I believe that all the lonely peopleshould
get together and end loneliness
in
our lifetime
I
believe in making Peace The issue
I
believe we are all part of a plan of our
own
forming
I
believe people want to get along up
to
the point when they want to fight and
expend
pent up rage
I
believe people project on our opponents what
we
perceive as our horrific sins
I
believe there is ultimately
nothing
to win
and you?
It's just a phase, this material
trance. We awake into a world ready made and monkey-see our way into a social
construct we call "me". We do this both individually and all together. We go
through the metamorphoses of growth and experience, trying to piece it together
into useful sense. In that effort, we try out different roles, different styles,
different socio-political theories and practices. It is a systemic spiral we
travel, incrementally changing until we reach a critical mass, a crisis of
belief and boundary redefining. The world we think we know, have created in our
own minds, shifts. Before we get to that crisis, we explore and overextend, we
wallow to ridiculous degree to fully engorge, to fully play out the
possibilities and consequences of the reigning paradigm. We have learned, have
seen, that tools, technology can give us the illusion of grabbing more than our
hands can hold, of smiting our enemies and increasing our security. We have
learned, have seen, that grabbing and hoarding the material luxuries and symbols
of power can give small, scared, weak people an illusion of power and command,
and the kind of security that implies. However, we are learning, some are
seeing, that the material trappings are not the feelings themselves, are not
truly worthwhile as goals or means. It is a phase we learn through, then, if we
have been paying appropriate attention, move from to try out other theories,
other practices, as those possibilities become more obvious. Of course, there is
always the chance that what hasn't truly made us stronger will kill
us.
Why do we assume that it is the height of virtue to be "hard-working"? Certainly it is a great good to uphold one's responsibilities as a member of a community -- to be reliable, trustworthy, and conscientious, to carry one's fair share of the weight. But lauding someone as "hard-working," implying industriousness well above the norm, implying that by virtue of those extra hours, that extra push of energy directed toward labor, one becomes deserving of ... what? A larger share of the communal pie? Extra consideration and privileges? A ready excuse for any and all activities that cannot be accommodated due to the extra time and energy given to that hard work? Whatever that work may consist of? Is that the message, the prioritization that we truly want for our community? That hard work trumps loving kindness or easy-going goodwill or all or the kinds of play that leads to discovery or artistic imaginings or camaraderie or taking joy in life? Or inspiring others to be happy, loving,spiritually attuned? Yes, hard work can be it's own reward, when one is working hard at somethign personally meaningful, or something of great public value. But is it really the virtue to which we most want to aspire?
why not, while we are having this
conversation, create a future through promotion in which, like utopian dreams of
fiction and reverie, a world in which our basic needs, even material whimsies,
are taken care of by the fruits of our imagination (technology) while we (all
our material needs attended) live in creativity, expansive relationship, giving
and receiving the nurturance of each other now that we are not bound by "making
money" to make us slaves to the shit work of those in charge to
survive?
If you start with the assumption that
government is the problem, you are negating the possibility of using government
sensibly as an organizing entity. If you start with the assumption that
government is the solution you tend to look at all problems as demanding laws to
manage. If you start with the assumption that government is a tool for use by
the people, you can start to look at where it is useful and how, and where other
tools might be more efficacious.
It can be argued
that more equitable distribution of access to resources is both more democratic
as the majority of people can vote with their dollars for the kinds of goods and
services we want, and better for economic growth and the optimal functioning of
market economy.
Nobody is getting
free stuff. This idea is a shared illusion. Everyone is getting paid. Those who
produce and sell the products, those who work and pay taxes, those who are paid
to contribute economically as consumers while keeping their dysfunctions out of
the workplace, are all being paid. No one is losing. It's a
win/win/win.
Many of the people
reviled with concerned that they get "free stuff" are working very hard; and not
getting sufficient compensation to pay for basic needs. Others are seriously
disabled, requiring major accommodations to be effective employees. Most
employers prefer not to make such accommodations (quite understandably), so
these people can not be employed. Government or private concerns could develop
special training and projects to employ those who could work, but rarely
do.
Others, though not
traditionally disabled have such chaotic lives (for any of many possible
reasons) that they are unemployable.
Others will be
employed and able to make their own contributions to the general revenue; but
for right now that has not happened.
Yet, these people
are all actively contributing to the overall economy while their lives are
sorting out. Fewer people are actively sick and destitute on the streets, and
thus not bringing down property values, causing problems for local businesses,
presenting disincentives for people of means to shop or enjoy public space, or
presenting even greater problems for health care and crime
industries.
There appears to
be a spell long cast upon the people to integrate into our basic understanding
of the world this idea of market based economy as a given. Economics, money,
even mathematics, are human constructs, ideas, not reality. When economic
systems, ideas we have joined in promoting, do not well serve human enterprise
and needs, the people ought not feel it is we who must adjust to serve the
economy. Rather, it is those ideas that need adjustment to better fit our
purpose.
people have a natural desire to perform useful functions,
to grow skills through experience, to feel productive and meaningful within
their community, to belongFreud
found that our most important values are work and love.Money is a medium of exchange, the way we in modern
societies distribute resources. There is no real reason why money need be tied
to work.
learning, mentally and physically growing, is what children
do naturally
to twist that natural curiosity and expansion into forced
inactivity and silence except on command of authority is a great deal of what
has made us so much less than we could be, so much worse than we would
be
People get the ego all wrong. I do understand -- it is what
we are taught.
Ego is meant to be the organizing principle in our
consciousness. It is a hard-working, important tool if we are to be social
beings in a material world. When ego is well used, it allows us to make sense of
the flood of sensations, organize time/space/tools/intent into worthwhile
projects, create appropriate interfaces for smooth social commerce, and
generally function as strong, self-motivated, sane actors. Because we are
misinformed, we often grow misformed egos that are not well used or healthy.
This can create deep resentments, anti-social inclinations, general confusion
about one's place in the world. Rather than denigrating ego, we would do well to
befriend our various strands and become more whole, more able, more socially
useful and personally joyful.
Having regard for
oneself, respect for that first person singular subjective locus, why would that
be considered negative? It sounds like a philosophy which subsumes the self into
the benefit of the whole, or of some particular selves who have power over the
whole. If the self were like a cell within a systemic whole, though, such
self-regard would not be a negative, it would be unimaginable -- unless the cell
had consciousness, yet no idea of the greater system, in which case self-regard
would be completely appropriate for a creature on its own.Bragging,
puffing up, presenting oneself as more important are not attributes of
self-regard. They are attributes of insecurity, a need for constant validation,
a role played to gain attention or misdirect. The person who is secure within
their own skin is generally genial, with no need to take the spotlight, unless
that is their role in a particular performance.So why is the ego, the
self, the first person singular, the focused consciousness
maligned?
the root of oppressive behavior is a complex of pain and
fear which expresses as anger against an assigned scapegoat which escalates to
violence and institutionalizes as oppression
discuss?
Violence feels good. It is a cathartic release of rage.
When done as a group activity, it helps to solidify the group. Especially in
religious cultures that have severe restrictions on sex, tribal violence can be
a useful binding agent, and a useful warning to those who might
dissent.
What do you think?
One would think (if one were me, I guess, though obviously
others) that honesty would be not only a cornerstone, but a rationale for
relationship of any meaning. We have the option to find ourselves, learn more
than we can alone, in relationship. Not only the reflection, but the changing,
the interaction of bonding, the realizing of self that only becomes in
interaction or communication.
Yet so much of our time together is about masking, hiding,
mistrust and denial of understanding. Is this because our significant role
models lied to us, misunderstood their relationship to us, treated us as
"children" as if that were a separate species? Is part of it schoolyard
divisiveness, taunts and hostilities, groupings and betrayals? Is part of it
feeling unacceptable?
Probably the best policy effort for all of our futures
would be compassionate emotional education from pre-K all the way through
schooling. People need to be taught to dialog, and too much "education" is about
keeping still and being led by experts/authorities.People
seem to be raised in tightly closed environments where family traumas get to
repeat like Greek tragedies without ever being aired to heal. We learn to lick
our wounds in the dark and band together out of fear-fed angers against anyone
out there. Too many lives are wasted, piled on the heap, left to rot without
feeling wanted or alive. All the lonely people who cry silently without seeing
all the lonely people crying silently who could become happy kin. We really need
to learn to do it better.
Have studies been done on peer therapy, like the AA model
of sponsors -- people brought together with others with whom they can talk
anytime 24/7 about what is bothering them, training in active listening, teams
so no one person carries too much burden on their time and to bring in wider
voices and ways of caring and understanding -- kind of like a caring and
attentive family?
something more than the absence of war, but
including that as well Peace is an attitude of calm deliberation and acceptance
of all that is on its own terms with the will to move in a more generally
healthy and respectful direction; not lack of disagreement, but lack of
disrespect (except for disrespect for the disrespectful)
What do you
think?
so sick (in my gut, in my head, in my
heart, in my arms) of all the divisiveness. Men can't understand women. Whites
can't understand blacks. Rich can't understand poor. Left can't understand
right ...
That's why we have language, art, long-term complicated
relationships, community projects and festivals and -- tell me your
story
