would bring far more suffering, if only because of a great increase of poverty, lawlessness etc...
Until we enlighten the world, and then everything will fall into place.
a corrupted mind is a mind deluded by the illusion of the false self... Until we enlighten the world, and then everything will fall into place.
Pat, clearly I disagree with you and you with me. That much was clear a while back. Restating that distinction without adding to the conversation isn't constructive.
I agree, all qualities (apart from maybe QM and logical/mathematical qualities??) arise from the interconnectivity of systems.
I've wondered about objective mathematics as well, and still I see the container of meaning in numbers to be rooted in the mind, not the object... not that it really matters.
Those systems, however, are independent of the mind. There was before mind and there be after mind and, in places of the universe where there are no minds, there too.
So I don't know if we agree or disagree on this.
If there is no perceiving, there is no perceiving. Does the object exist if we don't perceive it? I can't say for sure... but I've never seen one that does. Get it? In actuality, on the path between absorption and nihilism there is a vibration where everything is simply what it is. Its not that we try to deny what is or that there are forms and colors swirling around, we just recognize that it has no inherent fixed meaning or status.
Don't generalise what I said:) Specifically, Buddhism is oblivious to the modern hypercomplexes (I'll use that term to refer to the current world system). That doesn't mean that DHarma doesn't apply to them, rather that its not clear from traditional Buddhism how it should ( other in the most fundemental senses in which the eightfold path applies to the hyercomplexes?)
You confirm my suspicion. What I am saying, that when you listen deeply to the dharma, how to interact with reality in a compassionate and direct way becomes obvious. It is from this sense of compassion and clarity that we produce the true innovations to overcome the challenges we face. Ie, skillful means. Internally, locally and globally.
The house analogy really doesn't work I'm afraid. It is too simple! In most cases the simple example is the best, except, i guess, when we are dealing with emergent complex systems, like the global hypercomplex.
Don't be afraid. I say though that it is directly this simple. Heal the people, not the system. The system is a reflection of the inner conflict from the delusions. Like:
It isn't just corruption that makes the hypercomplex "bad," its other less obnoxious forces like job security, debt, perceived opinion, actual opinion.. and on... and on.... all these forces work in unison and the emergent result is a system that, with or without corruption, increases global suffering.
Yes, I was using the term "delusion" to include these forces... forces that we invest ourselves in that actually work counterpoint to compassion, equanimity and the like.
This is my point throughout the thread, with you and others, people or not the only causes of suffering in the world. the way people are organised and restricted or encourages etc is also.
The pain of an unfit social structure does not cause suffering. Relating to that pain in an unskillful way is what creates it. See the 2nd NT. I feel the next step you're taking, is that "ok, maybe suffering is internal, but people are starving" and I agree. People are starving.
I had this realisation a few weeks ago: these conspiracy nuts worry about the hidden rules of the world when, in fact, I am pretty sure the reality is far worse. The world is a self governing organism that has evolved to devour happiness and liberty.
I half agree, I think you are again confusing abstracted with abstraction... It would still be atoms in arrangement. Imagine in a valley on Uranus that there is an ice-rock shaped like a human head, just by chance. Nobody will ever see it or know its there. But its still there, the water molecules or whatever....
Yes, the tree falls in the woods question. It doesn't resemble a human head until someone relates to it as such, right? Like, water is not water... thats the label we attach to it in order to relate meaning between subjective experiences... right? Subjective formlessness? If everyone that was in government was egoless and compassionate, would there be an issue?
You are speaking of abstracted and abstraction, not me. I say that the components are directly reflected at every level.
I tried to see what you mean by this but need more help please!
Ok. No matter what system is built, it is going to reflect the qualities of the people who build it. The mashing of colors to produce a unique masterpiece does not contain any components that are not a summation of the stains on the canvas. There is no color that isn't directly caused by one of the pigments in the paint, no matter how many artists. No matter how deeply other people like it, the painting itself is never actually a masterpiece. It has no quality like that... it is in the mind of the observer... a projection. Our mind paints the "masterpiece" with the label "masterpiece"... it actually isn't. Its just shapes and colors.
No? Do you feel the painting itself has an actual, measurable emotional quality to it? If it does, then why is art so subjective?
Matt, really you think that is what is important? That strikes me as so undharmic! Do you see how that contradicts anataman?
What is important/meaningful is not the components, but how they are structured.
Well, do you think its the mustache that made Hitler bad? Shave the mustache, save the world? I am saying that no matter what form we press ourselves into, the statue will cannot be without greed until we are free of greed.
For instance, if you see Hitler as a horrible person, you suffer. If you see him as one of our fallen brothers who made some poor decisions based on common delusion and common suffering (in my analogy it was the nitrogen in the statue) then you can act compassionately upon him by helping remove the delusion.
There is no monster, yet still it makes us suffer so......
NO! This seems to be the root that needs to be cut, right here. It is not the monster that makes us suffer. We suffer because we call it a monster, we suffer because we see it as a monster, we suffer because we relate to the no-monster as though it has some quality about it that makes us suffer. We suffer because of us and our relationship with reality. Not. any. "IT".
Sorry on not explaining well enough so far, I keep trying. Its good to try for one's own understanding too, so i am not getting frustrated here:) I'm not sorry on the faulting you, I think your wrong, you think I'm wrong. Respect to you as we seem to be keeping it pretty cool!:)
The more we chat the more I see....
It is simply naive, and I think irresponsible as Buddhists to think dharma is all we need to make things right. We also need fair governing (of which anarchy is a kind) and good science and medicine and industry and planning. There are billions of us and we get more and more and more.
There ain't enough milk rice to go around:(
I'm not worried about the miscommunication that passes back and forth between us, the medium is imperfect.
I'm not sure what milk rice is, but I am sure there are plenty of resources on the planet for all of us to be content. Buddhism is not about being an ostrich and sticking one's head in a sangha and not helping heal the suffering of the world. I find it to be about freeing oneself from the delusions (you labelled some above as "job security, debt, perceived opinion, actual opinion etc.)
Once you are free, or at least still enough inside that you don't act self-centricly in the face of others' delusions, then you are naturally and potently moved to heal your mind, your family, your community, and the world. Much like the body will work to heal a wound, so do our hearts move us to help those around us who resonate with wounds... or dukkha. I don't consider anarchy or democracy to be solutions... rather simple reflections of the colors of the pieces. The dharma isn't the end all... its more like the beginning, where you clear yourself enough to let compassion guide you. If anything, compassion is the end-all.
I do not claim that everyone going into meditation will suddenly heal the world, making the government perfect. I say that as people heal themselves, then help their neighbors and then the community, then the country, then the world (not necessarily that linearly) the systems that we use to govern ourselves will naturally and directly reflect the component compassion. Heal the people, the system is only a reflection.
Pat, clearly I disagree with you and you with me. That much was clear a while back. Restating that distinction without adding to the conversation isn't constructive.
You say tomato, I say tomato.
my post was a shorter version of aMatt explanation.
A simpler resume of that seemingly endless repetition.
In a attempt to make you see this.
This was what i was trying to add to the conversation.
You can put a dress on a pig, lipstick, high heels shoes and it will look more sophisticated but it will still be a pig.
One of the things I am most certain of is that yes, it does exists.
In actuality, on the path between absorption and nihilism there is a vibration where everything is simply what it is.
Please don't use vibration/energy field etc without explaining exactly what that means, as I have no idea.
You confirm my suspicion. What I am saying, that when you listen deeply to the dharma, how to interact with reality in a compassionate and direct way becomes obvious.
I dont know what you mean here ergo I must not be listening deeply enough to dharma...
Heal the people, not the system.
Nice statment, but one I disagree with. Heal them both as both need healing.
The pain of an unfit social structure does not cause suffering. Relating to that pain in an unskillful way is what creates it.
Tell that to an American who just had their home possessed or a Somalian who just lost their family or a.. or a....
My life is Buddhism, but I have very short shrift for this attitude that Buddhism is all it takes....
Yes, the tree falls in the woods question.
And the answer to that is yes, of course it falls. Duh...
It doesn't resemble a human head until someone relates to it as such, right?
I think wrong....
If an object resembles a human head at any point in time it will resemble a human head at all points in time...
Like, water is not water... thats the label we attach to it in order to relate meaning between subjective experiences... right?
I think wrong... there was water before experience... in fact I am sure 99.999% of people who know about these things would say that without water no experiences ever....
If everyone that was in government was egoless and compassionate, would there be an issue?
Yes, absolutely. It aint just the people who need dharma, its the system.... I made this very clear in many posts above...
The mashing of colors to produce a unique masterpiece does not contain any components that are not a summation of the stains on the canvas. There is no color that isn't directly caused by one of the pigments in the paint, no matter how many artists.
Matt... come on... do you understand arrising or do you not understand arrising?
Its just shapes and colors.
No? Do you feel the painting itself has an actual, measurable emotional quality to it? If it does, then why is art so subjective?
Art is subjective... the point wasn't about art, it was an example to illustrate the fact that properties arise....
Well, do you think its the mustache that made Hitler bad?
matt, come on, read what I said... it was an example to illustrate a point... in fact it was your example I was trying to work with. Anything I say of course you can ask questions, its easy to ask questions...
Why do you ask a question that yes or no, is ridiculous....
I don't consider transitivity something that is enforced. Transitivity simply is.
Transitivity simply is only in simple relationships, not in complex ones. If A is left of B and B is left of C then transitivity entails that A is left of C. But that's not what we speak of...
If A loves B and B loves C then A loves C.... is that true? no of course not, why? Because love is not simple...
I'm not worried about the miscommunication that passes back and forth between us, the medium is imperfect.
All is imperfect!:)
I'm not sure what milk rice is, but I am sure there are plenty of resources on the planet for all of us to be content.
Its what the suttas say the Buddha asked for and often ate...
Buddhism is not about being an ostrich and sticking one's head in a sangha and not helping heal the suffering of the world. I find it to be about freeing oneself from the delusions...
We agree on that. My point is there are other issues that effect us.
Much like the body will work to heal a wound, so do our hearts move us to help those around us who resonate with wounds... or dukkha.
Stop telling me what Buddhism is about when we have no issue there:) The issue we have is "can Buddhism solve all global problems"
I think no...
If anything, compassion is the end-all.
Lovely sentiment... try selling it to the world...
Comments
No, Anarchy is exactly the system I am referring to!:)
Anarchy = a system in which all individuals of the world have determination over their lives = a system without government...
namaste
Oh, and another thing: can we stop idealizing the "founding fathers" already? They were a group of wealthy, white slaveowners who said "all men are created equal", and who then, to show this equality, decided that only white, male landowners could vote. All in all the founding fathers were pretty elitist themselves.
They already have. It's called free will & Choice. something a "State" or "System" has when you understand that the system and state both consist of human beings holding the pens.....
Which particular system are you actually referring to...?
Who's "We"...? You? me? those in the system? Those managing the state?
oh, so a small thing like the system or state, cannot be influenced, but the planet can do something about it...
Interesting......
What's to stop me from doing it even with a government in place? Doesn't robbery still occur in places that have governments. People who are going to do drugs are going to do them, regardless of whether it's legal or not, and people who aren't going to do drugs aren't going to do them regardless of whether it's legal or not.
The only reason people think they need government is because they don't trust others. "well, anarchism would be fine for me, since I'm good and won't hurt anyone, it's the other people who go around stealing and hurting".
No human being feels the need to hurt someone else, unless they themselves believe that they are being hurt.
They were subjectively trailblazers though. Would you call Plato and idiot because he didn't understand computers? Also, slavery and the abolition of the practice was a white hot issue from day one, all the way until it vibrated the union apart.
Making it so black and white... then judging the founding fathers as such... is as out of sorts as deifying them.
An open, modern, technology powered, free market government-less system.
No, I mean humanity. All of us, and moreover, in the future.
namaste
We would need security and protection. So we would need to come up with ways to do that. Why not a police force? A police force that exists solely to protect people and solve crimes is a very different beast to one that exists to enforce unfair laws etc
The free market? Local collectives? A paid transport agency? The robot road maintainace army?
Nobody, let the market self-regulate?
Schools and universities, natch.
The market, the community, the gloabal collective?
The community?
the police (see above)?
Yes, but all you are doing is saying to me, with each question,. "Hey bozo, because you don't have the answer to this question the entire notion you are suggesting as better than what we have now much be flawed!! "
I don't have the answers to questions about the inner workings of something that doesn't yet exists. That doesn't mean that the world wouldn't be better without government or with radically less government.
Your questions are pointless relevant to the actual issues, they are like someone asking how internet video would work in 1990. We just don't know, but that doesn't meant it cant be done.
So, rather than these issues, which need to be answered in as part of the process of change because they cant be answered before, you should be asking yourself about the system we have now.
What unfair laws?
You think people just sit there and make them up as they go along?
The USA has a constitution. The UK has no single constitution, but it's said by those in Law that 'we have a constitution...it's just written on different bits of paper.' You think somebody sat in a room, lit by one candle, and chewing on his pencil, just wrote a few bits and pieces down, because he thought they seemed like a good idea at the time...?
Here and now, please, give me an example of an unfair law.
No, what we're saying is that if you view the entire current system as flawed, you need a damn good reason as to why you think it's flawed, and a really good plan to put into practice BEFORE you end it.
You cannot complain about a system, and state it needs changing, yet have nothing in place as a secondary option or back-up plan to keep maintain and support the equilibrium. Criticise, by all means, but have a logical and ready, workable alternative.
If the rope bridge across the chasm is so rickety, that it poses more problems to use it, than solutions on how to traverse the chasm, you need to have a damn good workable plan to put into place, to get across the chasm, before you remove the old bridge.
Not a logical or coherent answer, unfortunately.
Because if you remove one system and replace it with a new one - what guarantees do you have that the replacement system will be better, or will not be open to corruption, exploitation or manipulation?
If your ideas prompt questions, you need to provide answers. Otherwise, they are pointless ideas.
No, they're not, because we now have the benefit of hindsight. Just as we know that certain previously existent ideas would now be utterly unworkable now.
People ask themselves about the system we have now, all the time. Which is why it's not set in stone, and which is why it is evolving and adapting.
You cannot unlearn what you have learnt. You can only build on it.
Your system once existed, and the system was biased, cruel, feudal and totally unfair.
The haves took more and more, and the have-nots got less and less.
the Laws were very unfair then.... and this is basically what you'd be returning to.
UK: Digital Economy Act 2010
USA: Three Strikes Law
As I posted above, nobody has the answers to these individual issues yet. And I am certainly not suggesting a straight replacement. Rather a gradual process of change towards less government that would take place over decades and be self correcting as it goes.
"I, Pencil"
It is to me and many people much smarter than me.
As said, not a sudden replacement, a gradual alteration correcting and progressing as it changes over decades.
And if you really really think this system is fine and just and good and fair, take a look to the rest of the world and see if its such a great thing....
More than already? Oh, Please!
One of the first changes I would want is the total removal of secrecy in government... this would have the most important chnage of system.
What do you think we should do about the world then? Keep it going on with the concentration of weather and power higher and higher up the pyramid?
Ummmm... do you think it is evolving well? Really? Is it increasing peace and truth and happiness rather than war and deception and suffering?
I cannot educate you about the reality above us, you need to do that yousrelf. I suggest you start by keeping away from the mainstream media....
Where did a modern open technological governmentless system exist before please?
namaste
What's "Unfair " about the Digital Economy Act?
What's unfair about this?
if a criminal knows he's on borrowed time, then he'd better keep his nose clean. if he transgresses the law, he's got it coming.....
Simply because you disagree with it, or don't like it, doesn't make it an unfair Law. I'm talking about a Law that is judicially unfair. A law that is patently incorrect and would need judicial review. Not laws that you just don't like...
As to the rest of your post, you're missing my point.
A point I made earlier.
It little matters which systems are removed, outlawed, replaced, modified, changed, deleted, implemented, supported or condemned.
It's people who have to remove, outlaw, replace, modify, change, delete, implement, support or condemn these systems.
These systems all originate from the minds and hearts of individual people.
You said the Dhamma could not be applied to these systems.
Whichever way they go, whichever way they're taken, it's people who are at the conception of them.
You have certain proposals you feel it would be right to implement.
You're a person.
You are at the helm of the conception of your ideas.
The Dhamma can be used by you to implement your ideas, thoughts and notions, skilfully.
So why would this not be applicable to the systems either in existence today, or ones you'd prefer to see replace them?
Yes, I guess I am. It seems we have gone from the root unfairness of the global corpotocracy, and how it concentrates that unfairness, to me having to justify it by quibbling about which laws and principals are unfair....
Lets assume all laws are fair. Fine.
Still my point remains that the system we have now, that rewards and promotes the three defilements on an immense scale, needs to change direction.
I am not sure as a Buddhist why you would think otherwise.
Sure,in part, but the people at the top, not the people. But also you need to understand how a Corporation IS A PERSON in terms of its rights, but not its responsibilities.
I guess you think we live in a real democracy?
Absolutly, and it is. This is what this thread is about.
Unfortunately the system simply does not encourage people to be their own light. It has evolved to profit from their coercion and homogenisation. That's how it works.
namaste
What I asked you was to give an example of a law or laws that are judicially unfair, as opposed to Laws you feel are unfair simply because you don't like them. Remember, it is you, not we, who is declaring that the current system isn't working, and should be changed. We're asking you to provide logical, coherent unprejudiced, specific, unbiased legitimate and non-partisan reasons why the system is wrong. Not based on your likes or dislikes, but based on cogent and logical argument as to what factors need changing, and why.
A dislike of something does not mean it should change.
Ah.... The Three Defilements. Given that these are part of the Dhamma - you must therefore acknowledge that the opposite of these three defilements should be applied "On an immense scale". Which is what I was saying....but one person at a time.
As Mother Teresa once said:
“There are thousands and thousands of poor, but I think of only one at a time,” she said. …you can save only one at a time. We can only love one at a time.” And so it is that water can pierce a stone. One drop at a time....
Ah ok.
Sorry...
Where did I say that?
Where did I say or even imply that I think otherwise?
The person at the top, is still a person.
And a Corporation is made up of people on all levels, but if the top is right, the rest will bleed down, as being Right.
Remember Lee Iacocca - the CEO of Chrysler cars - often worked on the production line, under supervision and command of the managers there. Remember that he maintained a company could function very well without its CEO for three days, but that it could not function for the same amount of time, without the office and lavatory cleaners.....A corporation is only as good as the person at the top. And the person at the top is still just a person.
Why, do you think we don't?
Why do YOU think we don't?
(And again, don't give me your opinions in like-dislike, agree/disagree. Give me clear concise examples of why you think this Democracy isn't a democracy.)
Nope, I think you need to give me examples again, and why the system is flawed. Where do you see the flaw?
And I think you need to define just what "The System" is. You keep banging on about 'the system'. Which system do you mean? the American? The British? The European? The Ugandan? They're all systems, and there are differences between them. Which 'System' is it that you feel specifically, needs changing?
Because until you can be specific about 'the system' your arguments flounder on simple premises of what you like and don't like, which is no basis at all.
Federica... if you would like I can put up a whole list of links, news stories, videos as they come and then you can decide yourself if these are right?
And, as said, it isnt just the laws, its the whole system.
Do you think the bank bailout is fair?
Do you think the exploitation of the developing world is fair?
Do you think the phoney war on drugs, terror are right?
Are you pleased with the way the media is controlled?
And I am saying that no, systematic changes are needed AS WELL. Without those changes then we end up more and more enslaves by the dominating systems....
I guess you think we live in a real democracy?
And you claim the Dalai Lama is dreaming!
You are obviously quite passionate about Anarchy... good for you. I feel it would be just another stage for the same delusional actors and actresses... one with even less accountability.
With warmth,
Matt
You should pay more attention Matt.
Do you think maybe when you read others posts, rather than thinking about what they write, you are thinking about your reply? I used to be like that.
I am very clearly against corporations.
No I don't not have I said such.
I am passionate about the fact changes have to be made to the inhuman systems of the world. I think anyone who is geopolitically aware and informed would be.
If you have a better solution than less Government I would love to hear it.
If you have no solution... well.. its easy to criticise and patronise.
You don't get anarchy then.
right? everyone agree?
So the way to change is through the Dhamma.
Now if people do eventually change themselves, If they would opt for maintaining a government then this government would behave much differently, since we can all imagine the great benefit of a good government (health care, stability ect...) this would make the abolition of the government and anarchy needless.
There. this should be the end of this thread
On a personal level yes, of course. My point is that is not the panacea.
So how will Dharma remove the banking elite, the corportocracy, the military industrial complex?
so if greed dissipate slowly, so would these organizations.
/thread?
No you are begging the question, you are saying "If we were all nice buddhists..."
I agree, you are right..."If..."
The problem is that as soon as the system sniffed out any such possibility it would irradiate it.
So, again, what should Dharma do to fight this oppression?
no offense but I think this is a ridiculous statement.
Reminds me of conspiracy theories
You assume the "system" is something that is not human and the Dhamma doesn't effect it. People so evil that they are not people anymore.
We are all the same.
The "system" is rooted in greed.
Take out the root and the "system" collapse.
Do you have any idea of what the Pre Kennedy presidents thought about such a prospect? Educate yourself.
We are as deluded by state as we are by ego.
I haven't mentioned Evil.
Again, I don't think you have an idea how it works above us (I didn't either, once).
You need to understand how systems act in ways perhaps not found by the people who ostensibly control them.
This isn't a conspiracy theory.
I note you didn't/can't answer my question. This one:
Maybe make all the greedy powerful people nice by sending them "What The Buddha Taught?" in book and "The Art of Happiness" on CD?
I look forwards to your answer.
you assume too much.
hence you won't think about the answers.
i did. You did not pay attention and considered the answer.
Sorry, where is your answer... I can't see it in your posts?
This is what US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers have to say on these issues:
And this some others.....
Its been fun and worrying chatting on this,
namaste
Take out the root and the "system" collapse.
Through the Dharma.
silly silly...
enlighten world. Think of it as spreading like the green movement.
Slowly taking over the world. Changing how we educate our kids and live etc...
Again, as unlikely as you think this is to happen, what alternative exist?
To take out the government would leave us with billions of people suffering from their own Dukkha, violence, instability, chaos etc...
We are all the same, the people ruled by the rulers are as greedy and clinging as the rulers.
The quote is an approximate sentiment from the video of the Dalai Lama I posted in the beginning of the thread. You very directly call it a dream.
I have not been thinking up responses while I read your words, and I have been sitting with your words, attempting to digest them before responding. Your view is interesting to me.
What I am finding is that "Anarchy" sounds like a solution to "Government" in your eyes, while my point is that I feel Anarchy and Government both lead to oppression without other studies involved.
Do you really think that "goodness of peoples hearts" would be more influential in an anarchy? This is where I think you're dreaming. If we do not uproot the delusion and greed that is inside human beings, no matter what system arises there will be similar oppressions.
With warmth,
Matt
(Though maybe not the new RDR game, that looks great!)
You are very wrong. For starters, HHDL has no political power. More importantly and generally, those with political power are not the bulk of domination above us - please refer to the countless quotes of US presidents I posted if you still don't get this.
So please try not to misrepresent me, I have enough trouble trying to represent myself sometimes. You are clearly very confident in you're own words! I recommend you don't extend that confidence to the words of others.
Rather than telling me that you feel anarchy leads to oppression, how's about some reason or evidence supporting your feeling. There haven't been many cases of anarchic communities, and no modern technologically advanced once. Moreover there certainly haven't been any movements towards the kind of Anarchy that modern anarchists have in mind; ever onwards we move to more government not less.
I don't know, as I keep on saying to deaf ears, at the huge scale I'm talking about, it doesn't make that much difference we have nice Buddhists or nasty oligarchs at the "top."
Again you don't get what I'm saying:) I am not at all nor have I ever said that we don't need to worry about the human issues. And I am sure we both agree dharma is the best way for that.
Nonetheless, the monster that has evolved is more than the sum of its parts. It is an emergent hyper-complex that has won the battle of social dominance. It is the fittest system to make profit and focus power; at the expense of individual well-being.
We need much less government, one day, ideally none.
We need much more dharma, one day, ideally all...
In my ideal world it would be 4NT before ABC...
namaste
like i said before:
I am not saying that the Dalai Lama is blessed with power. I am saying that the Dalai Lama regards those in power as blessed, based off what he is saying in the video. It is not *my* sentiment you said is "dreaming", it is his. I bring this up for clarity only, HHDL is not the end all of political insight.
I am saying what I am seeing. I don't feel that confident, I think words just fit together like that for me. I am attempting to penetrate the issue that sits between us... logically, compassionately and wisely. If I come across as certain, well, I have no direct explanation of why that might be.
My "feeling" comes from my observation of people moving across systems with the same mentality. They come to experience the same oppressive energy and simply attribute it to the new system instead of faulty internal processing. In the words of the Moody Blues: "New boss just like the old boss"
Also, what is it in an anarchy that stops the exploitation and monopolistic practices that greedy humans tend to favor? I have never seen a large anarchy work. Only small scale, solidly ideological and compatible views. Do you have an example of a successful anarchy state more than lets say, 5,000 people?
Yes, I see that this is the world you see. I continue to see a system that is exactly of the sum of its parts. If you look for that monster outside of human projection, I'd bet money that you'll never find it.
With warmth,
Matt
albeit it occurred in unison with the spanish civil war
i dont know if that's where it got its fuel
but it is the most well known successful experiment in mass-scale anarchism involving millions of spaniards
or something like that
vewy intawesting
Yes, anarcho-syndicalists in Spain had a fair amount of success before Franco's victory. A somewhat similar situation occurred in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution (for more information, see Peter Arshinov's History of the Makhnovist Movement).
Of course it wont stop these things the point is it isn't structured to reward them. Unlike the systems we have now...
You got to keep on practising that "reading other people" skill.
As said, I am talking about a system of much less government powered by openness and technology. It hasn't existed yet, that doesn't mean it cant.
No you don't. You see a system that is
namaste
But wouldn't it also be less capable of regulating them?
You seem agitated to make such a comment about my listening skills. I was wondering if there is a macro example of any kind of success outside "theory land"... not saying it is impossible. I'm guessing you heard my question as proof it wasn't feasible. It was just a question.
Sigh, you would do well to not tell other people what they see. I am pretty sure I am seeing what you're seeing... when I look through your subjective interpretation of reality (based off the words of your postings in this thread.) Because you continue to doubt this, I'll do my best to describe it:
The current systems of government that dominate humankind (or at least the modern world) are set up in a way that they corrupt the people who enter into them, much like a runaway horse... through the continuing rewarding of the defilements. These structures are pervasive in scale and monstrous in nature. Through relatively recent developments technology and ideology, including mass communication and so on, moving into an era of less government is a feasible and practical solution to this monster... weaning humankind off the need for government in general when idealistically it wouldn't be necessary at all. Did I miss anything? Is this a decent approximation of your view? Semantics aside of course.
With warmth,
Matt
Why?
I feel a bit like I am debating with a flatearther, only one who demonstrably doesn't actually pay much attention to the chat, just to their responces...
Clearly not in terms of government, no. But you can see how community and technology can work together to produce things like Firefox.
Firefox is is the result of anarchistic principles.
Please note I am only doing that when you say you see what I see! LOL. See what I mean?:crazy:
If you don't believe in holistic/emergent system behaviours, which you explicitly state you don't when you say that its exactly the sum of its human parts, then catageorically we don't see the same thing:)
To your description...
Yes, natch, the system rewards "defilers." But that is not just it, the system itself creates influences that are malign based not on human decisions but on its own inner tensions and workings.
As I keep saying, if we replaced all the bad apples above us with good ones we would still have issues because the system has evolved with money and power as success criterion rather than more wholesome criteria, like liberty and equality.
Yep happy with that:)
Just the emergent badness aspect that you for some reason wont accept/see/understand. This is the most important part of this topic, I think.
namaste
Umm... with little to no centralized governments, what force would provide checks and balances to the corporate and/or monopolies?
Which is odd, because I have been directly and periodically validating your position. I wonder if you're suffering from "mirror syndrome" where you are performing the behavior you are attributing to me. I have been reading and sitting with your ideas at every turn.
I am saying that I think I am seeing your points and arguments, which are based off your vision of your subjective reality. You seem to be telling me I am not because I don't agree with you.
Just because I say I see what you're describing does not mean that I accept your vision of reality as anything other than subjective. I accept that you see a system that operates outside of the minds of people who exist in it.... bigger than the sum of its parts. You're right to say that I don't see things this way. Its not because I don't see, its because I see something different.
I accept forces like groupthink and other psycho-social motivations that can influence the mind to do things it would not normally do, but that is a huge leap to a system existing outside the minds of the social participants.
Ah, then lets sit with this for a moment. The question seems then: can systems hold qualities that are greater than the sum of the minds who engage in the system? You say yes... I say no. Where does my no come from? From anatta and sunyata. Forms do not have qualities to them that exist outside of the observers fixed notions of what they are. If you have spent any time in meditation, then this is a truth that should be available. Objects have no fixed meaning.
Lets say there is a house where many bad things have happened to people inside. People around town all look at the house and remember all of the bad memories. People who are especially attracted to those bad memories enter into the house where they have more bad things happen to them. So how do you approach the house? How do you heal the "bad place"?
In my view, the house has no qualities to it at all. It only has the qualities that the people in the town attribute, or project onto the house. It is not bad on its own. If you destroy the house, the dysfunction will simply arise again in another form, the only way to heal the house is to enter into communion with the minds making the false projections and have them stop.
In the case of delusion and greed present in the systems, they can simply have no form outside the projections people put on them. There is an emptiness that is present in all conceptions... and that emptiness is present in the systems of governance as well. This means that solving the grand delusion of impractical or imperial governing happens in the minds of the citizens who make the system.
What do you think? Have you looked upon the emptiness of reality?
With warmth,
Matt
Apart from that you missrepresnt my ideas to yourself:) But lets try to keep this to the "ideas" rather than personalities as much as possible (I know I'm guilty too!)
Right, so we agree that we disagree, we are getting somewhere now!:)
I assume you mean anataman and sunyata, as they are pretty much the same thing?
Even so, this isn't an issue of observers or the prescription of properties onto systems. I am speaking about the emergence of new properties from subsystems. In this case new properties that are "bad" even if all the humans in the subsystems are "good".
.
Sure, that works for for the simple static example of an imaginary house.
But the reality of this world's as a system isn't like that. It is an complex system people, principles, economies, resources, laws, institutions and on and on that are all interconnected and all nondelimmited (anataman!). And this system that is huge in scope, space and time produces emergent effects that cannot necessarily be found in any singular part of the system, That is what it is, that is the Monster.
If you really think its just composed of individuals acting in groups them again, I am not sure what to say.
Yes, very much so and in many different ways. Though I don't really see the relevance to the problem of ever increasing government etc....
namaste
And how do you arrive at this conclusion?
I consider this to be a deluded wrong view. No matter how complex a structure appears, it is nothing more than illusion... and so it is like any other projection... dismantling it happens in the mind, not the environment. When you say that Buddhist principles aren't helpful except in small static imaginary scales, then you lose me. Micro and macro are the same, and based off the same principles of formlessness taught in the lessons of sunyata.
I will go even further to say that those who perceive the system as a monster are less likely to be able to skillfully interact with it as someone who sees it as empty. Skillful means arises only as anatta, annica and dukkha are seen.
With warmth,
Matt
PM me if you want to chat about how we chat:)
Ummmm.. I don't see that at all. I am an realist when it comes to reality.
Systems and structures can be external to the mind, and most are.
If you think this is wrong view( many buddhists do) thats cool by me but I disagree.
That isn't what I said, I said your imaginary house example was about a small and static "system" not the global hyper-complex.
For the record, I believe the dharmic truths apply to all systems, small and simple to galactic and complex. But they simply do not exclude other emmergent properties that are consistent with them.
Be careful not to confuse the abstraction with abstracted. Micro and macro are abstractions, they are layers of apprehension applied to systems and structures.
Consider this to illustrate: It is a collection of atoms of carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen... It is a structure of molecules... it is a shape I stare at bigger than my head, it is a human shape.. it is a representation of a man who once lived... it is a focal point for my contemplations on the Buddha.... it is a spiritual object to me.
These are all the same thing, my Buddha statue, but depending on the level of abstraction we choose there are many descriptions, micro and macro and mental and none of them refer to a discrete thing.
I imagine we agree on this, but as I said in my last post, I don't see the relevance to this discussion.
Sure sure, but telling me I don't understanding dharma (which maybe I dont) doesn't show me that you understand how emergent properties can arise which are not contained in the systems they arose from.
And until you get this principles, which I consider fundamental to understanding dependent origination and thus dharma as well as fundamental to understating how "Babylon" the monster causes so much suffering in the systems it contains, then, i fear we will never get far.
Still, it is a fun chat and interesting for us both i hope:)
namaste
How? The mind is what projects any kind of meaning onto the form. I don't mean to suggest absolute nothingness exists outside the mind, but there is no attributional quality that is an inherent part of any phenomena. A house or a system of government.
I continue to hear you saying "Buddhism is traditionally oblivious" with things like this. As though the house can get so big that it begins to have its own static qualities that exist independent of our interaction with it... and somehow Buddhism is ignorant of this? Or just I am ignorant of this?
As a house with no timbers cannot stand, a corrupt government cannot exist without corrupted minds.
This statue metaphor then!
Without a mind to call it names, it would never be any of those things at any level. Imagine if you will that it is the nitrogen in the pattern that is causing suffering (lets say nitrogen is greed, at the mental level and the governmental level for the sake of the metaphor)
Its basic elements are consistent no matter the label or the scope of the view... if its a statue of Hitler or Buddha, Communism or Anarchy, it has no inherent difference in qualities. If you smash it into a million pieces, it will still have all the same components... nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen. If nitrogen is the dukkha that created the statue's ill, then only by removing it will it be ousted. If you rebuild the statue in any form (ie, Anarchy state, Communist state, Socialist state, Utopian state, Globalized state) it will continue to reflect the qualities that nitrogen bring to the party.
Smashing the statue in this case would do no good. Destroying the system is no good. If we uproot the tendencies, as in the nitrogen, then the qualities that emerge at the global scale also dissolve.
By "get the principle" you seem to mean "agree to it" which I don't. It isn't from a lack of understanding where the view arises, I understand why you might think that a governmental system exists independently, but I continue to see it as a faulty view of reality. How can an "emergent property" have a quality that is not attributed to it? There is "no-self" but there "is-monster"? Internally there are no qualities but externally there are qualities?
Its like saying that gold has some kind of quality that makes people greedy. No matter how deeply rooted the perceptions of things are in our minds, the external does not create the qualities in us. Do you think that the IMF or the WTO could corrupt the Buddha?
You continue to fault me for "not seeing" how this could be, but offer no insight into how this could possibly be. How can you have something like government exist without a mind? How can you have "corrupted system" outside of a mind?
I find the conversation interesting, certainly... both in content and reflection.
With warmth,
Matt
I agree, all qualities (apart from maybe QM and logical/mathematical qualities??) arise from the interconnectivity of systems.
Those systems, however, are independent of the mind. There was before mind and there be after mind and, in places of the universe where there are no minds, there too.
So I don't know if we agree or disagree on this.
Don't generalise what I said:) Specifically, Buddhism is oblivious to the modern hypercomplexes (I'll use that term to refer to the current world system). That doesn't mean that DHarma doesn't apply to them, rather that its not clear from traditional Buddhism how it should ( other in the most fundemental senses in which the eightfold path applies to the hyercomplexes?)
The house analogy really doesn't work I'm afraid. It is too simple! In most cases the simple example is the best, except, i guess, when we are dealing with emergent complex systems, like the global hypercomplex.
Mehhhhh.. I don't know the answer to this. I certainly don't have your confidence in its negation:)
It isn't just corruption that makes the hypercomplex "bad," its other less obnoxious forces like job security, debt, perceived opinion, actual opinion.. and on... and on.... all these forces work in unison and the emergent result is a system that, with or without corruption, increases global suffering.
This is my point throughout the thread, with you and others, people or not the only causes of suffering in the world. the way people are organised and restrcited or encourages etc is also.
I had this realisation a few weeks ago: these conspiracy nuts worry about the hidden rules of the world when, in fact, I am pretty sure the reality is far worse. The world is a self governing organism that has evolved to devour happiness and liberty.
I half agree, I think you are again confusing abstracted with abstraction... It would still be atoms in arrangement. Imagine in a valley on Uranus that there is an ice-rock shaped like a human head, just by chance. Nobody will ever see it or know its there. But its still there, the water molecules or whatever....
I tried to see what you mean by this but need more help please!
hmmm.. I don't know. I guess that it cant be the same structure and either hitler or buddha. One precludes the possibility of the other, with or without minds. Imagine which description involves "a narrow moustache with edges roughly in parallel to the outer edges of the nasal apatures" (If anyone wants any other kind of moustache definitions please PM me, I am really good at them, in fact its probably what I am best at. Note, don't ask for Goatee as I am still working on that.)
That's just not true. For the same point as with hitler/buddha, but it is more clear in this case.
We can see this simply by seeing that both terms have different satisfaction criteria. In one there is government, pretty total government that runs the show, in the other there is no government.
No government, no moustache.
Matt, really you think that is what is important? That strikes me as so undharmic! Do you see how that contradicts anataman?
What is important/meaningful is not the components, but how they are structured.
It doesn't matter what the "points" are to be the statue, they can even by pixels, it is how they are arranged that is important; what they are composed of is the kind of metaphysics that none of us can answer.
Right, I kind of see where you are going with this. You are saying that the properties of the systems inherit the properties of their parts.
This isn't true, because of emergence. A classroom of poor artists might produce a masterpiece. Many pixels may produce the experience of a colour not contained in any of the pixels.
In the case of the Dharmic properties you refer to, I agree that all systems must contain them, but not for the reasons you seem think. Dharma is true of all points in reality because that is how reality must be, it couldn't be any other way. It isnt true of all points because of the kind of enforced transitivity you think exists.
Its for these kid of reasons in what you just said that makes me think you don't really think about what I'm saying:)
I believe categorically that the reduction of suffering is not significantly possible, especially on the spiritual level of abstraction, without an understanding of Dharma and a diligent practice of it.
No its not like saying that. Golds has its value from within the system for reasons of its availability yada yada... again it seems you slip from a firm belief in anataman?
The monster, the hypercomplex, babylon whatever you want to call it, it is no more real than your ego. You and I and everyone and every law and memory and intention and dollar and yuan are its neurons and synapses and spiking frequencies.
There is no monster, yet still it makes us suffer so......
Do you think that the IMF or the WTO could corrupt the Buddha?
Sorry on not explaining well enough so far, I keep trying. Its good to try for one's own understanding too, so i am not getting frustrated here:) I'm not sorry on the faulting you, I think your wrong, you think I'm wrong. Respect to you as we seem to be keeping it pretty cool!:)
The more we chat the more I see....
It is simply naive, and I think irresponsible as Buddhists to think dharma is all we need to make things right. We also need fair governing (of which anarchy is a kind) and good science and medicine and industry and planning. There are billions of us and we get more and more and more.
There ain't enough milk rice to go around:(
job security, debt, perceived opinion, stress etc... and corruption is all the same thing and come from the same place, the human mind.
again, forces like job security, debt, perceived opinion, actual opinion.. and on... and on.... come from people mind, the ego.
All suffering come from peoples mind.
if it not these, it would be something else.
What is the most efficient system to deal with 7 billions egos? all craving for more, trying to get more...?
Obviously there should be some change in the current system to prevent the most destructive elements... but anarchy with 7 billions egos would bring far more suffering, if only because of a great increase of poverty, lawlessness etc...
Until we enlighten the world, and then everything will fall into place.
Pat, clearly I disagree with you and you with me. That much was clear a while back. Restating that distinction without adding to the conversation isn't constructive.
You say tomato, I say tomato.
I've wondered about objective mathematics as well, and still I see the container of meaning in numbers to be rooted in the mind, not the object... not that it really matters.
If there is no perceiving, there is no perceiving. Does the object exist if we don't perceive it? I can't say for sure... but I've never seen one that does.
You confirm my suspicion. What I am saying, that when you listen deeply to the dharma, how to interact with reality in a compassionate and direct way becomes obvious. It is from this sense of compassion and clarity that we produce the true innovations to overcome the challenges we face. Ie, skillful means. Internally, locally and globally.
Don't be afraid. I say though that it is directly this simple. Heal the people, not the system. The system is a reflection of the inner conflict from the delusions. Like:
Yes, I was using the term "delusion" to include these forces... forces that we invest ourselves in that actually work counterpoint to compassion, equanimity and the like.
The pain of an unfit social structure does not cause suffering. Relating to that pain in an unskillful way is what creates it. See the 2nd NT. I feel the next step you're taking, is that "ok, maybe suffering is internal, but people are starving" and I agree. People are starving.
Yes, the tree falls in the woods question. It doesn't resemble a human head until someone relates to it as such, right? Like, water is not water... thats the label we attach to it in order to relate meaning between subjective experiences... right? Subjective formlessness? If everyone that was in government was egoless and compassionate, would there be an issue?
You are speaking of abstracted and abstraction, not me. I say that the components are directly reflected at every level.
Ok. No matter what system is built, it is going to reflect the qualities of the people who build it. The mashing of colors to produce a unique masterpiece does not contain any components that are not a summation of the stains on the canvas. There is no color that isn't directly caused by one of the pigments in the paint, no matter how many artists. No matter how deeply other people like it, the painting itself is never actually a masterpiece. It has no quality like that... it is in the mind of the observer... a projection. Our mind paints the "masterpiece" with the label "masterpiece"... it actually isn't. Its just shapes and colors.
No? Do you feel the painting itself has an actual, measurable emotional quality to it? If it does, then why is art so subjective?
Well, do you think its the mustache that made Hitler bad? Shave the mustache, save the world?
For instance, if you see Hitler as a horrible person, you suffer. If you see him as one of our fallen brothers who made some poor decisions based on common delusion and common suffering (in my analogy it was the nitrogen in the statue) then you can act compassionately upon him by helping remove the delusion.
I don't consider transitivity something that is enforced. Transitivity simply is.
NO! This seems to be the root that needs to be cut, right here. It is not the monster that makes us suffer. We suffer because we call it a monster, we suffer because we see it as a monster, we suffer because we relate to the no-monster as though it has some quality about it that makes us suffer. We suffer because of us and our relationship with reality. Not. any. "IT".
I'm not worried about the miscommunication that passes back and forth between us, the medium is imperfect.
I'm not sure what milk rice is, but I am sure there are plenty of resources on the planet for all of us to be content. Buddhism is not about being an ostrich and sticking one's head in a sangha and not helping heal the suffering of the world. I find it to be about freeing oneself from the delusions (you labelled some above as "job security, debt, perceived opinion, actual opinion etc.)
Once you are free, or at least still enough inside that you don't act self-centricly in the face of others' delusions, then you are naturally and potently moved to heal your mind, your family, your community, and the world. Much like the body will work to heal a wound, so do our hearts move us to help those around us who resonate with wounds... or dukkha. I don't consider anarchy or democracy to be solutions... rather simple reflections of the colors of the pieces. The dharma isn't the end all... its more like the beginning, where you clear yourself enough to let compassion guide you. If anything, compassion is the end-all.
I do not claim that everyone going into meditation will suddenly heal the world, making the government perfect. I say that as people heal themselves, then help their neighbors and then the community, then the country, then the world (not necessarily that linearly) the systems that we use to govern ourselves will naturally and directly reflect the component compassion. Heal the people, the system is only a reflection.
With warmth,
Matt
A simpler resume of that seemingly endless repetition.
In a attempt to make you see this.
This was what i was trying to add to the conversation.
You can put a dress on a pig, lipstick, high heels shoes and it will look more sophisticated but it will still be a pig.
One of the things I am most certain of is that yes, it does exists.
Please don't use vibration/energy field etc without explaining exactly what that means, as I have no idea.
I dont know what you mean here ergo I must not be listening deeply enough to dharma...
Nice statment, but one I disagree with. Heal them both as both need healing.
Tell that to an American who just had their home possessed or a Somalian who just lost their family or a.. or a....
My life is Buddhism, but I have very short shrift for this attitude that Buddhism is all it takes....
And the answer to that is yes, of course it falls. Duh...
I think wrong....
If an object resembles a human head at any point in time it will resemble a human head at all points in time...
I think wrong... there was water before experience... in fact I am sure 99.999% of people who know about these things would say that without water no experiences ever....
Yes, absolutely. It aint just the people who need dharma, its the system.... I made this very clear in many posts above...
Matt... come on... do you understand arrising or do you not understand arrising?
Art is subjective... the point wasn't about art, it was an example to illustrate the fact that properties arise....
matt, come on, read what I said... it was an example to illustrate a point... in fact it was your example I was trying to work with. Anything I say of course you can ask questions, its easy to ask questions...
Why do you ask a question that yes or no, is ridiculous....
Transitivity simply is only in simple relationships, not in complex ones. If A is left of B and B is left of C then transitivity entails that A is left of C. But that's not what we speak of...
If A loves B and B loves C then A loves C.... is that true? no of course not, why? Because love is not simple...
All is imperfect!:)
Its what the suttas say the Buddha asked for and often ate...
We agree on that. My point is there are other issues that effect us.
Stop telling me what Buddhism is about when we have no issue there:) The issue we have is "can Buddhism solve all global problems"
I think no...
Lovely sentiment... try selling it to the world...
The world's problems are not all spiritual.
namaste
Good luck,
Matt