Idealism

[Gatekeeper]

Defensive and offensive fighting are still both a form of fighting. If the opposition is unwilling to waiver, is willing to kill you if you refuse to settle, you won't kill? Ideals always require bloodshed, every religious founder has embodied this truth. Every nation has had to shed blood for its ideals, it is simply not possible to avoid. You are infringing on another ideal whenever you engage in creating the circumstance of your own.

If you are suggesting that we allow aggressors to kill and torture us and those who are vulnerable in our society, I'm calling you out as an extremist

This is the problem, you see opposites as necessary, and you group me into one of them for ease of your own expression. I am as against passivity as I am aggression, both are poisonous. I just think that fighting for the power of something artificial - like a country or religious organization - is stupid.

Having to fight in defense against self-serving and foreign aggressors is simply our reality. Ideally, we would have not that need, but this is the world we live in.

I am saying that the extremes should be removed, that we are fighting to push out ideals while killing someone that believes in another ideal. If all are given individual empowerment and freedom rather than choosing a particular group, there needn't be war at all - without large groups, war is simply impossible.

But this isn't our reality, lunitik. We live in a dangerous world with enemies who wouldn't bat an eye at our destruction. Your ideology is dangerous as it condemns those who fight for those most vulnerable. There ARE people who are simply aggressive, whom have channeled their aggression in a positive manner -- To serve and to protect others from violent self-serving men. On that same note, there ARE those who are more passive in approach, those who appeal to love, compassion, and unity. Both create a balance in our society. Without one, the other would fall.

You call it defending, but those foreign aggressors are defending their ideals as well. They usually fight because there are individuals in that country which are part of their community. Take 9/11 for instance, there are Muslims in America that are seeing things which are against Islam. Their freedom is to work in America, but the Muslim ideal means that they should not be witness to such things. Now, to defend the American freedom - really to enforce democracy, another ideal - Americans force this on other countries. It is all a matter of perspective, but always we create and empower us vs them, there are few truly individual people in this world because of this.

I have suggested three times now that we are not to force our ideals on others, but rather that we defend them against aggressors, those who are attempting to force their ideals on us with violence.

 

[Lunitik]

If you are suggesting that we allow aggressors to kill and torture us and those who are vulnerable in our society, I'm calling you out as an extremist

I am suggesting that "we" and "us" is the ultimate cause of noticeable evil. I am saying that "we" and "us", on both sides, is exactly what creates extremism. It destroys individuals, and creates group-think which is utterly inhumane in every way. One group identifies with one thing, the other with another competing thing, so they both fight for their cause. If the idea was kept to a given individual, if others didn't adopt it as their own, war is not possible.

Having to fight in defense against self-serving and foreign aggressors is simply our reality. Ideally, we would have not that need, but this is the world we live in.

Every ideal is self-serving.

But this isn't our reality, lunitik. We live in a dangerous world with enemies who wouldn't bat an eye at our destruction. Your ideology is dangerous as it condemns those who fight for those most vulnerable. There ARE people who are simply aggressive, whom have channeled their aggression in a positive manner -- To serve and to protect others from violent self-serving men. On that same note, there ARE those who are more passive in approach, those who appeal to love, compassion, and unity. Both create a balance in our society. Without one, the other would fall.

I have no enemies, but the thing is, our government isn't batting an eye at the destruction of others either - and indeed they are ok with their own citizens destruction! I am saying we can defend freedom, even fight wars through love and compassion - although it is not a unity at all.

Yes, without enemies, no cause can gain traction. By creating enmity, you force those around to pick a side, and in this identification violence erupts.

I have suggested three times now that we are not to force our ideals on others, but rather that we defend them against aggressors, those who are attempting to force their ideals on us with violence.

I am saying that it is not possible to defend without offending. By defending yourself, you are aggressing against another. You state there is a difference because you didn't strike first, but there are few new conflicts in the world - they are all ancient. Does anyone actually know who swung first? Is it even possible to truly know?

 

[Lunitik]

If you say I am an extremist because I refuse to pick sides, to even acknowledge the validity of either side, then I am comfortable with that. This is not my understanding of extremism, my understanding is that the extremes are the exaggeration of opposites, but apparently there are other definitions I am not aware of.

We live in a world where killing millions is a valid response to killing thousands... it is sick and I am just pointing this out. The ultimate way to create peace is for the individuals on either side to distance themselves from ideals, to realize they have created that which they appose - this is the natural balance of things, every action causes an equal and opposite reaction. No matter how loudly you yell "yes", someone will yell "no" just as loudly. People deny such perspectives though, they only see their own.

Ultimately, extremism is created by idealism, there is no other way to create such a situation. They are merely those that believe most strongly for a particular ideal, but your ideal isn't extremist because it is your own ideal, you don't want to see that it creates its own counter.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I am suggesting that "we" and "us" is the ultimate cause of noticeable evil. I am saying that "we" and "us", on both sides, is exactly what creates extremism. It destroys individuals, and creates group-think which is utterly inhumane in every way. One group identifies with one thing, the other with another competing thing, so they both fight for their cause. If the idea was kept to a given individual, if others didn't adopt it as their own, war is not possible.

Every ideal is self-serving.

I have no enemies, but the thing is, our government isn't batting an eye at the destruction of others either - and indeed they are ok with their own citizens destruction! I am saying we can defend freedom, even fight wars through love and compassion - although it is not a unity at all.

Yes, without enemies, no cause can gain traction. By creating enmity, you force those around to pick a side, and in this identification violence erupts.

I am saying that it is not possible to defend without offending. By defending yourself, you are aggressing against another. You state there is a difference because you didn't strike first, but there are few new conflicts in the world - they are all ancient. Does anyone actually know who swung first? Is it even possible to truly know?

The ideal that we all belong to the human race, to live in a manner beneficial to those around us, to live to give and serve others is self serving, and an "ego trip"? Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression about you, but you do seem to be on the extreme side of passive, and not just that but you seem to be against fighting for anything.


I'm a love dove, lunitik but I also realize the need for our military and the need for law enforcement personnel. Without them who would protect our best interests? We don't live in a world united, but rather we live in a divided world. This is simply our reality and until we no longer have opposing governments and countries, and until the world is free of violent people it will remain this way.


We are one body, the brotherhood of man, but there are many who turn it into an "us" and "them" conflict. There is no us and them, there is only humanity. Even so, many do not see or understand this, so they attempt to force upon others their violent will. To stand idle and do nothing when this happens is just as bad as being the aggressor as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Lunitik]

Yes, deciding what is beneficial for others is egotistical.

Countries are the reason military is necessary, for me, countries should go away and UN should control a global police force for any groups that try to take freedom from individuals.

Looking at the current situation and basing your ideal on keeping things the same is no ideal at all. This whole thread, you are arguing for maintaining ideals but now you say to look at things the way they are to justify. I am saying that no valid ideal needs to be fought for, it can be achieved through love. The ideals are fought only because we insist on them forcefully.

Who is the primary aggressor in this world, do you think? Everyone is fighting to spread their own cause, we see the other as the aggressor and deny their freedom to strengthen our own. No one in the world today is truly free because they all brainwashed for a given cause. For instance, Muslims are fighting today because this generation is angry about what happened in the Gulf war - who was the aggressor of that war? America involved themselves in a foreign affair aggressively instead of assisting to move those people out of the situation who didn't wish to partake in the majority. America fought for their ideals, imposing their ideals on another country. Now, this generation has a great hatred for Americans because they killed their parents and uncles. It is all about identifying with a particular cause, everyone is fighting for freedom, but it is for their own definition of freedom and refuse the others differing definition.

The majority, of course, were forcing their ideal on the minority as well - another situation of group-think. Those 2500 Americans died on 9/11 because of America butting their nose into an affair that didn't involve them though, and now this generation is losing millions as a consequence. Of course, a greater hatred will grow because people identify now with those who died. The cycle is ongoing, but this identification with a group doesn't permit that anything be solved. Peace cannot be achieved in a hateful environment.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Yes, deciding what is beneficial for others is egotistical.

Countries are the reason military is necessary, for me, countries should go away and UN should control a global police force for any groups that try to take freedom from individuals.

Looking at the current situation and basing your ideal on keeping things the same is no ideal at all. This whole thread, you are arguing for maintaining ideals but now you say to look at things the way they are to justify. I am saying that no valid ideal needs to be fought for, it can be achieved through love. The ideals are fought only because we insist on them forcefully.

Who is the primary aggressor in this world, do you think? Everyone is fighting to spread their own cause, we see the other as the aggressor and deny their freedom to strengthen our own. No one in the world today is truly free because they all brainwashed for a given cause. For instance, Muslims are fighting today because this generation is angry about what happened in the Gulf war - who was the aggressor of that war? America involved themselves in a foreign affair aggressively instead of assisting to move those people out of the situation who didn't wish to partake in the majority. America fought for their ideals, imposing their ideals on another country. Now, this generation has a great hatred for Americans because they killed their parents and uncles. It is all about identifying with a particular cause, everyone is fighting for freedom, but it is for their own definition of freedom and refuse the others differing definition.

The majority, of course, were forcing their ideal on the minority as well - another situation of group-think. Those 2500 Americans died on 9/11 because of America butting their nose into an affair that didn't involve them though, and now this generation is losing millions as a consequence. Of course, a greater hatred will grow because people identify now with those who died. The cycle is ongoing, but this identification with a group doesn't permit that anything be solved. Peace cannot be achieved in a hateful environment.

I agree with your sentiments in this post. It has no good end! We should be more like Canada and focus on ourselves instead of attempting to force our ideals on other countries. But, but, but you say deciding what is best for others is egotistical. I think it best that no one goes hungry. I think it best that no one goes homeless. I think it best that we treat illnesses and diseases, etc. I think i t best that we work together to better our world by making a difference in the lives of others, but alas .... I am "ego tripping".

 

[Lunitik]

I agree with your sentiments in this post. It has no good end! We should be more like Canada and focus on ourselves instead of attempting to force our ideals on other countries. But, but, but you say deciding what is best for others is egotistical. I think it best that no one goes hungry. I think it best that no one goes homeless. I think it best that we treat illnesses and diseases, etc. I think i t best that we work together to better our world by making a difference in the lives of others, but alas .... I am "ego tripping".

If you think it best that no one go hungry, that no one be homeless, are you willing to bring them into your home and feed them? The sympathy does not help anyone, only action does. Without action, your sentiment is hypocritical, but your action is a loving action.

The ego, though, will not permit this. You will see a homeless man and create excuses why you cannot assist this person. The ego is nourished by the sentiment, the want for others to not suffer, but if it directly effects you it is better to leave him hungry and homeless. Even if you take the man in, feed and provide a place for sleep, you will insist on certain behaviors while he stays with you. You will not permit him freedom while providing for him, your rules will comfort your ego because at least there are boundaries between yourself and this stranger you are helping.

The situation arises that instead of helping those that need it, we create places for the helpless to go so they don't bother us. Instead of taking him into our home until he can find a job and a place to live of his own, we put them in homeless shelters who do nothing to really help other than the bare minimum. This, again, is not helpful, it just makes the helplessness more manageable and eases the society because they see the suffering less often.

This is how the world is today, we talk a good talk but we always do the bare minimum of action. We send food to starving countries, but there is no nourishment in the food - just rice and a place for water. We could, for the same price, send each village the means to farm their own produce but then they no longer need our help. If we lift them out of poverty, how will we profit from their misfortune? Even when we give, it is to benefit ourselves ultimately - we want to get into heaven, it is just another greed, an egotistical desire.

It sounds great, but it accomplishes nothing.

 

[Gatekeeper]

If you think it best that no one go hungry, that no one be homeless, are you willing to bring them into your home and feed them? The sympathy does not help anyone, only action does. Without action, your sentiment is hypocritical, but your action is a loving action.

The ego, though, will not permit this. You will see a homeless man and create excuses why you cannot assist this person. The ego is nourished by the sentiment, the want for others to not suffer, but if it directly effects you it is better to leave him hungry and homeless. Even if you take the man in, feed and provide a place for sleep, you will insist on certain behaviors while he stays with you. You will not permit him freedom while providing for him, your rules will comfort your ego because at least their are boundaries between yourself and this stranger you are helping.

The situation arises that instead of helping those that need it, we create places for the helpless to go so they don't bother us. Instead of taking him into our home until he can find a job and a place to live of his own, we put them in homeless shelters who do nothing to really help other than the bare minimum. This, again, is not helpful, it just makes the helplessness more manageable and eases the society because they see the suffering less often.

Are you calling me a hypocrite? There are many ways to home the homeless without putting one's own family at risk. There are many charities that work towards this goal, just as there are many charities that feed the hungry, etc. You make light of offering a homeless person a place in a shelter, which may not be ideal, but it gets them out of the elements and into a place where they don't have to worry about freezing to death. I have on two occasions given shelter to those without homes, but that is beside the point. We're not talking about me, but rather ideals and creating a better world.

Indeed, love is about action, but you are promoting a no action ideal by suggesting we are ego tripping when we try to better our world. On one hand you say we choose not to act because of ego and then on the other you say that our actions are because of ego. I think you are confused to be honest, not even understanding what the ego is. If my efforts to help others is an ego trip to you, then so be it. I prefer to think my actions are about love, compassion, and responsibility.

Edit: It has nothing to do with getting to heaven, and everything to do with our responsibilities to our fellow man.

 

[Lunitik]

Are you calling me a hypocrite? There are many ways to home the homeless without putting one's own family at risk. There are many charities that work towards this goal, just as there are many charities that feed the hungry, etc. You make light of offering a homeless person a place in a shelter, which may not be ideal, but it gets them out of the elements and into a place where they don't have to worry about freezing to death. I have on two occasions given shelter to those without homes, but that is beside the point. We're not talking about me, but rather ideals and creating a better world.

I have stated a hypocrisy, if it applies to you then you are a hypocrite. I have not directed the words at anyone though, I have merely stated the situation.

Do you think charities do anything out of kindness? It is a business, so much so that taking 15% is actually advertised as not being that much. Usually they are taking most of the money for themselves, even all of it but because it is labelled as a charity is feeds your conscience that at least you have given. You do not have to do anything directly, and yet you have helped in your mind...

Indeed, love is about action, but you are promoting a no action ideal by suggesting we are ego tripping when we try to better our world. On one hand you say we choose not to act because of ego and then on the other you say that our actions are because of ego. I think you are confused to be honest, not even understanding what the ego is. If my efforts to help others is an ego trip to you, then so be it. I prefer to think my actions are about love, compassion, and responsibility.

Again, your perception is that I am saying no-action is better. By saying you can change the world, certainly this is an ego-trip, you are convincing yourself that you are important enough to effect such widespread change. You go on grouping with others of like-mind and you go about trying to instill your ideas on others - missionaries of many churches do this, try to convert worldwide.

I have said that acting every day in love is perfectly good, but you if you are doing it to convert or have them align with you, it is entirely of ego. By aligning with the group, you are damaging your individualism, but it is strengthening your ego because now it is attached to something more powerful than before. Now, everyone you align with the group, they are increasing your power. If the group now wants to fight with another, you cannot even detach if you think the fight is wrong, you will find a reason why it is perfectly good. In the end, there is no good in it at all, you have simply lost yourself to the crowd.

The individual is smaller, less powerful, but if a war arises and he must fight, he can choose rightly. Choosing what is best for yourself will always bring about the best scenario because the motivation is not about identifying with something, you are not going along because your peers have convinced you, you are going along because if you do not you will certainly die - at least now there is a possibility that you won't. The danger is that you will continue to align with the crowd you have chosen afterwards, now you have again lost yourself.

Edit: It has nothing to do with getting to heaven, and everything to do with our responsibilities to our fellow man.

What responsibility do you have for man? What has man done for you to feel this responsibility? All man has done is allowed you to lose yourself to the extent you will dispute and refuse to seek yourself out again.

 

[Dream]

We send food to starving countries, but there is no nourishment in the food - just rice and a place for water. We could, for the same price, send each village the means to farm their own produce but then they no longer need our help. If we lift them out of poverty, how will we profit from their misfortune?

I guess that bit about rice is possible but its not clear who it is that you are accusing. I guess you mean 'The West' could easily fix everyone else's problems but wants to keep everyone dependent. It was that way during colonial times, but many of us westerners are in countries that were once colonies and colonial times are over. If the gift were opium I would understand what you are saying, but you are talking about rice.

I'm not sure why sending the means to make farms is cheaper. There are universities and funds developing sustainable farming to help villagers in difficult areas, but farming and manufacturing isn't for everybody and is not simple. You don't just parachute down a packet of seeds and expect a farm to appear. You have to test the soil and discover renewable farming that works for that spot. For other industry you have to find an industry niche and train people, and you have to feed them while you are doing it. You have to convince villagers to invest in the time to become educated and to change how they do things and to take the risk of changing. Its much, much easier and cheaper for us to simply grow some grain and ship it and let countries develop themselves.

 

[radarmark]

Lunatik, some of us actually do act in accordance with our beliefs and care for strangers the way you describe. You can choose not to believe that, if you want. It is called doing what is right.

Having participate in humanitarian aid efforts, the food is not what you describe. We do not ship off rice and water, but milk and formula and protein powders at the minimum. No do we keep people in those circumstances to profit. How much profit do you think UNICEF, Red Crescent and Friends' Service Committees make?

If we do it for no other reason than it is right (see Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments for an explantiuon of how this can happen), if we take the needy into our home or give tiem or money to UWFP (because the problem in Somalia is just too big for one person), if we tell no one, and if we do not expect the reward in heaven. does not that disprove your claims?

Again, you do not have to accept this. But I know 15 or 20 my Meeting (of 20 or 30) who fit this description.... and the others are on the receiving end (I have been on both) or such hidden saints those who benefit from their actions don't even know it (nor does the community).

Pax et amore vincunt omnia--Radarmark.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I have stated a hypocrisy, if it applies to you then you are a hypocrite. I have not directed the words at anyone though, I have merely stated the situation.

Fair enough

Do you think charities do anything out of kindness? It is a business, so much so that taking 15% is actually advertised as not being that much. Usually they are taking most of the money for themselves, even all of it but because it is labelled as a charity is feeds your conscience that at least you have given. You do not have to do anything directly, and yet you have helped in your mind...

I think there are some very good and reputable charities who do make a difference and also that those who donate to these charities are doing what they are able to help those in need of assistance.

Again, your perception is that I am saying no-action is better. By saying you can change the world, certainly this is an ego-trip, you are convincing yourself that you are important enough to effect such widespread change. You go on grouping with others of like-mind and you go about trying to instill your ideas on others - missionaries of many churches do this, try to convert worldwide.

Me change the world, hehe! It will take "us" working together to change the world, but it does start at home. If everyone adopted your mindset nothing would ever change, but hey .... That's o.k., those who at least try can pull your weight. By all means, sit in your comfy chair and eat and drink and be merry if you so desire to do so.

I have said that acting every day in love is perfectly good, but you if you are doing it to convert or have them align with you, it is entirely of ego. By aligning with the group, you are damaging your individualism, but it is strengthening your ego because now it is attached to something more powerful than before. Now, everyone you align with the group, they are increasing your power. If the group now wants to fight with another, you cannot even detach if you think the fight is wrong, you will find a reason why it is perfectly good. In the end, there is no good in it at all, you have simply lost yourself to the crowd.

You can live as you choose, no one is forcing you to do anything not in your heart to do, but some people do plant seeds that can sprout change. If the seed takes root in others, then great, if not then so be. That's the beauty in it all ... You are free to live as you desire. Others will live differently than you and that's o.k, right? right?


It is o.k. for others to adopt ideals that are beneficial to others in attempt to help create a better world, right? We are a diverse people so we can't expect everyone to follow along. We can't expect everyone to help make the world better for our children. There will be many who are content to simply live their lives never considering the well being of others. I can accept that; we're not all going have the heart to create change in the world.

The individual is smaller, less powerful, but if a war arises and he must fight, he can choose rightly. Choosing what is best for yourself will always bring about the best scenario because the motivation is not about identifying with something, you are not going along because your peers have convinced you, you are going along because if you do not you will certainly die - at least now there is a possibility that you won't. The danger is that you will continue to align with the crowd you have chosen afterwards, now you have again lost yourself.

I'm not sure what you mean by losing yourself in the crowd. There's a great deal to be said for community and the sense of brotherhood gained from working together to help those in need.

What responsibility do you have for man? What has man done for you to feel this responsibility? All man has done is allowed you to lose yourself to the extent you will dispute and refuse to seek yourself out again.

I'm one who believes that we are one body (Humanity) and that we collectively choose our fate. Whether we serve one another in love, attempt to rule over others by force, or whether we close our eyes to the suffering in the world, we ultimately create the world we live in.


Our responsibilities are to make the world better for our descendants, our children, their children, for the human race. If you cannot accept this to be your responsibility then that's fine. Sit in your comfy chair, eat, drink, and be merry while many others will embrace this responsibility with open arms and be the better for for it.

 

[radarmark]

Gatekeeper, I wish I was half as down-to-earth as you are. It's like the Algonquin say (and where Seventh Generation products got their motto)--"act on this earth for the benefit of the seventh generation to come". Pretty simple.

Hopis, Zunis, and (yes) we Quakers believe much the same.

The weird The Theory of Moral Sentiments reference actually comes from Adam Smith. Everyone remembers Wealth of Nations, but it really is just an additional analysis based on Theory. He was trying to explain why we have this innate "will to care". Once you read it, Wealth takes on an entirely different perspective.

Peace Unto Three, brother

 

[Lunitik]

I guess that bit about rice is possible but its not clear who it is that you are accusing. I guess you mean 'The West' could easily fix everyone else's problems but wants to keep everyone dependent. It was that way during colonial times, but many of us westerners are in countries that were once colonies and colonial times are over. If the gift were opium I would understand what you are saying, but you are talking about rice.

I'm not sure why sending the means to make farms is cheaper. There are universities and funds developing sustainable farming to help villagers in difficult areas, but farming and manufacturing isn't for everybody and is not simple. You don't just parachute down a packet of seeds and expect a farm to appear. You have to test the soil and discover renewable farming that works for that spot. For other industry you have to find an industry niche and train people, and you have to feed them while you are doing it. You have to convince villagers to invest in the time to become educated and to change how they do things and to take the risk of changing. Its much, much easier and cheaper for us to simply grow some grain and ship it and let countries develop themselves.

Every year, we are giving billions to charities the world over. Constantly, we must provide because they cannot for themselves. We give the cheapest of food because there are so many mouths to feed and still it is costing billions, many wealthy countries the world over are assisting and still the situation is not really improving. At most, we are sustaining their lives - their suffering would be finished if they died, but now they need us. It feels good to be needed, but if we let a few die while teaching as many as possible, this is somehow cruel.

Your statement here is so very short sighted. It may cost more upfront, but eventually they will come to a position where they can provide for themselves. Now they are no longer a burden at all, so now no more money from the wealthy is necessary. Soon, though, something even better happens, now they start providing for us. We start trading with them, we create another choice for produce and so the whole industry is competitive this high up and so it is cheaper for the little man so to speak. Now there is a situation where instead of 2/3 of the world carrying the other 1/3, there is a situation where all are equally sufficient. Perhaps each is individually a little poorer because the wealth is spread out more, but all become automatically more comfortable except the few who had an abundance already - now they have less so they won't like it.

This, for me, is true compassion. Creating a dependence on you is no better than giving them opium, in fact giving them opium would be more compassionate because now they will die pleasurably - charity only prolongs their suffering, it is only just enough for life to be stretched out. It is a situation that it is the opium of the masses though which creates this, we fear death, so we think that anything to keep them alive is better. You see, the religions that teach charity need an outlet to make you feel sympathy. Why give if no one needs? Without guilt though, religious organizations cannot even function, and that is all charity really is, it is a guilt that you are not in such a difficult situation so you should help. Ultimately, religious organizations attempt to make you numb to death by making you more involved in life. You are a slave to life because you run from death, freedom comes when you can face it but few have that courage.

Religious people see no problem with this, and it is perfectly ok that your charity actually benefits those working for that organization more than it is helping someone else. Giving to charity makes you feel lighter, now you can enjoy your greed a little more. Now you have paid a little more on your ticket to heaven, so you can counter it a little with some sin. You have done your part, you have made your entry into the afterlife a little easier so you can go back to planning your selfishness.

 

[Lunitik]

It is called doing what is right.

I call it distracting yourself from the real.

How much profit do you think UNICEF, Red Crescent and Friends' Service Committees make?

Too much.

does not that disprove your claims?

No, it only defeats my current device.

 

[Lunitik]

I think there are some very good and reputable charities who do make a difference and also that those who donate to these charities are doing what they are able to help those in need of assistance.

If they are truly doing some good, where are the fruits?

If anything, the worldwide situation is getting worse, so how can we justify that this is helping?

Me change the world, hehe! It will take "us" working together to change the world, but it does start at home. If everyone adopted your mindset nothing would ever change, but hey .... That's o.k., those who at least try can pull your weight. By all means, sit in your comfy chair and eat and drink and be merry if you so desire to do so.

It is not possible to change the world, I have been saying that the very effort to make it better is what is making it worse. Nature is in a natural balance, your actions towards good must be balanced, and so the more good there is in the world the worse it must get.

I am saying both good and bad are illusive, you have defined both or allowed others to define them for you. Now you see the world through these perceptions, and are not concerned with the beauty of reality.

You can live as you choose, no one is forcing you to do anything not in your heart to do, but some people do plant seeds that can sprout change. If the seed takes root in others, then great, if not then so be. That's the beauty in it all ... You are free to live as you desire. Others will live differently than you and that's o.k, right? right?

You speak of the seed, but with the sprouting towards heaven, so too are the roots reaching for hell.

When you convert another to your idea, it is very much a hell waiting to happen. It is not their idea, and we have all played the phone game. I am saying that freedom is impossible where there is desire, if two peoples ideas happen to be the same then certainly they should assist each other to act on it, but this cannot be about desire. You are doing what is right, not because it is desirable. Often the right thing to do is exactly the opposite of what we desire.

I'm not sure what you mean by losing yourself in the crowd. There's a great deal to be said for community and the sense of brotherhood gained from working together to help those in need.

I am referring to crowd-think.

Community is good only when it is a group of individuals, where no one represses anyone else. Brotherhood does not mean you are the same, in fact brothers fight all the time.

This is not the current situation, especially in religious circles, through all of history people have been killed for even disagreeing with religion.

I'm one who believes that we are one body (Humanity) and that we collectively choose our fate. Whether we serve one another in love, attempt to rule over others by force, or whether we close our eyes to the suffering in the world, we ultimately create the world we live in.

I am one who says we are one body (Existence) and that any illusion of choice is a fallacy - we play roles and nothing more.

Existence is a creative expression, but the creator and created is the same.

If peace is actually achieved, if we create a perfect reality - although for me it is impossible to realize ideals - it is no longer even worth living. Existence will be finished, nothing more can be done because the aim is completed, it is now perfect.

For me, it is completely perfect as it is this moment because I understand the ways of existence - and that is what I am attempting to display in this thread, how existence functions.

Our responsibilities are to make the world better for our descendants, our children, their children, for the human race. If you cannot accept this to be your responsibility then that's fine. Sit in your comfy chair, eat, drink, and be merry while many others will embrace this responsibility with open arms and be the better for for it.

I simply say that keeping it interesting is more important, because if God gets bored with us we will cease to be - then what point were those descendants? They were just around long enough to see the end of the world...

 

[Lunitik]

You can see group-think in this very thread...

Radarmark has praised Gatekeeper, he has rewarded his ego only, tried to raise it up. It is quite like a monkey's licking each other to show camaraderie to the group, but that same group will attack a rival group that even comes close, that even may be a threat to them.

We say we are evolved, but it is not evolution at all, it is just a new expression of the same old thing. It feels good to say we are more advanced though, now we are superior!

Even attempting to advance him further my presenting more knowledge to acquire, more food for the ego. It is a humorous affair really, but humans go on doing it...

 

[Gatekeeper]

Gatekeeper, I wish I was half as down-to-earth as you are. It's like the Algonquin say (and where Seventh Generation products got their motto)--"act on this earth for the benefit of the seventh generation to come". Pretty simple.

Hopis, Zunis, and (yes) we Quakers believe much the same.

The weird The Theory of Moral Sentiments reference actually comes from Adam Smith. Everyone remembers Wealth of Nations, but it really is just an additional analysis based on Theory. He was trying to explain why we have this innate "will to care". Once you read it, Wealth takes on an entirely different perspective.

Peace Unto Three, brother

I don't know much about Quakerism, but I did take the belief-o-matic test and it ranked high on the chart, hehe! Having the "will to care" is something I think comes naturally to us when we find value in love and even as children. I remember as a child feeling great sadness for those who were less fortunate than myself. I remember distinctly a movie called "Mommy Dearest" and one scene in-particular. To some it may have been an insignificant scene, but as a child who loved crayons and the joy of coloring it broke my heart to see the little girls crayons being stomped into tiny pieces.


Likewise, as an adult it breaks my heart that much of humanity has abandoned those who need us most. I must admit that I am put off by the views shared in the op, and also by the posters need to downplay the efforts of those who do have the will to care. I have learned to be less contentious towards others than I once was over the years. I won't hesitate to share my views or to disagree with someone, but when I do, I am much less confrontational than I was in times past. Had you known me when I first came to these boards several years ago under the username "TwistedCage" you would certainly recognize the contrast.


Anyway, that was then and this is now. Much has changed in my heart since then, and I have this forum and those who post on this forum whom have been a part of my journey to thank for much of that change. I came in prideful, contentious, and not even realizing the true scope of that which I professed to know. I still feel a bit of embarrassment for parading around like I knew it all.


Blessings,

 

[Gatekeeper]

You can see group-think in this very thread...

Radarmark has praised Gatekeeper, he has rewarded his ego only, tried to raise it up. It is quite like a monkey's licking each other to show camaraderie to the group, but that same group will attack a rival group that even comes close, that even may be a threat to them.

We say we are evolved, but it is not evolution at all, it is just a new expression of the same old thing. It feels good to say we are more advanced though, now we are superior!

Even attempting to advance him further my presenting more knowledge to acquire, more food for the ego. It is a humorous affair really, but humans go on doing it...

Yes, of course! We should all think like you!

 

[Gatekeeper]

If they are truly doing some good, where are the fruits?

If anything, the worldwide situation is getting worse, so how can we justify that this is helping?



It is not possible to change the world, I have been saying that the very effort to make it better is what is making it worse. Nature is in a natural balance, your actions towards good must be balanced, and so the more good there is in the world the worse it must get.

I am saying both good and bad are illusive, you have defined both or allowed others to define them for you. Now you see the world through these perceptions, and are not concerned with the beauty of reality.



You speak of the seed, but with the sprouting towards heaven, so too are the roots reaching for hell.

When you convert another to your idea, it is very much a hell waiting to happen. It is not their idea, and we have all played the phone game. I am saying that freedom is impossible where there is desire, if two peoples ideas happen to be the same then certainly they should assist each other to act on it, but this cannot be about desire. You are doing what is right, not because it is desirable. Often the right thing to do is exactly the opposite of what we desire.



I am referring to crowd-think.

Community is good only when it is a group of individuals, where no one represses anyone else. Brotherhood does not mean you are the same, in fact brothers fight all the time.

This is not the current situation, especially in religious circles, through all of history people have been killed for even disagreeing with religion.



I am one who says we are one body (Existence) and that any illusion of choice is a fallacy - we play roles and nothing more.

Existence is a creative expression, but the creator and created is the same.

If peace is actually achieved, if we create a perfect reality - although for me it is impossible to realize ideals - it is no longer even worth living. Existence will be finished, nothing more can be done because the aim is completed, it is now perfect.

For me, it is completely perfect as it is this moment because I understand the ways of existence - and that is what I am attempting to display in this thread, how existence functions.



I simply say that keeping it interesting is more important, because if God gets bored with us we will cease to be - then what point were those descendants? They were just around long enough to see the end of the world...

Feel free to disagree, lunitik. That is your right after all, but don't expect everyone to jump on your bandwagon of indifference. You act as if because some care and act that we are fueled by our egos when the reality is that we are fueled by love, compassion, and a genuine concern for the well-being of others. Who said anything about good and evil, we are speaking about basic human needs, Food, shelter, medicine, etc.


Furthermore, you speak of heaven and hell as if we all believe in them. Many do not, nor do I think heaven or hell should be one's motivation in life. If your hearts desire is to live for self and do nothing to make the lives of others better than that is your choice, but why down play the efforts of those of us who have found purpose in living for the betterment of our world and for those we share this world with?


We obviously do not meet up to your expectations, but Rome wasn't built in a day. It takes time, and effort, perseverance to achieve ANYTHING worth achieving. Although you do not recognize the fruits, doesn't mean that fruits are not being produced in the lives touched by the charities you seem so hostile towards. I guess if you were a starving child in Africa, you'd rather die an excruciating death instead of being fed, or perhaps you would be content drinking sewage water instead of drinking fresh from a well dug by those fruitless charities.