I think the Vietnam War came crashing down precisely because people were standing outside proclaiming enough.
quote:
For the record, Ric, in the sixties and early seventies, the anti war movement was not kicking bricks but smashing windows and hurling molitove cocktails, and were trying to aviod getting our brains kicked in by pigs.
Yes thats right Chris and I agree. In 69/70 I was one of Uncle Sams Misguided Children (USMC). By 1972 I was a card carring member of SDS(Students for a Democratic Society) at Michigan State. I proudly participated in the strikes, demonstrations and movements of that period. My heros were the Weather Underground. Do you remember they actually bombed the capitol building in DC and a multitude of police buildings and government buildings in CA.(I am not condoning violence now) Critical mass has yet to be reached here. Movies like this will help-
click the image with the hum-v and check out the punk ass crusade. Returning Vets will help. I've heard that the number vet suicides have reached 1000 per year.
Mabey this is changing subjects and I'm not accusing you of this only relating my own experience. Hating and blaming others is the same as self-hatred. Judging me and judging you are two sides of the same duality. I went back and forth between these throughout my life for years.(still do to some degree) This is nothing more than EGO-MAINTENCE.
I found it's possible to step outside to view it rather than be it. For me, I like to stay in a room where the lights are on. That means returning to present, coming back to center. It really is an actual movement and practice. Until people get it, that it's a practice and process, they call it "grace". Most view it as accidental like "I was going along and suddenly I was in well-being- I didnt do anything. Or. "I was walking along and suddenly I felt terrible. I didn't do anything" When you do an awarness practice it takes out the mystery and confusion.
There is not a single moment in a single day that we can go unconscious without consequences.
quote:
I do however respect a handful of people on this site including you, Ric.
The feeling is mutual Brother.
"The moon that I love clears a path through the pines And guides a stream right to the bamboo gate."Poems by Zen Master Hsu Yun: Series I
Posts: 795 | Location: western slope, northern sierra | Registered: 18 April 2003
Why not? When cornered by the unreasonable, don't we have the right to defend ourselves?
Who are you refering to as the unreasonable?
anyway...
Yes Miles and the way we defend ourselves is most important.
The healing arts and the martial arts seem to be a world apart but both share a common belief. The less needed the better. Both involve strategy in dealing with disharmony. In both arts knowledge of the problem is key to the solution.
"To overcome others' armies without fighting is the best of skills" THE ART OF WAR
"To sense and comprehend after action is not worthy of being called comprehension. To accomplish after striving is not worthy of being called accomplishment. To know after seeing is not worthy of being called knowing. These three are far from the way of sensing and response. Indeed, to be able to do something before it exists, sense something before it becomes active, see something before it sprouts, are three abilities that develop interdependently. Then nothing is sensed but is comprhended, nothing is undertaken without response, nowhere does one go without benifit." The Book of Balance and Harmony
"Those who assist a leader by means of the Tao do not use arms to coerce the world, for these things tend to reverse-brambles grow where an army has been, bad years follow a great war. Weapons are inauspicious instruments, not the tools of the enlightened. When there is no choice but to use them, it is best to be calm and free from greed, and not celebrate victory. Those who celebrate victory are bloodthirsty, and the bloodthirsty cannot have their way with the world."The Art of War Sun Tzu
quote:
Those who are good at knighthood are not militaristic, those who are good at battle do not become angry, those who are good at prevailing over opponents do not get involved
The Art of War
quote:
Those skilled in defense hide in the deepest depths of the earth,those skilled in attack maneuver in the highest heights of the sky. Therefore they can preserve themselves and achieve complete victory.
The Art of War
"A good merchant hides his treasures and appears to have nothing" "A good craftsman leaves no trace" The Art of War
and finally........
quote:
Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.
The Art of WarSun Tzu
To overcome Tyranny, occupation, genocide, slavery,the waste of resources(humans included) destruction of the planet and animals will not involve adopting the methods of those engaged in this destruction. We do have the right to defend ourselves but not with the use of their methods. Justice will prevail through the collective conscience.
"The moon that I love clears a path through the pines And guides a stream right to the bamboo gate."Poems by Zen Master Hsu Yun: Series I
Posts: 795 | Location: western slope, northern sierra | Registered: 18 April 2003
bamboo, I know what you're saying, I really do, and I agree that counterviolence should not be our first tactic, however:
quote:
In no way am I suggesting we shouldn't work to reduce the harmfulness of these mechanism or superficial causes, anymore than I would suggest people not to work on rape crisis hot lines, or that people not attempt to stop individual rapists. But I would also not suggest that working on a rape crisis hotline will in any way halt the very real crisis of rape. No one I know who has ever worked on issues of men's violence against women has suggested that it will. Nor have they suggested that if only women will think nice enough thoughts, or practice the right sort of spiritual execises, that men will stop raping women.
Mabey this is changing subjects and I'm not accusing you of this only relating my own experience. Hating and blaming others is the same as self-hatred. Judging me and judging you are two sides of the same duality. I went back and forth between these throughout my life for years.(still do to some degree) This is nothing more than EGO-MAINTENCE.
I found it's possible to step outside to view it rather than be it. For me, I like to stay in a room where the lights are on. That means returning to present, coming back to center. It really is an actual movement and practice. Until people get it, that it's a practice and process, they call it "grace". Most view it as accidental like "I was going along and suddenly I was in well-being- I didnt do anything. Or. "I was walking along and suddenly I felt terrible. I didn't do anything" When you do an awarness practice it takes out the mystery and confusion.
For the most part, I agree. My problem is that spirituality can be used as a crutch to avoid engagement. I don't advocate violence either, if my words conveyed such, I regret it.
Change or transformation will not happen through the political system, but only because people wake up and begin to honor the Earth by their life style choices. Authentic Power is rooted to deed/action and thought. One without the other is nothing more than mental masterbation.
Peace to you brother.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
My problem is that spirituality can be used as a crutch to avoid engagement.
Yup. I agree completely.
If a guy walks up to me with the clear intention to rob and kill me, I feel I have the right to defend myself, by force if needs be.
No amount of positive thinking or friendly thoughts toward my enemy will safe my life if he is unreasonable. In that case, only bitch slapping the mother****er upside the head will.
Re: Change or transformation will not happen through the political system, but only because people wake up and begin to honor the Earth by their life style choices. Authentic power is rooted to deed/action and thought.
**First let me explain something Chris. I'm not trying to be difficult, nor do I have any interest in arguing with you. I think your passion on these issues is great, and I'd like to support it. What I'm trying to do is point something out that I feel will increase the effectiveness of your efforts. I'm not trying to get you to conform to some view I have. I'm just suggesting something about actual human behavior that's important for addressing this issue wisely...'to my understanding'. But it's obviously up to you to decide if that's my sincere interest, which I suggest it is.
So...my point, here and in our other discussion, is that the "deed/action" is dependent on the understanding (thoughts/knowledge/connecting the dots) each person has at a particular point in their existence. And the life style changes won't likely occur until some change in understanding occurs. I'm suggesting that this is not just my opinion, but rather an 'accurate description' of the 'actuality' of human behavior, in general.
To expect people to act in a manner inconsistent with their actual understanding is 'incoherent', I suggest. If someone doesn't understand the importance of taking care of the environment, no amount of ridicule or proding is going to change the degree of understanding a person is operating out of. If they aren't proctecting the environment, then they don't see or understand that necessity fully. As Heraclitus put it so well centuries ago: "The knowledge of many things does not teach understanding."
The illusion many humans seem to operate out of is that "people know better, they just choose to act otherwise." That's a "myth", it's a "fiction". It's based on the myth that the self-image is independent of the existing beliefs and opinions and can make decisions that are wiser than the existing understanding of the person would allow for at that moment. The reality is that humans always act in accordance to what they understand and the values they hold.
Change, I suggest, does indeed happen through the political system. Working Americans have been getting left behind for the last few decades as a result of such changes.
'Transformational change' doesn't happen through the political system, as it isn't meant to address transformation. Transformation is facilitated by a willingness and genuine interest to go beyond the attachment to one's existing worldview, and by facing the fact that if you don't honestly know what transformation is, then you can't possibly "will it".
The first step needs to be the acknowledgement that "I don't know" what transformation is. That means none of our knowledge or theories is of much of any use when exploring "the unknown."
To think other people "know better", yet still behave contrary to this knowing, is what I suggest is really deserving of your label: "mental masturbation". People may "know" certain things, but if their actions illustrate something else, then either the understanding is lacking or they aren't aware of the consequences of their actions.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
First of all Howard, please feel free to offer whatever rebuttals you care to. I don’t participate on this site because I need someone to hold my hand for me. I applaud your path; in fact, I’ve affirmed it many times, but it is not my path.. Your advice to me is irrelevant. Understanding derives from experiential awareness and not mind chatter, or rhetorical dialogue. I have no intention of conforming to your views, but assert your right to hold them and express them anyway you want to. Nor do I have any intention of stopping my method of mirroring the hypocrisy displayed on this site on behalf of Democrats. Moreover, your insistence that I “expect people to act” in a certain way, is a total misreading of anything I’ve ever contributed to this forum.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
Re: Understanding derives from experiential awareness and not mind chatter, or rhetorical dialogue.
**Precisely my understanding. But I'm not suggesting "rhetorical dialogue". I'm suggesting 'exploring together', pointing out what we see to each other, and inviting each person in the dialogue to explore what each person 'sees' experientally, internally & externally, in our own lives to see if it leads to a greater degree of clarity and awareness in our lives? And to do this in the spirit of friendship.
If you still believe after all our conversations that I'm trying to convince you of my ideas, rhetoric, or path, than I've obviously failed to adequately convey what I mean by exploratory/cooperative/dialogue, or 'Bohm-style' dialogue. But given the difficulties I've encountered over the last several years trying to communicate this 'exploratory/experiental' difference with Bohm-style dialogue from what most people commonly think of when they hear the word dialogue used, it's not surprising to me that I've still been unable to communicate this clearly enough.
RE: Your advice to me is irrelevant.
**Sorry to hear that.
Re: your insistence that I "expect people to act" in a certain way, is a total misreading of anything I've ever contributed to this forum.
**So it's okay with you that alot of people think the Democratic party is going to fix things? You're okay with the folly of this belief?
I had no intention of criticising you, I was simply attempting to call attention to what seems to be a very common human habit of expecting life to conform to each persons idea of how the world 'should be'. An aspect of human thought which seems to be at the root of most all anger & violence. And I get the impression lately that you seem rather angry about the issues you are raising. I'm not suggesting I know this for a fact, I'm just offering my views as a friend.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
So it's okay with you that alot of people think the Democratic party is going to fix things? You're okay with the folly of this belief?
Absolutely on both counts! People can think whatever they want to think as far as I am concerned. The mirror I hold up reflects the contradictions to the beliefs.
If you truely believe what you are saying, is not your own vote contradictory?
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
Re: If you truly believe what you are saying, is not your own vote contradictory?
**If you're still talking about voting for Kerry, I don't follow your logic?
My 'belief' is that one should take the action which, as best one can tell, will produce the best results under the existing conditions.
In 2004, the 'existing conditions' were the choice of Kerry or Bush or say Nader, more or less. Nader didn't have a chance in hell of getting elected given the current thinking of the American public (as best I could tell). So the choice was left to Kerry or Bush. I'd say Kerry was clearly a better choice, out of the two poor choices.
Where's the contradiction?
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
Absolutely on both counts! People can think whatever they want to think as far as I am concerned. The mirror I hold up reflects the contradictions to the beliefs.
Wow. THAT'S a lesson in humility if I ever received one. Thanks!
Re: Both your questions seem to indicate that the belief of Democrats fixing things is folly. I hope I got that right?
**You are correct. I don't believe they are going to fix things. I only think they won't screw things up as badly. The only viable options at that point for who could actually get elected were between the lesser of evils.
Where's the contradiction?
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
Chris, It's been a while. As always, I enjoy your input. After all is said and done, more is said than done. My impression is that you are involved in living instead of thinking about living. I like that. If you still have my e-mail address, send me a note and I will fill you in on the awesome journey that keeps unfolding.
Posts: 60 | Location: mexico | Registered: 29 May 2001
Since we last spoke a few years back, Ive changed emails so yours is lost. Give me a shout at contemplative @ gmail.com. Enthusiastic to learn more of the adventure you allude...Until then, all good to you my friend.
Howard,
According to your rationale, apparently none. I guess this brings us full circle back to where we started. Since your value hierarchy permits voting for what is “pitiful” in your eyes, nothing I can say will illuminate my own value hierarchy which finds such a condition appalling. As I’ve said before: for those who know, no explanation is necessary, for those who do not know, no explanation will suffice.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
Re: Since your hierachy permits voting for what is "pitiful"
**I didn't create the pitiful choices for president in this country, I'm merely looking at the actuality I'm presented with and trying to make the most intelligent response to this pitiful choice that I have very little control over. If you want to be offensive and judgmental about that, so be it. I'm just trying to make decisions that minimize human suffering in conjunction with trying to do what I can to raise the level of consciousness and vigilance.
When the choices one is limited to at a particular point in time are the lesser of two pitiful choices, what is it that you suggest would make more sense then voting for the one who will do the least amount of damage? Put someone like Bush in office and get endless war, the Lebanon slaughter, an attack on Iran?
Is ridicule an approach you think is an effective one?
Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
When the choices one is limited to at a particular point in time are the lesser of two pitiful choices, what is it that you suggest would make more sense then voting for the one who will do the least amount of damage?
Andger - I didn't make a statement about the Universe. I suggested that the choices for who was electable to the office of President, in November 2004, in the US, was basically limited by our electoral system & public opinions, to what appeared to be two pitiful choices. I'm not talking about the "Universe". I'm talking about a specific situation American voters were faced with, at a specific point in time, given the conditions present, as best one could assess them.
The feedback I'm getting here is an assortment of interpretations & assumptions about my thinking, which don't represent 'my' thinking. And then I'm being told how wrong I am for thinking something which has nothing to do with what I'm actually suggesting. I didn't suggest voting for the democrats because I thought they would fix anything. I didn't suggest the Universe was limited to two-options. And I try as often as possible to put in qualifiers like "it seems to me" and "as best I can tell" to suggest that when I use a word like "actuality", that I mean: as best I can tell.
Whatever happened to asking questions before assuming one's interpretation is the reality?
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
Howard, I'm merely saying that such a choice is never that limited - unless one consciously narrows it down to but two options: such makes it a false choice, which the ruling Corporate Party (whether you call them Democratic Party or Republican Party) is putting in some effort to uphold - although at this rate they don't need to sweat about it, and sweat they should.
One can always vote one's conscience, vote one's heart, one's mind - or vote for those that one knows represent these. If one doesn't (for the reasons that produce the aforementioned false choice), one is actively helping to maintain the general illusion of a two-party system.
However, given the stealings of elections, and given the fact that there are many, many, many humans and nonhumans who have an acute need for help, it may be much more effective for a person to cast a vote for their own actions, i.e. to do something in that department, and drop the political circus altogether.
This is not to suggest that one should not vote for a Democrat or a Republican if one is honestly thusly inclined; it is to suggest that the choice is not limited to these two, especially when such a choice is made within the context of pondering (human) suffering.
Meaning that the "existing conditions" may not actually be the existing conditions, and that speaking of action, how will you help people become aware of that?
How will you help justice to prevail?
Posts: 2736 | Location: Andijvie | Registered: 25 June 2002
Andger - I didn't choose to consciously narrow this down, what seems to have done that narrowing was the nature of the 'question' Chris posed:
"If you truly believe what you say, is not your own vote contradictory?"
The issue was whether the vote was contradictory with the expressed beliefs? It wasn't a question of: Are there other options in the Universe?
I understand your point, and Klaus's. But to my understanding, that wasn't the question. Aside from the question, voting for Nader or some other "act of conscience", after seeing what a Bush/Cheney administration was capable of after four years of insanity, the intelligent response, (with regard to the 'voting aspect' of the whole scenario), was to make an attempt to limit the amount of carnage Bush/Cheney could inflict on living systems around the globe. And obviously my vote didn't make a whole lot of difference. Clearly, one option available is that one could abstain from voting, but it made no sense to me under the perceived conditions to not do what I could to keep Bush & Cheney out of this position of immense power.
I'm aware that there are endless possibilities, but like I said, the issue that was being discussed was whether the vote was contraditory with the beliefs.
I can understand the reasons someone might choose to vote one's conscience, I did that in 2000. But having seen four years of what Bush & Cheney were capable of, I considered the potential danger as equating to 'special circumstances' that called for doing whatever possible to stop any further insanity. Adhering to some ideological position under such special circumstances isn't an act of intelligence, to my undersatanding. Unfortunately, I don't think we humans have any real good way of evaluating how long it's going to take the human race to see the folly of the violence and war approach. So, for the mean time, I take the action which seems that it might possibly limit the damage done. I see politics as basically "a means to buy some time". The real work, to my understanding, is to change understanding. And that can be done in a myriad of ways.
I'm more than willing to hear how I may have been mis-interpreting the "circumstances" or "existing conditions" if either you, Chris, or Klaus would like to point out where I've mis-interpreted who Bush, Cheney, and Kerry are, and whether there was some other chance that someone else could have been elected given the choices that were offered? Please feel free to enlighten me about an option that was better than keeping Bush & Cheney out?
I know there are countless ways in which a person can act, but the question was about voting.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
Bush & Cheney were not kept out, despite the fact that the majority of voters thought they should be. If this hadn't been true, John Kerry would not have been kept out.
They are not being kept out.
To my understanding the question is not about voting for, voting against, or voting at all, or about anyone's vote in particular. The question is whether one wants to believe that this is the proper question to ask.
Your entire country has been stuck within the system's discourse. The Corporate Party rules, the world is destroyed. False choice, no action. No action, no change.
Posts: 2736 | Location: Andijvie | Registered: 25 June 2002
Read-Only Topic
