[thoughts from ~burning woman~ ]
With so many comments either set aside or poorly answered; with the fantasy novel (finished, by the way) waiting to be posted on the blog and my job appointment book filling up, the last thing I need is another post stirring up more controversy.
Still, I must live up to my reputation. I’ve been called a lot of things over the years, few complimentary, recently an anarchist (which I consider a compliment) and a contrarian (which is akin to a trouble maker for no good reason and that’s not a compliment, not even with green eggs and ham, Sam I Am) while all I’m doing is questioning everything. Why do I do that? Because everything should be questioned and it’s the task of any intelligent individual to do so.
Nothing should ever be taken for granted, accepted without proof, or dismissed as of no consequence even when its track record screams: “I’m going to destroy your civilization, with yourself and yours in it!” We’re so used to seeing the writing on the wall these days, we just call it graffiti and turn away shrugging, smiling or laughing.
There’s a book that is titled: “Solutions to all Problems” and it’s the only book you can find in any library. It’s the only book you get when you enter grade one, the only book you will receive subsequently until you finish your stint in high school, college or university. The only book you will ever read. It’s the book all institutions use, including the United Nations. It might even surprise you to discover that it’s the only book Donald Trump has ever attempted to read… in pop-up format.
That book has millions of titles, one of the best known is the Bible, of course. It has millions of introductions and millions of ways wherein the contents are filled in. It’s a wonderful book. I see it here, or at least excerpts of it, on Word Press all the time.
The reason this book is so popular and acceptable is simple: it doesn’t actually contain any real solution to anything at all. That’s its purpose: to propose solutions that are based on ideas hatched by dead smart guys, or interpreters of dead smart guys, or people who figgered out a way to cash in on dead smart guys ideas. It rehashes failed “solutions” to any and every problem without an iota of shame for doing this. It’s like watching an ever-running soap opera, you know, the “people with no lives watching people with fake lives” sort of book.
So try to imagine somebody (like me for example) saying that the book is fake; that it should be burned, not banned, good Lord no, never banned, that would only make it more popular! Burned. Discarded. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. An end to it.
Then, lo and behold, we would be free to write an entirely new book and none of the contents would be based on the old “Solutions to all Problems” fantasy.
Having said that, I’ve been having thoughts about fascism and Nazism, including Zionism, lately. My thoughts ran on the question: why have these horrible anti-life, anti-human ideologies become so powerful and popular in the last century and increasingly so in this one?
There was a simple answer: Darwinism. Of course. Darwinism denies the humanity of man. It claims that man is just another evolved critter that crawled out of the much and mire some million years ago and joined in the race to dominate. It brushes off any attempt at dialogue regarding human behaviour such as morals, virtues and vices, the sense of what is right and what is wrong.
That sort of religion was custom made for fascists, Nazis and Zionists. It claims we live in a world strictly ruled by the survival of the fittest. How that fittest becomes fittest is irrelevant, all that matters is, the fittest must make it to the top of the pyramid of power and control. It’s nature, you see? If you question that you’re insane, of course.
If that means cruelly exploiting, oppressing, or murdering millions, so be it. There is nothing wrong in exercising one’s supremacy any way it works. It’s nature’s food chain. None of what you do to change that has any meaning, nor can it succeed.
That’s the essence of Darwinism.
Now, ask me why I would hate even the mention of such a religion, and make no mistake, it is a religion. It is designed to fool to numbties into thinking that when they switch from worshiping the infamous Jehovah to worshiping Superiority through race, misogyny, imperial subjugation or financial shenanigans, they are “atheists” and are cleansed from the curse of religiosity!
Just another title to The Book. The contents are always the same.
Your call!
~Burning Woman~ 
Some typos up there. ” crawled out of the much and mire some million years ago” should of course read: crawled out of the muck and mire… etc.”
LikeLike
Your thought-provoking reflections are always an important addition to my day, Sha’Tara. Thank you for raising issues that force us all out of our comfort zones. I have always considered Krishnamurti’s advice to question everything as wise even though it doesn’t make one popular. 🙂
LikeLike
It is also considered good policy in scientific circles to question everything , but religions lay down a basic unquestionable framework before their reasoning can start. The scientist believes that as we question we arrive at the rock bed of reality but it seems to have led to a castle of speculation.
‘ We are such stuff as dreams are made of ‘
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comment, Carol. It seems that some of us are born to question, others born to accept and bear. From reading your blog I can sense your own need to make some sense of everything. Not by simply accepting and going along but by challenging it.
Not so very long ago your people were earth people. They understood their world and knew their place in it. They respected its ways knowing that it was wise to do so. Those who did not, perished. Equations were simpler, cause and effect much more direct than now.
The western religious, political and financial empires changed all that. They had no concept of living with the land and in collaboration with others. All they knew was conquest. They made the earth and the people of earth their slaves and victims. None of that has stopped. When a theatre of exploitation and oppression closes, another is opened to take its place.
Once people could live on, and with, the land. Now everything has a bar code. From chains to “full employment” to bar codes to the security state and implants. Wars rage and only those caught in them and those profiting from them care. The human spirit has grown small, smaller, smallest, under the hegemony of the western mindset. Now it’s a global reality and the earth is being flayed for her remaining “hidden” resources.
I cannot imagine any greater crime than what “we” are complacently colluding with today. Killing a world and billions of its inhabitants for useless, pointless numbers. I cannot imagine a greater ignorance that the one that believes this is a normal system with normal values.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what do you propose should be in the alternative book? You admit there are problems. You say the solutions offered in all such books are incapable of solving the problem(s). If you are going to knock a house down you need to have the plans and materials handy to build a better one. I am an atheist, I believe in Darwinism. I don’t accept that either belief (or, in the first case, non-belief) means a retreat into the kind of tyranny you describe. The thing about evolution theory is that it is way of describing how species develop and survive in a hostile environment. The acquisition of human intelligence is a part of that process. We have the ability to learn from our mistakes. We have the ability to out-think our instincts and develop alternative hierarchies based on merit. Define ‘merit’, you say. My definition would be centered on the extent to which one’s actions have brought observable benefits to one’s fellow beings. It is not difficult to make the distinction between Schweitzer and Hitler, for example.
LikeLike
I appreciate your questions, Frank; they do need asking, in the same vein I ask questions of everything that’s thrown at me as being fact when in fact it isn’t usually so, if ever!
Obviously, if I were to be the first one to begin authoring the new book, it’s title would be: Compassion. Then it would go on, I suppose, describing in it all the benefits of people choosing to live as compassionate beings. It would explain how every single human being is in essence, in nature, a compassionate individual. It would demonstrate how compassion, which leads us to develop empathy, is what separates humanity from all other known species. There would be exercise parts where the reader would put down the book and go out to practice what she/he has learned. You could not continue reading until you had done the exercise because the book would be blank until you wrote in your experiences, thoughts, feelings.
Pretty basic, really.
Why is compassion different than anything else we’ve been playing with and blowing ourselves up over? It does not require a system in order to work. It just works. That’s the basic difference between Schweitzer and Hitler. Other aspects: compassion requires no particular education; no money; no status; is not part of any agenda, such as the current one that still denies women their proper and equal place in society. Compassion cannot be corrupted whereas “love” which so many confuse with it, can and is on a regular basis. Compassion is the only “natural” enemy of violence. In compassion, Frank, the “fittest” doesn’t prey on the weakest, or attack anyone to take what belongs to them simply because it wants it, or believes it has some evolutionary right to it. It goes in the opposite direction – without fail, always.
Which brings me to evolution. Evolution is a chimera, Frank. What Darwinists call evolution is simply two things: mutations and adaptation. If evolution existed in the physical order, it would be extremely slow, measured (if it were possible) in billions of years. All that man has accomplished in the last thousand years, to his detriment, not betterment, is by definition not a product of evolution, but is something seriously gone wrong. There is no balance in it and now we’re facing our possible demise, and that in a staggeringly short time. If some sort of natural process of evolution had been at play here, none of this could have happened in the time it did. What we are witnessing is the product of mind evolution, but not a free mind, that of a mind enslaved to dovetailing destructive power systems.
Scientifically speaking, Darwinism in terms of physical evolution is a failed, or false concept that has become a religion simply because only as a religion can it continue to lead people astray and away from their humanity.
Evolution, properly applied, can only be said of the mind. Yes, a mind can evolve because it isn’t of the material/physical order. One can develop a sense of “merit” with one’s mind. We can indeed “change our minds” about everything. We can choose Schweitzer over Hitler, but only as free individuals, not as sycophants of power systems that only lead to violence as all of man’s sad history is only to eager to demonstrate.
LikeLike
You are absolutely correct. Darwinism has become a religion, the fallacy is that it may accurately describe the evolution of a species, but it does not deal with the evolution of consciousness, which is what separates mankind from animalkind. So Darwinism has been used to justify all the behavior you listed here–to justify anti-humanism behavior throughout history.
LikeLike
While it is true that Darwin inadvertently led to eugenics the reason was not the man himself but those who saw in his theory the possibility of controlled breeding. In animals we had been doing this for thousands of years as a glance at the vast variation of dogs and it’s mind boggling to believe they all came from the wolf. This meddling with breeding is now at the genetic level and pregnant women can have a termination if they carry a Downes baby. How long before intelligence can be tested in the womb and low intelligence neatly dispensed with.
Our western society already favours the intelligent and students are taking drugs to help them pass examinations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Darwin’s theories are fine. The interpretation of his theories by others…as you say…just as Einstein’s theories led to a rather big bomb, but the man himself was a pacifist…
LikeLike
Incidentally Einstein wrote a letter to Freud asking him how war can be prevented and Freud’s reply was that it could only be contained and never prevented because it was part of the nature of Man. The letter is fascinating and goes into some considerable detail , but I think it was not the answer Einstein had hoped for. I wonder if the poor man had a sense of guilt regarding the atomic bomb ? The Catholic Church attempted to stop scientific progress as the enlightenment began , looking back perhaps it might have been safer. Their reasons were simply to hold on to power for themselves and very little to do with the general well being of mankind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a fascinating discussion that could continue for a long time. I’ve decided to follow you. I like your thoughts.
LikeLike
Let me confess most of my thoughts are about the thoughts of others in the goldmine of the internet. The fascinating thing is how the experts often differ when they are at the very edge of scientific knowledge. I love to know a little of the private lives of great men it makes me realise they are just like me full of human weaknesses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me confess: most of humanities thoughts are not their own. Have you heard an original thought lately? The big question is: where do our thoughts come from and who put them there? Why?
LikeLike
Hi George, good question.
Funny that, but I don’t have an “original” thought on your question either. All I can say is what the Teachers told me; that we are eternal beings; that we’ve been “around” forever. All our thoughts, our words, our acts, in a sense are our own when we accept them, promote them and act according to them. Thus do we claim the thoughts as our own, even when we ascribe them to others, including those “dead smart guys” I sometimes mention out of frustration.
Why don’t we remember? Why can’t we take responsibility? Why are we so scared of real change, as opposed to the repetitive motions we have indulged in for millennia, going nowhere? Bottom line is, we have chosen this for ourselves and our reasons defy definition. Some will argue we “fell in love” with these material worlds and in claiming them for ourselves, we became their slaves: we became addicted to feelings and emotions and came to believe that a life without either feeling or emotion is a dead life. To justify the evils our addictions brought us we had to create a whole slough of belief systems so we could not only live with our “fallen” estate, but actually come to enjoy inflicting pain, destruction and death to an environment, and to others who would have been quite happy just to serve us. But we didn’t want only their labour or their acceptance of us, we wanted to feel their suffering; their pain that we deliberately and with malice aforethought inflicted, and continue to inflict, on them.
We get off on that. Everyday we condemn thousands to die of preventable causes because that pleases us. It satisfy a twisted longing, a need, for the expression of overt and covert violence. We like to torture; to cause extreme pain especially when there is absolutely no need to do so.
We are being called, perhaps forced, to leave those ways as they are proving unsustainable. We have to pull ourselves out of our civilization tailspin and struggle our way back to our higher estate we left so long ago. The problem is, we have an incredibly large lake of spilled blood to account and make up for. The price we are going to have to pay to regain our place in the greater scheme of things, well, who wants to face that? Few.
So, we invent new belief systems that tell us we need not concern ourselves because we end at our physical death. A convenient, if puerile belief, that. Worse even than the “free salvation” offered by certain religions.
LikeLike
Profound and deep response…addiction being the perfect adjective.
LikeLike
We are all creatures of our time but sometimes poets have thoughts that transcend time , thoughts that are eternally true and poetry is condensed thought , memorable thought , thought that stirs our inner being. ‘ The moving finger writes and having writ moves on ‘ ; Was it for this the clay grew tall? What is this life if full of care , we have no time to stand and stare?
Gwen Alex Haley wrote roots he went back to the Griot who memorized and told the oral history of the race and there he heard his own origin and how his ancestor become the white man’s slave. So we see humanity passes thoughts down the generations even without the written wore.
If you examine science fiction you will find it follows science but just extends it in imaginative ways and the later fantasy books like Lord of the Rings are just good over evil stories.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for commenting, George. There are times when I actually feel sorry for Darwin. I am sure he never meant to create a monster that would be used to bash fundamentalist Christianity, or to promote the social and political concept of “mine because I’m stronger than you”.
LikeLike
The concepts in Darwinism–describing the animal kingdom– has been used to create social constructs that leave the weak behind…so are we animals?
LikeLike
That’s the question, isn’t it. Are we animals? If we are, why are we so intent on destroying our environment? None of the things we engage in have anything to do with the way the animal “kingdom” operates. The most natural act we still indulge in is sex and procreation and even here we can’t control our urges so we rape women, and we cannot control our population so we design every more esoteric ways to pull energy out of the earth and the social fabric to profit from hunger and diseases. If I were an animal I’d feel highly insulted when a human tries to include itself within my world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True!
LikeLike
The “books” are indeed designed to explain away that which is unexplainable. And we are free to choose among the many available or decide on our own “which is right, and which is an illusion”. Indeed that’s the beauty of existence on this planet, one or a thousand go arounds. Insecurity breeds the desire to control, at least to “know” who or what is in control. The loop of fear to faith and back again is endless. I have a looper pedal that will play whatever it is fed until the power stops. In fact, one can build up a cacophony of layered inputs, much the same as the culture(s) in which we live. But there’s a button that stops it. And we all that button, even you. The contrarian is not far off the mark, as rabble rousing is not quantified with intent. We are free to subscribe to what we will. Belief systems, newspapers, blogs. We are free to limit or expand, pigeonhole and programmed and sound bitten until we are, as with the looper, scrambling for the button. No one has been proven to be right. Not you, or Jesus or the myriad other “religions.” The great ‘is” simply is. Sometimes you might take a step back from adding to the noise floor. Not that you’re right or wrong or “know” you have insight. But because, in truth, you’re playing the same game played out in every church and holy building across the globe. Repetition. The loop keeps on playing on top of all the others. Questioning is a good thing. Ask. Encourage others to ask. But lets all make up our own minds sans the name calling. Because “reasonable” deduction of a scientific theory as the basis of racism? That is some far fetched bullshit and a classic example of the Aristotelean logic you rave against. This is all starting to read like the manual for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, not a question.
LikeLike
Sorry to get your heart pumping so hard by this particular method Phil, honest. But what exactly are you reacting to? Name calling? There’s no name calling as I know the term. Yes, Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism has been used to justify some pretty ugly crimes by some pretty ugly individuals. That’s called history.
Perhaps it’s the word “compassion” you have a problem with? Are you afraid that someone proposing and definitely “pushing” for such a concept could be doing something right? Is there something essentially in error in proposing something that anyone can do, at any time and all the time, regardless of nation, race, creed, gender, age, economic status?
Living compassionately should be as natural to us humans as breathing. We accept the need to breathe, why can’t we realize we have the very same need to live compassionately?
So what is it? What’s really bugging you?
You’ll have to explain that “Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch” thing – I missed that lecture. I think I had to go to the dentist that day…
LikeLike
The Book concept. Google the Monty Python bit about the Holy Hand grenade. Not four, nor five shalt thou count. What I’m saying is the lecture style, no matter how well informed as soon as it starts taking pot shots has reduced itself to the same level as that which is found offensive. It all becomes scapegoating at that point. Which is just more noise.
LikeLike
Well my friend Phil, this is one lecture you weren’t charged to attend, and it does have a volume control. If you look at the bottom of a new post, there’s an “unsubscribe” button.
As for me, water off a duck’s back. I will speak of what I observe; what my experiences insist I need to focus on. I will engage society’s problems and if I find that what is being offered as solutions are just more smoke being blown up people’s asses, you can be sure I’ll comment on it, on any platform.
Imagine somebody having the gall to actually propose real change? Shame them and shut them up. Shout them down. Propagandize against them and if that fails, kill them. The idea being that if you kill the messenger, whatever bad news she may have been bringing will disappear with the dead body, floating down a river, or under some cement foundation. Bad things only happen because people mention them. If no one had spoken against slavery, there would not have been slavery. There was never any misogyny on this world until some feminists started “lecturing” men about their treatment of women. There never was any rape here until someone began to object to it. If we don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist.
Nuff said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Charge!” She shouted. Was she on horseback daring a windmill, or at the shoe counter at Neimans? We can all choose what we watch, and I’m all for that don’t like it turn it off. You’re just on re-runs when you could do so much more creative than regurgitate the blame game. All I’m sayin’. Call me the Devil’s Advocate.
LikeLike
Well man, advocate away, do! You probably figgered out I enjoy those kinds of exchanges! It’s like sitting at the Sunday dinner table with the hot headed parents, the five male siblings and the other quiet sister… Sometimes the gravy got spilled!
LikeLike
‘ Tired with all this for restful death I cry ,
Save that to die I leave my love alone.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well told.
LikeLike
Making us all think as always Sha’ Tara….Iconoclast is a good one..be proud if anyone calls you that!
Anyway I would like to turn the statement around a bit, I blame the readers not the words.
Take Darwin, for instance. All he did was propose a structure by which Life (Life not people) evolved in relation to myriad factors. This was hijacked by 19th Century racists and fellow travellers who said it proved that White Races were superior, and only then if they were big strong and very healthy (and better still blonde) and had the right bumps on their heads. Since then every crackpot, bigot, and hate-monger has been going about spouting ‘Darwinism’, the poor guy must be revolving at a fair rate, either that or his ghost is wandering about wailing ‘That’s not what I meant!!’
Probably bumps into Marx from time to time on the same tack.
LikeLike
Thanks Roger. Yes, I’ve often thought that about Darwin and Marx. I’d like to sit down with those two “dead smart guys” and listen to what they actually did say back when. I bet you though that Darwin has had many second and third thoughts about his theory that physical life can actually evolve. I’d like to say, “Hey Chuck, what do you think of my theory that the changes ascribed to physical evolution spring from three sources, fortuitous mutations, adaptations and changes wrought upon the landscape from the application of mind energy; from imagination, thought, ideas? Now that you’re oot-n-aboot in the cosmos and not dead, neither is our friend Karl over here, what does that tell you about the possibility that there are other, superior minds out there that can make shit happen (I may even mean that literally, and what if our universe just happened because one of those critters did a dump in this neighbourhood and forgot to pick it up in the baggie?) You follow, Chuck? Now the numbties on earth developed some amazing tech stuff since your day and they now realize that the one thing you said would collapse your theory: the evidence of a single irreducibly complex system in existence, actually exists in millions of examples.”
What would Chuck reply? “Well that is of no consequence. I realize I was foolish to propose such a thing as natural selection to the people of my time since they would naturally see themselves as the epitome of successful natural selection. That led in great part to the horrors of your WWII. Now that wasn’t my fault. I made a simple proposal, a theory. They took it and ran in the opposite direction I intended it to be taken. But I like your idea that your universe is the result of someone taking a dump. That gives me an idea for a new theory… Hey, Karl you done with that beer? We have an new idea to play with. Thanks, Earthian. Nice to have met you.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Darwin might phrase that a bit differently Sha’ Tara, but I think Marx would get you a beer, sharing resources amongst the workers y’know.
LikeLike
Darwinism and Christianity come to the same conclusions about the nature of Man. Man is a moral animal and his morals bring him into conflict with his animal instincts. Darwin offers no solution, Christianity believes we can change and be redeemed , ultimately becoming perfect. Freud came to the same conclusions about our nature through examining people. Art throughout history comes again to the same conclusions about us , and it is almost exclusively about the conflict of good and evil. Music is unique in that it takes no sides unless it is linked by words as in opera.
Altruism is witnessed in the higher mammals and many believe it is the origin of morals. Consciousness is a problem when it becomes self consciousness and it is my belief that when intelligence reaches the level of self consciousness we get self judgement and moral discernment.
LikeLike
Hi again, Kertsen! Quote: “Altruism is witnessed in the higher mammals and many believe it is the origin of morals. Consciousness is a problem when it becomes self consciousness and it is my belief that when intelligence reaches the level of self consciousness we get self judgement and moral discernment.”
Why should consciousness be a problem? Or to carry this further, why should we be other than thrilled at having “evolved” to such a high level as self consciousness, from which, as you say we get self judgement and moral discernment?
We have these great gifts or if you want, “add-ons” that guarantee our claim to humanity. Should we not desire to be human, or is it the responsibility that we do not want to face as a result?
I’ve been talking a lot about self empowerment. Doesn’t that follow from self judgement and moral discernment?
If you put the entire package together, what you end up with is an individual human being fully empowered to make all the correct choices no matter what life throws at her, or him.
The way I see it now, in the mind evolution of the species, either we accept the self empowerment that is being offered from our evolution, or we die as a failed species. There is a big sign above us that says, No Loitering. We had a cruder expression: shit or get off the pot.
LikeLike
You are agreeing with Frank’s suggestion that we can out think our instincts and live more moral lives. This is an assumption very similar to his other assumption that we can learn by our mistakes. It goes alongside the Christian declaration we must reject our evil tendencies and purify ourselves thereby becoming better at every step.
I maintain we can only be what we are , or what we have evolved into over time and our control over ourselves is not complete or to put it as Steven Pinker does we are not blank intelligent slates .
My evidence for such a view is the evidence of history which is a long record of repeated mistakes and the struggle of good against evil in the individual and in the corporate body of mankind. I like to think of myself as a realist not an optimist or a pessimist.
In that brilliant song ‘Where have all the Flowers Gone’ The last verse is stunning but it hits home , and brings us full circle.
‘ Where have all the Graveyards Gone ?
Gone to Flowers every one .
LikeLike
“We can only be what we are evolved into.” If that were true, why have there been times when teachers arose to teach ethics and morals? If we cannot be other than what we are, then why all the discussion and talk about any kind of betterment of, and for, the earth human race? What a pathetic waste of time, all that education. Why do we insist that we can become better when “nature” insists the opposite?
Main point is, if you were correct, no one, not a single person except perhaps the odd mutant quickly eliminated, would ever even think about ethics or morality. There would be no point in it at all.
Globalist capitalism, Marxism and Darwinism have this in common: earth humans are essentially amoral animals saddled with the problem of consciousness and it is up to modern teachers to remove said consciousness from the minds of all, but particularly from the minds of the young. They must perceive themselves strictly as machines, most to push the machine carrying to load of evolutionary clap trap (I use the term deliberately because after all it serves no purpose but to be pushed about); the few to maintain and drive. Most importantly no one must ever believe that they could have any purpose except to push and drive the machine. The machine will go wherefore it willeth and no man can have a say in that. End of Story.
LikeLike
Sha’Tara just as intelligence , musical and artistic gifts are spread over the whole of mankind so is the ethical nature of Man. We know intelligence is a bell curve from Einstein to the school dunce , and I believe ethical nature stretches from Christ- like figures to psychopaths.
Recent research has shown psychopaths have a different brain scan , Robert Hare believes there maybe 1% in the American population.
So we live in a world made up of a mixture of all sorts and the result we see is a cooperate effect not an individual one.
Regarding consciousness Professor Penrose does not believe computers will become conscious and he has formed a theory that conscious awareness is connected to quantum mechanics. It is interesting to consider how computers play chess they simply check millions of possible moves and have no real understanding of the game. The question we must pose is how do humans play the game?
LikeLike
Quote: “we live in a world made up of a mixture of all sorts and the result we see is a cooperate effect not an individual one.”
Quote: “It is interesting to consider how computers play chess they simply check millions of possible moves and have no real understanding of the game. The question we must pose is how do humans play the game?”
To the first quote, I would never contest the point you make. That is the reality. I accept the reality, I judge it as inferior to what any creature claiming to be human, should be, or have attained by now, and my entire point, argument, whatever, is to propose one single, obvious way whereby we, not as a collective, but as individuals, can break out of our collective violence and injustice, taking responsibility for our individual place in the whole mess. Never mind “what we are”, let’s do something about it since doing something about it is entirely possible, on an individual, one by one basis.
If something is possible and if it is obviously a good thing, why should the concept not be propagated? If everything is against it, isn’t that all the more reason to push for it? Based on history, what is strongly opposed is usually the right thing. Peace; anti-slavery; justice for the poor and oppressed and lately alternative energy sources, these have been and continue to be strongly opposed. Why? Why do people “cheer at destruction and yawn at creation”? Because they are endlessly brainwashed against seeking a better way of life for themselves if such does not immediately profit the elites.
The only way you could successfully argue against me is to demonstrate that my idea is false, evil, destructive and harmful to those who might be tempted to try living that way. My Teacher YLea taught me this truism: “Nothing is Impossible.”
To the second quote, it is also quite possible that the human brain plays chess in exactly the same way the computer does, only it has had a much longer time to develop more finesse, adding probabilities and possibilities to the basic calculations. I was never much good at chess so I don’t consider ability to play, or not play, chess, to be any measure of consciousness. It has nothing to do with it, actually. Chess is not a belief system.
LikeLike
I could never argue against your individual decision to lead an ethical existence but the world is full of different people with different ethical opinions and different abilities to perform them. There is also the life force in people which declares its my life and I will do what pleases me.
I often hear ; I’ve worked hard all my life now I deserve a rest , I do my bit for others but I have my own family concerns , why should I be expected to carry others who are too lazy to work? I’m far from perfect but I do what I can etc etc.
Chests is the perfect measure of how the brain works and demonstrates that your conclusion , which is the materialistic one is wrong.
A man understands the purpose of the game the computer merely plays the game.
When computers overtook human players and became unbeatable clever composers created chess problems that computers could not solve. The computers should have been able to solve them since they only obeyed the rules of chess. The thing is humans can think outside the box , they do not only compute they think and understand.
A close friend of Einstein was a genius called Kurt Godel and he produced a theorem called the incompleteness theorem which proved that in mathematical systems there were certain things that could never be proved. It was thinking outside the box amazing stuff. Unfortunately poor Godel starved himself to death because he believed people were trying to poison him.
The late Steven Hawking was upset by Godel because he was worried that there may be things in physics that were unprovable , I’m a lucky man that such things don’t bother me I sleep easy at night.
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting, Kertsen. I don’t mind at all being wrong, but.. what is the purpose of chess? I know it keeps a lot of people, mostly men, occupied and thus avoiding other silliness, but the “purpose” – of any game or sport? Who needs that sort of mental stimulation, or better put perhaps, such mental masturbation? Put up arbitrary limits, then insert game, puzzle, sport, within said limits. Meanwhile we live in a limitless cosmos, both of space and of mind, both calling for exploration outside all limits? Chess playing is never outside the box; could never be. It is played on a board, with a set number of pieces and strict rules: limits. Box. Here we go round the mulberry bush… The wheels on the bus go round and round… and the bus has a route that it must repeat, ever and anon. Repetition; ultimate pointlessness… I note you used the line, “how the brain works” which is indeed correct. It isn’t the mind that’s playing these games, but the brain.
Nothing can ever be proved, not at the ultimate, or the absolute. If we were to travel back over the path that led to 2+2=4 we would discover that it does not. All we have for proof of anything is social conditioning and convenience and some coarse approximation of what may or may not be true. If we were to use letters for numbers, example: x+x=y and we decided that x=2, then we would say that y=4. What happens if someone not conversant with our systems has allocated 6.5 to the letter x? Her answer to the x+x is 13. Everything here is arbitrary since we are ignorant of the source of all information. Basically we make it up as we go along, then some powerful entity decides that such and such is going to be the norm and it is declared so. That is how we got our systems of measure, and our calendars. There have been many such and here in the Northern hemisphere of the Americas we’re still struggling between American Standard and Metric. I much prefer inches and feet to centimetres and metres. To me these older measures are more natural; they make more sense. Convenience, not proof. Is an inch an error and a centimetre, or a metre, a correct measure of distance according to some universal law? I bet if the Universe was ever accused of making up laws it would change them just for the fun of it. I think it does that as a matter of course.
LikeLike
That is the curious thing about the apparent arbitrary limits they are never actually limited for us humans because we can think outside the box. Take a modern grand piano it has 88 notes and is a percussion instrument with strings and hammers , all in all a very limited humankind piece of workmanship . Yet it’s scope is limitless as proved by human genius since its invention. When you hear the Chopin nocturnes you forget all about the piano and it’s limits. Take the alphabet a mere 26 letters but what can come from such an invention?
Mental stimulation or if you prefer masturbation is very widespread , it begins as soon as pen touches paper , every library is full of it , shelf loads begging for human consumption. Just as the palette craves tasty food so the mind craves stimulation , not to forget the sexual power of attraction . I often hear that Buddhists and other mental acrobats are above this sort of thing and have progressed to another dimension where all is sweetness and light and the desires are tamed . Quite recently it was found that Buddhist monks were becoming too fat due to over indulgence , could it be that even Buddhist monks are susceptible to the sins of the flesh?
Once upon a time there lived a man called Sam Lloyd he played chess but his fame came not from his games but from the great beauty of his chess compositions , some were difficult but the best had a simple beauty that makes you gasp.
The metric system is a scientific one not a practical one for everyday use, but the scientists won the day and now we have to suffer it in the builders merchants and the markets. Physicists talk about the fundamental constants the most important one being the speed of light and religious fundamentalists ask awkward questions such as how do we know it has never changed. Isn’t it strange that fundamentalists want to change the fundamentals of physics but stick like glue to their own fundamental position?
LikeLike
Quote: “If we were to travel back over the path that led to 2+2=4 we would discover that it does not.” The thing about maths is that it is the language we use to describe the observed universe, as such it is not possible to substitute different values for the symbols used. Feet and inches or meters and centimeters, it doesn’t matter. They have equivalence. A meter is defined in terms of the wavelength of the light emitted by a particular substance. It is an absolute standard by which everything else is measured. I recommend you read the works of the late Steven Hawking if you want to understand such things. There may be other physical standards in that place you claim to have come from, but in this universe the physical realities are observable and measurable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It shows how behind I am I thought there was a standard metal rod exactly a metre or a foot long , and a special vessel that held exactly one litre or one pint. A little thought might have made me realise this was old fashioned stuff. These days I read about the thickness of one molecule, incidentally it’s often puzzled me since I pictured atoms and molecules as nebulous things , we are often told they are nearly empty space. My mind harks back to my boyhood when my dad would listen to James Jeans who did much to popularize science.
LikeLike
Sorry Frank, your comment slipped by in the flurry or responses. I would like to explain what I mean with my example, but I’m afraid I cannot. I just “know” this factless fact. All that comes to mind at the moment is the famous number “pi” which, as everybody knows, is an endless number, nor does it enter into any repetitive pattern. From a quick search, the contemporary quest for a more accurate “solution” for 3.14… has reached 70,000 digits, still no end in sight.
Quote: *I’m fascinated by concepts of other realities, other ways of doing things. Nothing is fixed, nothing sacred, nothing metaphysically determined – it’s all contingent on process and evolution. That’s perfect. It means we might be able to understand, if we can just relax and shed our preconceptions. — Moving Mars, Greg Bear*
What I am trying to say is twofold. One: we exist in a temporary, ever-changing environment. Nothing is ever “exact” or fundamental. All we have are agreed-upon methods of measures for distance, weight and volume (DWV). As we impinge on our environment, we incrementally change everything, including the DWV. Instead of defending our conventions, we should accept them as a convenience, nothing more.
Two, scale of importance. We have serious social problems which tunnel vision, or the inability to see the forest for the trees can never resolve. It’s as if we existed in a collective OCD condition which prevents us from coming to terms with our real problems. The body is cancerous so we rush off to get a pedicure, that sort of thing.
Here’s to my “explanation” making a bit of sense!
LikeLike
“The reason this book is so popular and acceptable is simple: it doesn’t actually contain any real solution to anything at all. That’s its purpose: to propose solutions that are based on ideas hatched by dead smart guys, or interpreters of dead smart guys, or people who figgered out a way to cash in on dead smart guys ideas. It rehashes failed “solutions” to any and every problem without an iota of shame for doing this. It’s like watching an ever-running soap opera, you know, the “people with no lives watching people with fake lives” sort of book.”
*** *** ***
Every “book,” including the new one you propose needs a beginning, progresses through a plot, and ends with a solution. We may not like where it starts, how it develops, or how it ends. So we come up with a “better” plan, and write our own. But that book, too, that story, will have it’s complications and its critics…
The thing is, it all starts somewhere. That need to question everything, that admonishment to do so, begins somewhere. In the best case scenario we have the opportunity to begin with dead smart guys’ ideas. If that is where we begin to dialogue, then we’ve overstepped much of the misguided, ill thought out ideas we might otherwise classify as madness. But it is the discussion itself, the question and answer, that allow us to propose possible solutions, test them, adjust them, and move on. We learn…
So, in my not so humble opinion, that book you mention, based on dead smart guys’ ideas is still worth reading, because so many of those “smart” ideas have now been tested and failed. Better, perhaps, to ask why than to start with a blank page. Even your proposal of compassionate being as a necessary step is based (by your own discussions) on a review of history and its consequences…
Don’t burn the book, but please do add your insights and opinions to it. Together we might actually find those solutions we are looking for…
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, Lisa. But there is a very, very, very GOOD reason for burning the book. There’s a parable attached to that, but I’m going to let you figure it out. If the answer is not forthcoming, challenge me with the question, “Why burn the book?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
We were talking about setting a life’s purpose yesterday… here’s a quote for you:
The path to my fixed purpose is hid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. — Herman Melville, Moby-Dick
LikeLiked by 1 person
That certainly fits with what you’ve been saying. But wasn’t the primary “purpose” followed in Moby Dick (at least by Ahab) something more like obsession, with all the consequences of such? (Not sure I ever finished reading it, and if I did, I don’t remember much. Lol!)
LikeLike
I suppose, yes, Ahab represented extreme personal obsession. But obsession is the name of the game for all Earthians, isn’t it? The person who cannot wait to plunk himself in front of the TV to watch some sports game is obsessed with mediocrity and pointlessness. The person who goes to bingo, plays the lottery, or any addiction, including competition, these are all obsessions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am confused, dear friend. Are you now counting yourself among the Earthians, and linking your noble purpose (“becoming compassion”) to Earthian obsessions? It doesn’t synch properly in my brain…
And, after pondering this thread for a couple days, I must now ask: why burn the book, Sha’Tara?
LikeLike
Ah, yes, let confusions and contradictions reign! Just kiddin’. There are times when my non-Earthian stance comes across too much like hubris, like, “I’m better than all the rest of you.” I like to remind myself, and “all the rest” that I neither am, nor ever think, that I am in any way better or superior to anyone else. When I speak of Earthians and their hubris, I separate myself, but when I speak of us, then we are all Earthians. It would be simpler if I could use the common term “human” but I’ve been taught, and seen demonstrated, that humans do not kill; do not take life for any reason. Hence, that term is not truthfully usable for me on this world. Although I do not kill, nor deliberately participate in the type of life that enjoys the horrors of the killing of animals for food, I still live in a world that does so, and some of the things I use are made of leather. I am aware of the curse and how deep it runs.
Why burn the book? You know the story of the box of apples that contains one rotten apple in it, yes? The healthy apples, however well meant will not heal the rotten apple, the rotten apple will invariable and sooner rather than later, cause all the rest to rot. If you can extract the rotten apple, and any apple that has been infected, then you may yet save the rest of the box but you will still have to insulate them from each other and place them in a new box.
If you cannot do that, then you have to put the apples on the compost pile and burn the box – it too is now infected and cannot be used to store any new apples.
Essentially, the “book” is man’s civilization. It is rotten, morally and ethically corrupt to its very core and with each new wave of leadership and scientific or technological application, its condition worsens. It has become a poison that is destroying the very spirit of man and the planet itself. A sad waste of time and life energy it is for those who believe they can fix it.
There is a parable that illustrates our problem: “Who sews a piece of new cloth upon an old fabric? When it is washed, the new will shrink and tear the old fabric even more, making the garment useless.” We could have understood this some 2000 years ago, but of course we are not programmed to understand cause and effect. We cause and to hell with the effects, hoping that they won’t show up, or when they do, we’ll be long gone. The more common approach now is, “I’m here for a good time, not a long time.” I think that describes the general mindset quite accurately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm… much to ponder here, from hubris
LikeLike
Oops… sorry, wrong button…
From hubris to hedonism. I understand the parables you shared, and by themselves, they make sense. But when laid across the sheer numbers of Earthians, the variable natures and goals, etc, I think they may not fairly represent the situation. Sure, we have lots of bad apples here now, and I do see how they infect others, but some are definitely worth “saving” to live another day. In the same way, any “utopian” vision involves finding a way to live in community. If “the book” is civilization, then there is even less reason to burn it. Edit it, definitely, but don’t destroy it. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
As for the cause and effect problem… I get that many, even most, live for themselves, seeking short term goals. But choosing to limit one’s vision by focusing solely on the foreground, doesn’t mean we aren’t capable of seeing the whole picture. With the proper motivation, every intelligent life form grasps the function of cause/effect, even if they choose to ignore it.
LikeLike
Wow, good ol’ Word Press. Some comments do not carry the “reply” button, so trying this back door. I’ll try to be brief here. When I speak of “burning the book” I’m pointing to a means of saving billions of lives. Our civilization has become a quasi absolute monster, gobbling people and the planet in greater measure. We need to separate people from the machine. Destroying the machine does not mean destroying people unless we so identify with it we don’t have the will to develop a new way of interacting with each other and our world. That’s the problem, and the programming screams against blaming the machine for our downfall because the programming comes from the machine, not from people. Certainly without civilization our numbers will reduce drastically, but we already know that is going to happen regardless. We have the choice, if barely time, to make that happen “naturally” or it will happen inexorably through cataclysms brought on by global “civilized” madness.
As for the cause/effect, seems to me that if we can grasp the function, then choose to ignore it, we’re even worse off (dumber) than that (unintelligence) which cannot grasp the concept. What makes intelligence deliberately ignore cause and effect? Brute programming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this response sums it up beautifully, Sha’Tara, and I am “on board” with it. I have encountered several individuals lately who seem absolutely determined to hang on to ideas that certainly make no sense given observable reality. Yet they fight any attempt to point that out! I am left shaking my head in a gesture of awe and horror at such a denial of reality. And they call me the “crazy” one…
All I can do in these
LikeLike
… (again with WordPress sending before I’m done typing. Grr… What’s up with that?!)
Anyway, I was simply saying I have to walk away from such encounters, and accept there is nothing more I can do there…
LikeLike
To use that old saw again, ‘You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can’t hear it, Sha’Tara, but I am applauding…and smiling.
LikeLike
I think you clarify something for me here, Kertsen. To man’s moral dilemma you say, Darwinism offers no solutions whereas Christianity believes we can change and be redeemed. My question is, why pit one’s lack of knowledge against another’s unverifiable claims? Why the either/or? If consciousness leads to self consciousness, instead of beating the wherefrom to death, why not accept the fact and move on from there? Do I care how I became self-conscious? No. But having this tool, it behooves me to use it, and that, properly. As a self conscious being I suddenly find myself able to choose how I live my life. I can change (evolve) my mind. I can judge all things and decide for myself what works, what doesn’t. I can then proceed to find something better than what I see before me, and what has gone on before me.
I can actually propose an entirely new way of life, for an entire species, and knowing my solution and how it works, feel entirely validated in making this “outrageous” proposal.
There is no need to pit one religion against another. Just leave them behind to wander afield and die while we move forward demonstrating to all and sundry that yes, we can live together in relative peace and harmony because we possess the one thing that can accomplish such a miracle: compassion and we are willing to apply it to our daily interaction with others. We are willing to live compassionately. Of course such a change automatically means the end of civilization as we know it, but what would we be losing compared to what we would be gaining? What are we really afraid of? If it’s self sacrifice we are scared of, let’s remember that for most people of earth, every day is a day of self-sacrifice and self-immolation on the altar of capitalism, just to keep that monstrosity functioning and eating deeper into the planet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!!! A little “applause” from the eighth row at the back, on the left, is good to hear!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sha’Tara, you are working from assumption just as all the other ‘smart’ people who have ever proposed ‘solutions’ to the perceived ‘problem’. You talk about applying self consciousness ‘properly’ as though the concept ‘properly’ were a given. But what Hitler thought ‘proper’ is very different from what Schweitzer thought ‘proper’. Can you not see compassion in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth? And if compassion is natural to us as a species why is it not practiced more generally? The reality is that we are complex beings with conflicting natures. If, as juveniles, one aspect of our nature – intelligence, compassion, fear of ‘the other’ – is nurtured more than another you say that is brain washing. Yet you would like for us all to favor the compassionate part of our nature over all others. As someone else pointed out, you are as guilty of wanting to change human nature as any of the other philosophers, religious leaders and tyrants you condemn. But, of course, in your case it’s alright because it’s ‘proper’.
On another tack, other species destroy themselves by over indulgence, other species are capable of rape. These are not exclusively human traits. In fact, I would argue, we are the only species to have evolved to the point where we are capable of understanding that such behavior is ‘wrong’ (or ‘improper’). So whilst we still frequently give in to what we categorize as ‘animal instincts’, in most ‘civilized’ societies we teach our young that it is wrong to do so and we inflict punishment on those who are found ‘guilty’ of such ‘misdemeanors’..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your further comments, Frank. I simply do not know how to use the English language such that I could “promote” an idea that would NOT appear to contradict itself, nor appear as if it was just more regurgitation of that which I condemn myself, i.e., doing the same thing as others have done that hasn’t worked so well. To your many points, I will respond with a new, possibly last, post on the question of compassion. No point flogging a dead horse, is there.
I will respond to your last point here though, and quote, not out of context: ” So whilst we still frequently give in to what we categorize as ‘animal instincts’, in most ‘civilized’ societies we teach our young that it is wrong to do so and we inflict punishment on those who are found ‘guilty’ of such ‘misdemeanours’..”
This is simply not true, Frank. If we gave in to animal instincts we would certainly interact naturally and much more humanely with each other and our surroundings. Observe the animals, calculate how long they’ve been sharing space on the planet and how it turned out for them. Compare to man’s “civilization” and what that is turning out to be as we contemplate our footprint upon earth and non-man inhabitants.
Part two: we do not punish our greatest criminals, we extol them; we make them into heroes; and if we cannot do that, we vote for them and place them on the highest of thrones of the land. Consider the military industrial complex. Consider weapons of mass destruction. Those who participate in these killing machines shouldn’t be leaders, they should be executed or kept in dungeons so deep they could never again see the light of day. Punishment? No. We punish their victims, is what we do best. We punish war refugees, for example, but do we care how such a refugee problem comes about? Who or what is behind it? We cannot because our face would show up in the mirror every time.
The other thing we do best is promoting violence, in any and every way we can get away with. We do this because… well… it makes us feel good. We just may be on the winning side of our violence and that means we’re the bigliest and strongliest. Survival of the fittest and all that wonderful modern era of man’s rule of earth.
Let the bleeding hearts deal with the fallout from our aggression. What does it matter if 20 or 30 thousand babies die of preventable causes today? Not my problem. All we need is to grow a tougher skin and carry on with business.
LikeLike
Hi Sha’Tara. There is a well known test of which I am sure you are aware: (in Latin) Reductio ad Absurdum. Basically, to test any theory develop it to its most logical conclusion and see if the result makes sense or not. So let’s apply that to your notion that there is a solution to all our many social problems, and that it could be applied. Would it produce the objective you seek – universal happiness? Surely that result is absurd. For a start we do not all have identical needs, so different solutions are required for each of us. Secondly, supposing all our individual needs were satisfied, would we not discover that we had other needs?
Suppose all the wealth in the world were to be shared equally between every individual currently living in the world – so long as the population continues to rise you would have to apply a new distribution at periodic intervals. And how do you determine what constitutes an equal share? Take land, since land is the principle source of wealth. How do you determine the value of an acre of highly fertile land compared to an acre of arctic tundra? Or an acre that has beneath it a valuable resource?
Equal shares are impossible to achieve. And once you accept that fact it becomes a battle to determine who gets more than another. We can all put forward arguments as to why one man or woman ‘deserves’ more than another. Should we spend more on rehabilitating the junkie or treating cancer? Or on prevention of either? How do we decide? Democratically or at the dictate of a tyrant?
And, when you say that the system is set up by some external (or internal? I’m never sure how you see the origin of the ‘Matrix’) force to disadvantage humanity, remember that there are many people working to do all of the things I just mentioned and much more that is ‘good’ besides. I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy into the idea that we need only one ‘book’ and that it has not yet been written. There is much of value to be taken from each of the many ‘books’ that seek to describe and remedy our condition but none has all the answers.
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting, Frank.
Two things: I do realize the apparent weakness of my argument.
I also realize that you are approaching the discussion in the same way I used to prior to my years with the Teachers.
I used to see a lot of “pictures” of previous and proposed solutions to our social and planetary problems until I arrived at the conclusion that for every solution, a new, possibly worse, problem would surface. This led me into despair and attempted suicide-the only way I could see to “quit” if I could not do the job I sensed I had been born to do.
From your point of view, I accept all of your observations as completely correct. All the parts, the bits, the pieces are there. The instruction manuals which support, cancel out, contradict and disparage each other, they are all there on the library shelves. From the Bible to improving your golf swing. Granted. Every objection you make: accepted. Further, let me state that I know you are correct, and that is NOT sarcasm, it is the truth of it.
Brass tacks: I’m not here to fix earth’s problems, Frank. I’m here to essentially write a thesis, or in simpler terms, to study in order to pass a test.
The thesis: a giant leap, outside the box. Proposing the impossible and unthinkable: a new humanity based on a changed state of mind. Mental, not physical.
The Teachers’ challenge was simple: give us a solution that is not based on anything your people have ever done before. We will not accept arguments based on exceptions. We want you to describe and demonstrate how your “elegant” solution is not only original but applicable to all members of your species regardless of status, age, class, gender, race. It cannot be applicable through collectives but only through individuals. It cannot be imposed, either by inducement or coercion. It must be something extant in each and every individual; something which they can draw upon at will and always by choice.
For some years I focused my “research” upon what the “new agey” era called unconditional love. I even wrote a short novel on the subject and that’s how I realized it’s an oxymoron. If love is not unconditional, then what good is it? So why label an aspect of it unconditional? It didn’t add up. There had to be something else, not just an add-on or an appendage and it had to be incorruptible. Love was utterly compromised. Basically it was whatever anyone wanted it to be. From lust to adoration.
While I was studying this, I was also practising various approaches to personal problems. I was forcing myself to change my own mind about everything, bar none. If I believed in it, I rejected it. God, religion, politics, the lure of money – gone. Family, special friendships, associations with various groups, terminated. I discovered that I had to come to a stand alone place. That’s when I discovered compassion, not as an idea, nor virtue, but as an actual force. Through self empowerment compassion filled the emptiness and empowered, giving vision and drive. My life was no longer mine, it belonged to something that was greater than me yet I was in full control of. Everything I did, I did by choice though there was an inevitability about those choices. I made them knowing I could change my mind but would not. The choice was always the correct one. That’s what finally did it. I decided to become an avatar of compassion, that being the closest thing I could be to my chosen purpose.
I studied this “thing” I had and wondered how I found it to realize it had always been a sleeping aspect of my mind and I had awakened it. I realized that this force resided in every intelligent, sentient, self aware being. I realized it was the one thing that could destroy the power of the Matrix, that which we call “the System” but is a front for controlling forces earth people cannot conceive of even existing, that which the Teachers called the Time Lords.
People don’t need to know that esoteric history of their universe, it will become obvious in time. What should be obvious now is the need to change social direction. We’ve arrived at an important cross-road in our history and how we choose can mean the violent end of everything if the earth is destroyed. It can mean the end of civilization and unimaginable horrors. It can mean a global and necessarily totalitarian government basing itself on some of the worst “solutions” found in the current library of books. If we choose to continue as we are, sowing the wind, we can only inherit the whirlwind. Cause and effect.
So, Frank, my proposal is direct, simple and devastating to the system. Everybody chooses to become a compassionate being and to act accordingly, whatever that means on an individual basis. No more selfish choices. A changed nature.
All that is required of an individual is the will to awaken her/his compassionate nature then let that take over the individual life. From my experience with this force, there is no downside except for the selfish nature, which is as it should be since it is the selfish nature that we should be working on terminating. We are way past the point of acting like frightened dependent children relying exclusively on the whims of a bunch of spoiled bullies for our survival and entertainment.
Compassion when properly entered into has the power to demolish the works of the System. That is the only book we need to write, and read. It also answers all your other objections about population, sharing, happiness, etc. by simply NOT addressing any of them. By removing the fear and competitiveness, leaving only an empowered being eager but to help others, all these things gradually vanish.
I no longer expect earth people to be able to grasp this but I know that the Teachers will understand it in a second. They won’t need convincing since their own worlds operate on it.
You want to know what set me on this path? I’ve always been horrified by war; by gratuitous “collateral damage” of state sanctioned murder and genocide. I was given a look at a world operating from empathy. No killing there. I was told, “Try to imagine a world where if one little child died of preventable cause (and all deaths are preventable) the entire world would grind to a standstill and everybody would feel the loss of that child and the horror of such an event. Now compare that to your own world, and how much you devalue life. That is because you have no empathy and that is because you have never lived compassionately. You talk about it but you never activate it. So you kill and feel nothing unless it happens one of yours, your own child, someone you are attached to.”
I became vegetarian after that, Frank, and I taught myself detachment so that there would no longer be strangers who did not matter in my life.
This is the best answer I can give to your questions. Thank you, once again, for the dialogue.
LikeLike