|MMMark's Whycandoo Room: What Do We Really Need?|
19 comments3 Mar 2002 @ 14:01 by maxtobin : Hey Mark!
Mark, maybe this link is of interest to you I found it inspiring, and thought stimulating http://www.prout.org/index.html. I do think that I am understanding your frustration/ desires for this 'evolving story' we find our selves playing in. Blessings from Aotearoa.
7 Mar 2002 @ 11:35 by invictus : Thinking...
I've been churning this one over and over in my head and I still don't know exactly what I think about it. You make a good argument. I guess it's the universal philosophy thing; I just can't buy it. People have spent hundreds of years trying to come to some consensus about how to understand life on Earth/in the cosmos, and the results have been war and all the disasters we see today. Perhaps the thing to do is to mesh all the different understandings so that they will have an outcome conducive to the survival of the human race. In a way, a world with a universal philosophy would be a bit boring, would it not? And the term universal is soooo strong anyway... I need to think some more about this. But, like I said, Mark, you make a good argument.
7 Mar 2002 @ 23:09 by shawa : You´re OK
Mark, we need YOU. Not a philosophy.
7 Mar 2002 @ 23:27 by kay : Well I am an idealist
and that puts me way out in left field all by myself to catch that occasional flyball.(That's according to that test that we took when we joined NCN) What I am hearing is the need for some universal basics that the majority of people can agree to. Something to work off of and jump start us in a better direction. All but the most selfish agree that everyone should have food, good water, shelter, education of some kind. We get there by demonstating to our own communities ethics and integrity in our relationships and earth steward activities. We can demonstate what works in small ways. Like working a jigsaw puzzle one piece at a time.
8 Mar 2002 @ 00:44 by mmmark : Andy, Shakti & Kay
Thanks for your comments. I'm glad to see that some of us are responding.
Andy - I think Kay has a good reply in general. I have not been talking about Universal things we must adhere to that encompass every aspect of life, that would be boring an impractical. I am only talking about prime directives of Love that enable all life and diversity to coexist sustainably. These four subjects cover the minimum and basic areas of concern, Ethics, Education, Economy/Environment, and Self Government, they are joined, they are holistic and synergistic. The current state of these institutions is a shambles and erroneously conceived to produce the results we claim to want. There are several simpler ways of describing the social dilemma, but my favorite is the observation that any time and any where there is human conflict (lets not include growing children because they are still by trial & error) the root cause is irresponsible behavior. If we would become responsible, then humanitys trouble with its members would cease. As long as people get up in the morning to make money, were screwed. We must have a higher goal than that.
Shakti - I have asked some very good questions relative to this problem, but I usually get back criticism, or opinions that have nothing to do with adding to my conjectures. Several people on NCN have argued these points, but please tell me how we will evolve indefinitely or gracefully while fighting over selfish objectives, as it is predominantly now? How life is possible based on selfish objectives, or hatred for human variety? The wisdom of the ages, of recorded history, all says the same thing: Success is found in Lovesense! That philosophy must be adopted if we will live in harmony for any significant time longer, so I beg you to reconsider your comment, even though it feels nice to be wanted by you.
Kay Thanks for bringing it down to Earth and writing about providing the basic necessities to life, which we have never done in the United States, much less the whole world. The first meaning of life is to survive, but to do that we need that "cool clear water," food, shelter, jobs and energy for 6 billion. Thats all we have time and resources to do. The old ways are dead. The new ways must replace them.
8 Mar 2002 @ 01:36 by jazzolog : Is Philosophy Dead?
We do need a philosophy. Mark reminds us there are 6 billion of us on this beautiful orb out here among the stars. That figure has doubled since I was a boy. I may be pushing 62, but that's still not a long time for couples to have accomplished such production when compared to how long there has been a human history. Can anything less than a world philosophy of how we can live here peacefully save us from extinction?
8 Mar 2002 @ 02:03 by invictus : I agree...
Kay and Mark, I think what the both of you say clarifies it. The word universal set off an alarm in my mind, because it carries with it a kind of unconditional meaning. But the way you put it in the comments, I can agree with. Speaking of assumptions most people will agree with, one is probably that humanity should survive in the long run. That is a starting point that we should almost always have. From there, it's very difficult. I agree, Mark, that this whole earn-money-until-you-drop ethic has to go. I just think that, if we are to arrive at any kind of solution to this problem, it will be by many people coming from many different angles and perspectives towards a few common facts. I think that a world philosophy is impossible to reach any time in the foreseeable future. Philosophy involves much more than a few basic assumptions, in my view. However, I think we can all agree on a few things, if we're lucky and "responsible", as you say. In this, I think we agree, now that I understand what you said correctly. As to the cause of human conflict, I think youre comment hits the mark fairly well. That has been a subject of much discussion, recently. I hope my comment here is relevant. Have a good day, and thanks for the response.
8 Mar 2002 @ 02:29 by jstarrs : What
..do you intend for the people who have hatred in their hearts, have selfish objectives or who simply believe that the accumulation of money leads to happiness?
8 Mar 2002 @ 02:39 by invictus : A very good/difficult question
Jstarrs, that is one of our biggest challenges. I think that their belief that money leads to happiness is false. One some level they already know that, seeing as half of them are on Prozac. We just need to bring that fact into the light. The way to do that is to show them that there really is a better, more fulfilling way to exist. I don't have all the answers. I know that. But this is what I think about that particular problem. If we truly can find a truly better way, people will realize and appreciate that on some level. If some don't, that is a problem. And I'm not sure how to deal with it. I'm sure some will resist, too. What do you all think?
8 Mar 2002 @ 04:49 by shawa : It is not realistic...
It is not realistic to want to impose a philosophy on people, however nice it may be. That´s why most of us want a new civilization in the first place, to be able to explore the meaning of our lives on our own! What will you do with the millions of people that don´t even have the space to think about philosophical questions ? If we are looking for a common denominator, it better be general! Otherwise, you create divisions again. I understand where you are at, at least I think I do. Maybe listening to other people, deeply, will help you solve the Common Denominator Factor : what is it IN ALL OF US (including the hungry millions) that make us HUMAN? And work from there, "here and now". Success is guaranteed, because in their soul, people KNOW what that common denominator is. Though they have long forgotten it, possibly. And it might even be called L-O-V-E. It´s the real thing that people need, (crave, in fact, for its scarcity) not the map of the territory. How can we become "Universal Humans" - responding from the heart to real life situations, always.
8 Mar 2002 @ 05:09 by jstarrs : When...
..we, ourselves, each one, become true examples of the higher qualities that this crazy little species is capable of developing, daily applying wisdom & compassion with body, speech & mind, actually living a new civilisation, this new civilisation (because there is no jump from one to another, they are interdependant and by living the new civilisation today, now, we create it in each moment)then the veils of ignorance will fall, instantaneously or over aeons, but they will fall. We already have a new civilsation, it's here. Just live it.(my 2 cents worth)
8 Mar 2002 @ 05:19 by jazzolog : Quite Imposing
Imposing philosophies on people is very realistic, Shakti. In fact, it is done all the time. As a psychologist, specializing in group therapies, you should know that better than anyone---not that you would do such a thing. It even was realistic when, a number of years ago, Chinese authorities demanded a tax be presented to local authorities of a certain number of deceased flies by each person each day until an infestation had been brought under control. One would hope and pray such a method of controlling plague and sickness would not be necessary within a civilization; but if the rulers have the muscle to impose it, it is "realistic" to do so. Ethical? That's another question. Is it ethical to impose upon a population a philosophy of "axis of evil" in the world that must be rubbed out, when in fact those men seek to control the last reserves of oil on the planet?
8 Mar 2002 @ 05:29 by jstarrs : In prasanghika buddhist...
...philosophical debate (we're there aren't we?) the idea is to trigger the appropriate realization in the mind of the opponent by pointing out the faults in his own argument.
In that way the opponent, himself, integrates the new concept.
I think that's better than the idea of imposing a philosophy - as jazzalog rightly points out:look around and see what happens on both sides when a philosophy is imposed. Besides, does your doctor give only one medicine for all the ills you have?
8 Mar 2002 @ 07:54 by invictus : Realistic, but...
I think the issue is not whether imposing philosophies is realistic. It is whether it is successful and effective in accomplishing long term, "worthy" goals. That sort of goes along with the ethical question. I agree with jstarrs. I'm definitely with Shakti on finding the deep, simple common denominator. If you try to get people to agree on anything robust enough to be called a philosophy, they will argue to absolutely no end.
8 Mar 2002 @ 08:04 by jazzolog : A Spark of Philosophy
They may argue without end, but there is an end in view to philosophical discussion---and that end is the wonderful sharpening of wits that will ensue. But more than that it is worthwhile, and here's why:
Today's Inspiration for Friday, March 8, 2002
" The purpose of understanding the spiritual DNA of the universe is that to the extent to which we understand it more fully we are more fully empowered living on this earth. The universe is coded with certain patterns of energy, and they do not appear in physical form. Basing our perception of reality and our own sense of identity merely on the physical senses, we look at the drama of the world and we attach ourselves to it. We believe in it more than we should. The truth of the matter is that behind all manifestation lies energy. Everything that occurs in the world is sourced on an energetic level; and to the extent to which we understand what those patterns of energy are, we then enter into the situations of the world able to transform events, able to access powers of vitality and correction that we would not otherwise carry. So in understanding metaphysics we have more power in the physical world. "
from her lecture of 2/3/02 - ASK THE HOLY SPIRIT TO COME OVER YOU
8 Mar 2002 @ 09:08 by invictus : Interesting...
A beautiful quote Richard. But I hope there's never an end to philosophical discussion. It's a never ending process of sharpening our wits and understanding how that "energy" works in the world, and in us. That doesn't mean we can't get anything else done while engaged in philosophical discussion. It just means that as long as there is room for humans' understanding of the universe to improve or grow, there will be room for philosophical discussion.
8 Mar 2002 @ 11:51 by jazzolog : The End
The study of "last things" or the end to which all is directed is called eschatology in philosophy. There is another approach called ontology which asserts that beings and events derive from an essence or beginning. I'd recommend a most wonderful essay---book really---on this by a philosopher named Nikolai Berdyaev, called The Beginning and the End. You might find it in your university library, Andy. The knowledge therein has served me well, I believe, for many years.
8 Mar 2002 @ 13:25 by shawa : Definitely...
...I´m with the Buddhists here! And particularly, the Zen Buddhists. I had an old frumpy grouchy frog of a master, and when we had all these arguments after sessions, in the café next door, and we would ask him : Sensei, what do you think of such an such ? He would look at us sort of lost, and say... "Huh?" End of lesson. Either you "got" it and started laughing, or you went home very angry and very frustrated. Now, my dears... What is the sound of one-hand clapping ? :-))
8 Mar 2002 @ 20:28 by simpleman : SHORT AND SWEET
Wow, that was alot of reading. This is an area where anything I say is my own opinion. Some of it will probably make no sense, but I'll say it anyway.
I know very little about philosiphy, but it seems that there are many things that drive a philosophical thought. Living conditions, religion, type of government, things of that nature. It also appears that givin the above circumstances many philisophical thoughts sound the same, one being more creative than another, but basically saying the same thing. Of course, thier are exceptions. I also don't think there will ever be just one philosophy. We learn from all the different types of philosophy, and probably always will.
As far as money and economics, again my own view. Would it not be possible to beat the rich and/or greedy at thier own game. What I mean is somehow bring the value of money down or closer to a center point. Also, not to take away the efforts of charities or relief agencies, but they seem to operate for themselves first, then the people benefitting from thier efforts. If the right people were handling the money side of charities, with all the money available, could they not finance themselves with interest from banks. It would be nice to see all or most of the money and supplies go to the people who need it and not to the charities and administration of conducting them.
Just a couple of thoughts
Other entries in Projects
3 Oct 2008 @ 02:43: What 4
31 May 2004 @ 00:13: Memorial For America
24 Dec 2003 @ 18:22: Seasons Greetings
2 Dec 2003 @ 15:12: Shared Purpose
8 Jun 2003 @ 00:27: Namasté = Respect
22 Jan 2003 @ 20:59: Doers & Democracy
10 Jan 2003 @ 14:47: NEW STYLE THINKING
22 Dec 2002 @ 13:22: Wonderful Winter Holidays To You
4 Jun 2002 @ 02:13: Relationships
16 May 2002 @ 04:02: Thanks For Telling Me