|MMMark's Whycandoo Room: Another Invitation|
8 comments13 Mar 2002 @ 21:55 by ashanti : Dear Mark : feedback.
I think I am starting to understand you better than I did in the past. This usually happens as we communicate more - starting from a point of a few misfires, but persistence in communication usually results in increased understanding.
Previously: Honest take: I perceived you as trying to do a sort of hostile "take-over" of Mings' ncn. I felt that it is his creation, and so he does get to have a major say in things. I had knee-jerk reactions to your style, which I experienced as imposing, and doctrinaire. That's the honest answer.
Now: But over the past few days, I am finding I am hearing what you are actually saying, better, and also your change in writing style has helped tremendously in facilitating (for me, anyway), better understanding of what you are saying. I am finding common ground in the need to act, work, and just plain DO - and I find we have a common perception of the current state of affairs, and a common yearning for humanity to become a loving, balanced one.
Universal Philosophy: I still have to be won on this one. My concern with a Universal Philosophy, no matter how benevolent, is that attempting to apply it universally leads to totalitarianism. Marxism in theory was an excellent idea, but imposed universally (in that time, imposition on an entire sovereign state was "universal" to that nation-state: before global consciousness really manifested) - was a disaster. Unless there is genuine universal agreement and acceptance, the only way to get a universal philosophy adopted is by some form of coercion.
My preference: I am more willing to look at a Global Civil Ethic - which is more of a form of social contract, as the foundation which will allow agreement on basic ethics, while allowing the freedom to adopt a philosophical/spiritual/conceptual framework of personal choice. (so long as this framework does not violate any portion of the global civil ethic/social contract).
(This comment was unavoidably long, apologies, but it needed to cover a fair amount of ground). Hope this helps.
13 Mar 2002 @ 23:31 by shawa : OK.
Your wish is registered with me.
14 Mar 2002 @ 01:00 by mmmark : No Imposition – More Like Facts O’life
Kim - I appreciate your candor about our history together. It does pay to pay attention and it also pays not to draw conclusions based on experience with others, for we are two unique human beings who hold our own qualities.
There is no imposition of thought on people in what I write or intend, it is my suggestion on how to align ourselves to that singular reality that lets us all have our individual realities within that framework. Your mention of Global Civil Ethics is the same as I describe to the best of my ability. Lovesense is the moral = ethical = motto = creed = prime directive = philosophical basis for life prescribed by the very function and form of the Universe, so I call it Universal Philosophy - A set of beliefs that acknowledges the Cosmos as the giver of all rules that we are obligated to follow if sustainable fulfillment is to be had by all. Is there any need for anything but kindness? Any other intention for our behavior seems to violate any constitution, proclamation, or declaration that people have ever written as a model. The word "Freedom" is usually included some where in these historical texts and Freedom for people only happens when it is protected with moral behavior in reverence for Nature's blessing of it upon us.
I dont think we can afford to believe and act as though we dont have to understand, or agree, what the facts of life are. We like to make this a highly sophisticated, intellectual preponderance that only scholars can know, but I say the Goddess gave us everything we need to do it right without a single technological gadget. I also believe strongly that the workings of life and society must be recorded in such a way the any child of 12 can understand the concepts along with the adults, otherwise it is all foul play. I have written what I think the facts of life are but ask the same questions of yourself and tell me what you think they are. Imagine you are now the head mistress of the global education program, and you have to explain to every new born soul how their Universe works. Our western culture certainly doesnt tell children the truth, or spend energy teaching the essentials. What would you say?
I probably does not matter what language is used, or what specific words are used, yet the best we can do is keep talking about Universal Philosophy, so we can get to know It better as well.
14 Mar 2002 @ 01:10 by jstarrs : Personally & IMHO, this phrase....
"Imagine you are now the head mistress of the global education program, and you have to explain to every new born soul how their Universe works."
does not leave the new born soul room to explore with their own eyes. After all, as you say, it is THEIR universe.
14 Mar 2002 @ 01:35 by mmmark : It's Not Theirs
Please explain what "IMHO" stands for I havent learned that yet.
When I used the word realities it was quoted to indicate the common misuse of the word reality to describe personal perception of reality, exactly why I ran the "Quote Contest." I would have been more accurate to say - it is my suggestion on how to align ourselves to that singular reality that lets us all have our individual perceptions within that framework. However you might define it, we must know that the forces of the Cosmos allow us to live at all.
The trouble is, our society does not give new souls freedom, it immediately starts forcing children to adapt to current human culture which has no singular understanding for what it is doing. No matter how you slice it, we can't have an infinite group of people living separate, disconnected realities and live through it gracefully or indefinitely. The combination of what we do perceive might be properly labeled "OUR" reality by default. To me it is a very singular thing in basis of truth, just like I think of our land, our water, our air, our laughter, our sunshine, our spirit, our love, our Earth and they all come from OUR Universal Mother Goddess.
14 Mar 2002 @ 02:21 by jstarrs : Sorry for my assumption ....
IMHO means in my humble opinion.
I believe that one of the issues here revolves around that thorny problem of defining reality and/or a universal reality'.
The problem is that it is established that there is a relative reality, in this case, relative to the individual minds that perceive it, and a non-established universal reality that we can loosely label Universal Mother Goddess, the Source or whatever we wish to agree to label it . Its not the reality itself, its a conception.
I do agree with you that one of the fundamental necessities of healing our planet involves kindness as you call it, or compassion, altruism or bodhicitta because it is only by caring for the other more than ourselves that we can develop love within us. All of our problems, I believe, are related to self-cherishing (that's not to say that being kind to oneself is wrong, of course!)and all of our happiness is related to kindness towards others.
In my spiritual path, the understanding of the correct view of reality, or wisdom, goes hand in hand with the development of compassion both are necessary to evolve spiritually. I wont go into what relative reality and ultimate reality are because I dont feel Im qualified and, until Ive learned to cherish myself less and love others more, the understanding of this would just be cold knowledge for me.
Perhaps showing new born souls the advantages of loving others and cherishing oneself less would be more appropriate than explaining a preconceived and relative view of how their universe works?
14 Mar 2002 @ 02:35 by mmmark : Jstarrs
You just did describe the reality in one perspective and one combination of words, " the advantages of loving others and cherishing oneself less "
I like the way you express this as it adds to my limited knowledge, or favorite combinations of words.
I'll send you Osho's words on the subject.
14 Mar 2002 @ 09:49 by invictus : Just don't get too selfless...
I think the way to get people to accept it en masse will be to show them how being nice to others/doing things that will benefit others will benefit them in the long run. Selflessness is a virtue that is VERY hard to come by. In the end, people do things for other people because it makes them feel good. They are getting something out of it, even if it is only a feeling. And hey, what's wrong with cherishing yourself (not too much, but to a fair extent)?
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