Message Boards Message Boards

Eco Dharma

Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0

Threads [ Previous | Next ]
Toggle
Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/13/19 5:30 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/2/19 7:08 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0k Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 7:36 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 2:17 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/2/19 7:14 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/2/19 7:20 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/2/19 7:30 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 7:49 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/2/19 7:55 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 8:11 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 11:46 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 2:50 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 11:19 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/2/19 12:03 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 1:02 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/2/19 2:31 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 1:58 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 2:04 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 John Not2 5/2/19 7:01 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 12:28 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/3/19 6:05 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 6:25 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/3/19 6:34 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 6:50 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/3/19 7:15 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/3/19 7:21 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Stickman2 5/3/19 8:42 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/3/19 8:55 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 5:40 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 9:01 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Stickman2 5/3/19 9:14 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 11:37 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/3/19 12:07 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 12:16 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 John Not2 5/3/19 2:04 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 3:37 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 John Not2 5/3/19 4:15 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 4:43 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 John Not2 5/3/19 6:41 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 7:22 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 John Not2 5/3/19 8:06 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 7:46 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 John Not2 5/3/19 8:24 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 8:33 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 6:11 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 6:01 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 5:49 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/3/19 5:42 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 8:02 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 6:16 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/17/19 6:34 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 6:06 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/3/19 6:39 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/7/19 12:34 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/3/19 8:14 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 8:28 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/4/19 5:57 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 6:46 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/4/19 6:44 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 6:53 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/4/19 6:59 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 7:03 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/4/19 8:43 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 10:02 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/4/19 8:04 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 8:36 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 6:42 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/17/19 6:25 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/17/19 4:29 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 6:34 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 6:12 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/15/19 6:38 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 8:44 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 9:59 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Nick O 5/3/19 11:16 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 12:15 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 6:25 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 6:09 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 5:26 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 5:19 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 John Not2 5/3/19 1:48 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 5:12 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 8:31 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 4:13 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/2/19 12:24 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 1:17 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 2:46 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 9:00 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 7:33 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 2:49 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 2:20 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 8:22 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/2/19 9:21 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 3:32 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 2:54 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 spatial 5/3/19 10:49 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/3/19 11:10 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/3/19 11:28 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/3/19 11:54 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 spatial 5/4/19 9:15 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 9:36 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Monsoon Frog 5/4/19 2:24 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 3:11 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Anna L 5/4/19 8:45 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 10:05 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 10:25 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Chris Marti 5/4/19 10:35 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 10:49 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 11:06 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 11:15 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 11:34 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 8:48 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/4/19 8:55 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/5/19 5:32 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/5/19 7:16 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/6/19 4:29 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/6/19 5:35 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/6/19 6:00 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/6/19 6:17 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Andromeda 5/6/19 4:14 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/6/19 5:22 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Anna L 5/5/19 7:10 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/6/19 6:03 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 8:02 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Raving Rhubarb 5/6/19 9:08 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/6/19 9:29 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Raving Rhubarb 5/6/19 10:03 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/6/19 11:14 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Raving Rhubarb 5/6/19 1:39 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/6/19 2:21 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 7:08 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/17/19 6:40 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/13/19 6:25 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Nick O 5/13/19 7:28 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/13/19 1:37 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Nick O 5/13/19 9:50 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/14/19 3:35 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Nick O 5/14/19 7:55 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/14/19 9:53 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 8:04 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 spatial 5/14/19 8:37 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 5/14/19 10:00 AM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 7:30 PM
RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0 terry 5/15/19 2:13 PM
[Warning to potential new readers: this is a thread that get’s kind of messy. I apologize for poor wordings and reactive behavior on my part. Please know that it is temporary, even though the words are still there, and please have faith that the wise people running this forum will not let a beginner’s processing mind ruin the forum for you. Practice well and do not get caught up in the content of this thread. Peace be with you.]



Let us play with the idea that humanity some day wakes up in a way that makes it possible for every individual to distinguish between reasonable needs on the one hand and cravings and aversions that cause unnecessary suffering on the other hand. Let us say that it is a combination of full awakening and any additional psychological maturity that would be required, and a genuine wish to benefit all sentient beings. Suddenly the entire humanity is free from clinging to ”me”and ”mine”. They realize that current systems for production and distribution are based on misguided views, and decide that enough is enough. The planet needs to be saved and priorities need to change radically.

What do you think they would do?

EDIT: Just to clarify, I’m not talking about a revolution. There would be no coercion or force involved. I’m interested in how priorities would change in specific issues. No need to overthrow governments or anything like that. When I say ”systems” I mean in a broader sense. There are systems for practically anything we do. I have a system for how to clean my home, for instance, and for how I do grocery shopping.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 7:08 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Is this one of those political questions masquerading as a dharma question?

emoticon

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 7:14 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
To be serious for a minute, I'm not a fan of utopias and theories of human nature that assume utopia is possible and desirable, that human nature is perfectible. I think human nature is what we see of it now, and focusing on what is impossible to achieve (utopia and human perfection) both ignores the reality of human nature and focuses our energies in the wrong direction. I believe we have to deal with the reality of both human nature and how we got to where we find ourselves now if we have any hope of "fixing" the climate crisis.

YMMV

EDIT: And yes, this means that I don't believe it's possible that every human being will wake up in the dharma sense.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 7:20 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
I'm with Chris on this one. No utopian thinking for me, and frankly it makes me a bit nervous when I see it. I'm too much of a practical realist anyway and not only are the efforts and energies better spent elsewhere, but when utopian thinking goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong. I prefer to dispense with beliefs and ideals as much as possible at this point in my life. 

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 7:30 AM as a reply to Andromeda.
... when utopian thinking goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong...

Yes. It tends to lead to authoritarianism. It leads to governments that "protect the ideal" and not the human beings who suffer under them.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 7:33 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Your skepticism is duly noted.

I don’t believe in a ”human nature” because to me that sounds like believing that there is an essence to what is empty. I might change my mind later, though, as I’m only beginning to grasp what emptiness might implicate.

I think of this as a way to brainstorm about possible solutions to urgent problems without discarding all ideas prematurely because they seem impossible. It is important to discard all potentially harmful ideas before taking action, of course, but in a beginning phase it could perhaps be helpful to believe in the potential for human development, impermanence if you like, rather than assuming that people will always remain the same.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0k
Answer
5/2/19 7:36 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
Is this one of those political questions masquerading as a dharma question?

emoticon



Honestly, I thought it was obvious that this is a political question, as all discussions about the end of suffering on a collective level. It is moral/political philosophy, based on aspects of the dharma. Should I flag this somehow so that people can avoid it more easily?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 7:49 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
... when utopian thinking goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong...

Yes. It tends to lead to authoritarianism. It leads to governments that "protect the ideal" and not the human beings who suffer under them.


Maybe it wouldn’t have to. This is based on the assumption that people have gone through the stated development and truly wish for a change.

For all I know, their first point on the agenda could be exactly to make sure that this new common interest does not end up as authoritarianism. They might take measures to ensure that any steps towards authoritarianism are called out early on and nipped in the bud in a non-violent way. I think that would be extremely important for the reasons the two of you point to.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 7:55 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
For all I know, their first point on the agenda could be exactly to make sure that this new common interest does not end up as authoritarianism. They might take measures to ensure that any steps towards authoritarianism are called out early on and nipped in the bud in a non-violent way. I think that would be extremely important for the reasons the two of you point to.

We always seem to enter into these things with very good intentions. Yet they go wrong. I wonder why?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2
Answer
5/2/19 8:11 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Maybe because that development hasn’t happened yet. Anyway, I can assure you that I don’t have a gerilla army waiting for my orders. I just want to talk about how a sustainable society would look like together with other people who share my interest and who are also committed to non-violent and democratical solutions. Taking part in the discussion is entirely voluntary.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 8:22 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Anyway, if I were to take part in such a discussion for real some day, which is highly unlikely, I would totally argue for the role of the sage as a valid option for any individual. I don’t think anybody would dispute that.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 9:21 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
I would also suggest that since we are currently using a lot of electricity, it would be a good idea to install solar panels in Sahara, unless there are environmental or other problems with that that I’m unaware of, and distribute the electricity to those who are currently primarily using fossile fuels. First locally and then globally if possible. I’m thinking that if people are less invested in ”me” and ”mine”, maybe there wouldn’t be so much discussion about who would have to pay for it. People would soon realize that such an intervention would benefit us all.

I think we would stop using oil rather rapidly. Those who had invested a fortune in the oil business would trust that they would still be fine without those riches. They would take pleasure in knowing that the development was for the greater good, and people would appreciate them for that sacrifice (which would be seen as a minor one by now but still recognized for the great change that it would entail) and make sure that they were okay, because nobody would be interested in retribution. After all, there are no individual selves and there is no point in punishing dependent origination as it would only cause additional bad karma.

I imagine we would stop throwing away food and other useful products because of the empty fact that nobody bought them. We would laugh at the mere idea of doing such a thing. Also, if something needed to be done (such as making sure that somebody could eat and breathe and wash and get some air) and there were people who were willing and competent to do it, I think we would make sure that they had the resources needed. No need to quarrel about who should pay for it.

I believe we would be less interested in compelling packages and more interested in making quality products that last and using a cradle-to-cradle system to make it easier to reuse old materials. I believe we would definitely stop making and selling and using weapons. That would free up resources for more important matters. That would also be the case with all the systems that we have today just for making sure that people don’t get what they need.

There would probably be some overwhelming difficulties to begin with, because so many needs are unmet today. Saving everybody might not be possible. There would be a period of collective mourning. We would have to face the consequences of our previous choices. Maybe people would still find some comfort in knowing that future generations would be free from that kind of suffering, and maybe not clinging to ”me” and ”mine” would relieve people from the suffering that these difficulties would normally entail. Maybe that would be too optimistic. I can’t personally imagine the scenario, so I really don’t know. Would people hurry up to minimize the pain for as many as possible or relax because the suffering was radically reduced anyway thanks to the letting go of cravings? I don’t know.

Other sentient beings would still be able to suffer, so I would guess that animal rights would be on the agenda, together with the entire ecology. That’s a tough one. We have messed up the ecology big time, so it’s not like suddenly stopping using animals would solve everything in a flash (I’m not personally a vegan but I do believe that we need to rethink how we treat animals; I don’t know exactly how).

To be clear, I don’t believe that perfection is possible. I just think that humanity could do better than today.

Just some thoughts, not very well thought through.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 11:19 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
... when utopian thinking goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong...

Yes. It tends to lead to authoritarianism. It leads to governments that "protect the ideal" and not the human beings who suffer under them.


You know, taking measures to prevent people from talking about political change tends to lead to authoritarianism, too, so it is good that none of us is prone to use force or coercion to ”protect” anything.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 11:46 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
For all I know, their first point on the agenda could be exactly to make sure that this new common interest does not end up as authoritarianism. They might take measures to ensure that any steps towards authoritarianism are called out early on and nipped in the bud in a non-violent way. I think that would be extremely important for the reasons the two of you point to.

We always seem to enter into these things with very good intentions. Yet they go wrong. I wonder why?

Also, exactly what are you saying here? What would the alternative be? Not having any politics at all? Like that would be possible. Not having any intentions? Yeah well, I suppose if people were really all fully enlightened, at least in one sense there would be no intentions, but that’s not something that you believe in. Entering political issues with bad intentions - that options is discarded, right? So what remains? Keeping status qou? Like that one never turned into authoritarianism. Letting everyone mind their own business? Yeah, Lord of the flies is a really cosy scenario, right? Deliberatly aiming for politics that are tailored to humanity’s worst character flaws? That’s where we are now, and we are destroying the planet. Does that qualify as going wrong?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 12:03 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
You know, taking measures to prevent people from talking about political change tends to lead to authoritarianism, too, so it is good that none of us is prone to use force or coercion to ”protect” anything.

Actually, that is authoritarianism. Do you think I'm shutting you down by expressing my opinion?
 

Also, exactly what are you saying here? What would the alternative be? Not having any politics at all? Like that would be possible. Not having any intentions? Yeah well, I suppose if people were really all fully enlightened, at least in one sense there would be no intentions, but that’s not something that you believe in. Entering political issues with bad intentions - that options is discarded, right? So what remains? Keeping status qou? Like that one never turned into authoritarianism. Letting everyone mind their own business? Yeah, Lord of the flies is a really cosy scenario, right? Deliberatly aiming for politics that are tailored to humanity’s worst character flaws? That’s where we are now, and we are destroying the planet. Does that qualify as going wrong?

You're misinterpreting my comments.

I'm saying that the historical attempts human beings have made at governing based on the notions that utopia is achievable and human beings are perfectible have not done well and most have simply failed. It's a fact of history. I'm not commenting on anything else, or any other form of government.

If it matters, I happen to like the limited government models that have taken hold in the U.S. and in Europe over the last several hundred years. Republics that are based on the notion that we need to protect human rights, not protect the ideal of human perfection.

Please try not to take my comments personally. They're not aimed at you




RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 12:24 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Chris Marti:
... when utopian thinking goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong...

Yes. It tends to lead to authoritarianism. It leads to governments that "protect the ideal" and not the human beings who suffer under them.


You know, taking measures to prevent people from talking about political change tends to lead to authoritarianism, too, so it is good that none of us is prone to use force or coercion to ”protect” anything.

Linda, I have no idea where you currently are map-wise and so I'm just throwing this out there--please don't take offense...

I have seen practitioners getting caught in loops of utopian thinking when in the dukkha nanas. The conceptual mind seems to be trying to fix the suffering "out there" rather than letting go so we can see clearly the self-created suffering "within" ourselves. It can be an avoidance mechanism. Again, I'm not saying that this is what's going on with you, just that I've seen it happen to others and it might be worthwhile to do some investigation. Trying to feel deep into the urges leading to this train of thought might be fruitful. Or maybe not--again, I'm just throwing this out there in case it might be useful to you. 

Of course, you're more than welcome to continue making conversation here on this thread, but you might also consider checking out the dharma of climate change thread on awakenetwork as it's been fairly lively lately with a number of participants.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 1:02 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
You know, taking measures to prevent people from talking about political change tends to lead to authoritarianism, too, so it is good that none of us is prone to use force or coercion to ”protect” anything.

Actually, that is authoritarianism. Do you think I'm shutting you down by expressing my opinion?
 

Also, exactly what are you saying here? What would the alternative be? Not having any politics at all? Like that would be possible. Not having any intentions? Yeah well, I suppose if people were really all fully enlightened, at least in one sense there would be no intentions, but that’s not something that you believe in. Entering political issues with bad intentions - that options is discarded, right? So what remains? Keeping status qou? Like that one never turned into authoritarianism. Letting everyone mind their own business? Yeah, Lord of the flies is a really cosy scenario, right? Deliberatly aiming for politics that are tailored to humanity’s worst character flaws? That’s where we are now, and we are destroying the planet. Does that qualify as going wrong?

You're misinterpreting my comments.

I'm saying that the historical attempts human beings have made at governing based on the notions that utopia is achievable and human beings are perfectible have not done well and most have simply failed. It's a fact of history. I'm not commenting on anything else, or any other form of government.

If it matters, I happen to like the limited government models that have taken hold in the U.S. and in Europe over the last several hundred years. Republics that are based on the notion that we need to protect human rights, not protect the ideal of human perfection.

Please try not to take my comments personally. They're not aimed at you



I said that it’s good that none of us is prone to force or coercion, so no, I don’t think you are shutting me down. I was merely pointing out that my ideas have as little to do with authoritarianism as your ideas.

I’m very well aware of the fact that no utopia has been successful. I’m also very well aware that the current situation is no success either. I’m not planning to build a utopia. I’m just trying to frame a discussion in a way that allows people to think outside the box.

I haven’t said anything about changing any governmental models. I’m trying to talk about political priorities, in specific issues. Why do you think I’m talking about changing the governmental models? I happen to be a firm believer in human rights.

Of course your comments aren’t personal. They aren’t even targeting anything that I have actually said.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 1:17 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
Andromeda:

Linda, I have no idea where you currently are map-wise and so I'm just throwing this out there--please don't take offense...

I have seen practitioners getting caught in loops of utopian thinking when in the dukkha nanas. The conceptual mind seems to be trying to fix the suffering "out there" rather than letting go so we can see clearly the self-created suffering "within" ourselves. It can be an avoidance mechanism. Again, I'm not saying that this is what's going on with you, just that I've seen it happen to others and it might be worthwhile to do some investigation. Trying to feel deep into the urges leading to this train of thought might be fruitful. Or maybe not--again, I'm just throwing this out there in case it might be useful to you. 

Of course, you're more than welcome to continue making conversation here on this thread, but you might also consider checking out the dharma of climate change thread on awakenetwork as it's been fairly lively lately with a number of participants.


No offense taken.

I’m not sure where I am in the maps either. All I know is that I am exactly where I need to be right now, and that’s a pretty good place.

These thoughts are not new, and they are not loops now, although they certainly have been before. I’m aware of the potential problem there. Right now I just think that it might be a good idea for humanity to think outside the box and embrace that potential for impermanence in a good way. Also, I think it’s an interesting question.

I haven’t been active on awakenetwork lately due to a busy schedule, but I’ll certainly read that thread. Thanks!

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 2:31 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda, you said this in the first comment on this topic:

They realize that current systems for production and distribution are based on misguided views, and decide that enough is enough. The planet needs to be saved and priorities need to change radically. 

This comment, at least to me, meant that some changes to the way we allocate resources and decide on what we will do on a collective basis are required should every human being someday "wake up" (in the spiritual sense). That, to me, means changes in the nature of government. Is that not what you meant? How else will we make changes to the way we eat, generate energy, where and how we live, how we get around, and so on? I'm open to ideas on how we can make massive changes in a short period of time - because the time we have left before the earth's climate reaches a tipping point is very, very short.

One thing I've run across recently is that we may need to position the problem using different terms. "Climate change" is a neutral phrase. Some people argue that we need to use words like "Climate crisis" to generate a sense of urgency. People, in general, do not seem to think this is at all a crisis. I see today, too, that the British Parliament has now officially declared the climate crisis a "climate emergency."



RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 1:58 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Ah, ”system” is a word that has many connotations so I see how that was ambiguous. No, I didn’t mean that at all. I’m talking about the unlikely scenario that people would perfectly voluntarily let go of ”me” and ”mine” and stop quarrelling over empty things such as who is paying for what and trust that it would even out if we help each other. People would democratically vote for this. Nobody would be interested in buying or producing things in an unsustainable way, so there would be no market for it anymore. Thus, whole industries would go out of business. People would have to come up with new systems for producing things - that is, cradle to cradle systems. Isn’t it correct to use the word ”system” in that sense too? Is there a better word? And since people would prioritize ”real” needs over mere cravings of material things, at least to a higher degree than today, bureaucratic administrative systems for keeping people out of health care and social welfare would no longer be needed everywhere. Instead, there would be new openings for a livelihood that is actually aimed at helping people. Yeah, I know that it is a very unlikely scenario, and it is totally okay to be uninterested in dreaming about such scenarios. I am however not talking about a revolution. I’m talking about maturity. I’d like to think that there is hope for that. I’m aware that it is normative to call this maturity and that people may have different ideas of what maturity is. It would be interesting to hear from other people about their ideas of what it would entail.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 2:04 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
One additional example would be if people in a country were to vote, in accordance with their current political system, for public transportation to be free of charge and publicly financed.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/2/19 7:01 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
One additional example would be if people in a country were to vote, in accordance with their current political system, for public transportation to be free of charge and publicly financed.

Detach from all: society, government, authorities... (all are Maya)

Refuse to recognize all "authorities", practice civil disobedience...

Refuse to be "domesticated" "humans"...

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 12:28 AM as a reply to John Not2.
John Not2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
One additional example would be if people in a country were to vote, in accordance with their current political system, for public transportation to be free of charge and publicly financed.

Detach from all: society, government, authorities... (all are Maya)

Refuse to recognize all "authorities", practice civil disobedience...

Refuse to be "domesticated" "humans"...



So you don’t vote?

Replying to my question is optional. It would be nice if someone who did actually cared to follow the premises I set up.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 6:05 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
John Not2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
One additional example would be if people in a country were to vote, in accordance with their current political system, for public transportation to be free of charge and publicly financed.

Detach from all: society, government, authorities... (all are Maya)

Refuse to recognize all "authorities", practice civil disobedience...

Refuse to be "domesticated" "humans"...



So you don’t vote?

Replying to my question is optional. It would be nice if someone who did actually cared to follow the premises I set up.


People can care very much about all of these things and still not want to engage intellectually. Caring is emotional. I spent a year with the brahma viharas as my primary practice and you might say it was my spiritual or mystical response to the terrible problems of the world which I am helpless to solve. (And yes I do vote.)

Did me spending so many hours radiating infinite compassion to the entire universe have any practical effects at all? Does it matter? Should we reduce spiritual practice to what can be measured in worldly terms?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 6:25 AM as a reply to Andromeda.
It’s perfectly fine not wanting to engage intellectually, but why do all of you need to tell me that here in this thread? Practically all other threads are not about wordly matters. Is it so provokative that I want to discuss worldly matters in one thread?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 6:34 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
It’s perfectly fine not wanting to engage intellectually, but why do all of you need to tell me that here in this thread? Practically all other threads are not about wordly matters. Is it so provokative that I want to discuss worldly matters in one thread?


Perhaps we care deeply that you practice--and practice well!--and so we are trying to give you gentle nudges to do that rather than spending your time giving your conceptual mind a workout. Just a thought. emoticon

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 6:50 AM as a reply to Andromeda.
Then I can assure you that these thoughts are not distracting me from my practice. It took me a few minutes to write them down. Assuring you that I’m neither depressed nor sloppy, and certainly not thinking about threatening human rights, did take some time from my practice, though. Seriously guys, this is a thread about ideas such as cooperating globally to divert the energy production from oil to solar cells. If that worries you all so much, maybe you need to investigate your own reactive patterns. Just sayin’.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 7:15 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
I'm not worried or reactive.

Since you seem interested in the subject of human rights and mass awakening and you practice Mahasi noting, I'm curious if you've yet done any research into the historic roots of the tradition and the current political situation in Myanmar with the Rohingya.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 7:21 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Seriously guys, this is a thread about ideas such as cooperating globally to divert the energy production from oil to solar cells. If that worries you all so much, maybe you need to investigate your own reactive patterns. Just sayin’.

Folks typically come to the DhO to talk about meditation practice. It's not surprising that every topic turns to practice matters, even the ones that aren't meant to be focused on practice. Like Andromeda, I suggest you might want to review and participate in a similar conversation over on AwakeNetwork, which has become more squarely focused on climate issues, not practice issues.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 8:42 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
Seriously guys, this is a thread about ideas such as cooperating globally to divert the energy production from oil to solar cells. If that worries you all so much, maybe you need to investigate your own reactive patterns. Just sayin’.

Folks typically come to the DhO to talk about meditation practice. It's not surprising that every topic turns to practice matters, even the ones that aren't meant to be focused on practice. Like Andromeda, I suggest you might want to review and participate in a similar conversation over on AwakeNetwork, which has become more squarely focused on climate issues, not practice issues.

Anyone evaluated consumption patterns (carbon footprint etc) of contemplatives ?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 8:55 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Osho had 94 Rolls Royces. emoticon

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 9:01 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Hi Stickman2! You are very welcome to write about reduction of carbon footprints or lack of such reduction here, and even more welcome to discuss what changes would make reduction of carbon footprints possible. I would also be interested in your thoughts about consumption patterns in the stated fictive scenario.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 9:14 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Hi Stickman2! You are very welcome to write about reduction of carbon footprints or lack of such reduction here, and even more welcome to discuss what changes would make reduction of carbon footprints possible. I would also be interested in your thoughts about consumption patterns in the stated fictive scenario.


There's a fictive scenario ?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 10:49 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda, are you familiar with Spiral Dynamics? If not, you may find it very interesting:

http://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en/

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 11:10 AM as a reply to spatial.
Is that "integral" as in Ken Wilbur-type integral?" I'll go check it out.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 11:28 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 11:37 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Hi Stickman2! You are very welcome to write about reduction of carbon footprints or lack of such reduction here, and even more welcome to discuss what changes would make reduction of carbon footprints possible. I would also be interested in your thoughts about consumption patterns in the stated fictive scenario.


There's a fictive scenario ?



Yes. Obviously. I haven’t exactly seen the kind of maturity I’m talking about thrive on this planet. Have you?

My scenario is just as fictive as Andromeda’s dystopia about the poisening of all but one water reserve. I haven’t seen anyone lecturing about authoritarianism in that thread.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 11:54 AM as a reply to spatial.
spatial:
Linda, are you familiar with Spiral Dynamics? If not, you may find it very interesting:

http://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en/


Thanks, I’m not, and quite frankly I’m always a bit sceptical about systems that try to categorize people, but as I don’t know anything about it I’m not in a position to evaluate it. I just think it would be nice if people would mature enough not to kill each other, let each other starve and lie helpless in their own feces, and destroy the planet. Sometimes I like to daydream about such a scenario for a moment, and I thought it would be nice to brainstorm about what such people would be capable of and see if one or two ideas could actually be of interest to people for real. That’s all.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 12:07 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Stickman2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Hi Stickman2! You are very welcome to write about reduction of carbon footprints or lack of such reduction here, and even more welcome to discuss what changes would make reduction of carbon footprints possible. I would also be interested in your thoughts about consumption patterns in the stated fictive scenario.


There's a fictive scenario ?



Yes. Obviously. I haven’t exactly seen the kind of maturity I’m talking about thrive on this planet. Have you?

My scenario is just as fictive as Andromeda’s dystopia about the poisening of all but one water reserve. I haven’t seen anyone lecturing about authoritarianism in that thread.

Are you referring to that Sufi spiritual teaching story written by the saint and passed down over generations? 

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 12:16 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
Yes. Why? Do we believe in people capable of maturity now?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 1:48 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
John Not2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
One additional example would be if people in a country were to vote, in accordance with their current political system, for public transportation to be free of charge and publicly financed.

Detach from all: society, government, authorities... (all are Maya)

Refuse to recognize all "authorities", practice civil disobedience...

Refuse to be "domesticated" "humans"...



So you don’t vote?

Replying to my question is optional. It would be nice if someone who did actually cared to follow the premises I set up.
The last time I voted was over 30 years ago.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 2:04 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Yes. Why? Do we believe in people capable of maturity now?

Maturity consists of two tracks: growing-up and waking-up. 

(credit the idea to Ken Wilber)

Since science is our new "world religion", and science does not recognize the "waking-up" (states), unless and until humans detach themselves from beliefs of "science", maturity is not possible.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 3:37 PM as a reply to John Not2.
There seem to be a lot of people who do not believe in science, though. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to help either.

Maybe we just stopped growing up, if we ever did.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 4:15 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
In U.S. parents are required to send their kids to schools to be subjected to science brain-wash, parents could home-school kids but the kids still must take and pass the brain-washing exams (they would need to study and memorize brain-washing materials in order to pass exams), that's law. 

by "a lot", approximately what percentage of the populations in this country that don't believe in science do you suggest? 

and it matters, it matters "a lot" emoticon

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 4:43 PM as a reply to John Not2.
I was referring to the horrible discussions in Swedish social medias before our election, among others. And to the ”autism moms” that think giving their children bleach enema will ”cure” their children from being neurodivergent and to the anti-vaxxers who attack in packs as soon as an autistic adult suggests that being autistic doesn’t have to be the end of the world and that vaccines don’t cause autism anyway. I have been accused of working for ”Big Pharma” in trying to make a plague happen that will contaminate the whole world with autism (!). I have no idea how many they are, and especially not in other countries, but they sure seem like many enough, and they seem to have a lot* of both waking up and growing up to do.

I thought you had schools over there that teach ”intelligent design”. Is that just a myth?

Mocking my language isn’t very mature, by the way, so your scepticism might still need the addition of just a tad more growing up, no offence.

*) Yeah, I can’t even begin to imagine exactly how much, so go ahead and sue me for being vague. Just do it somewhere else than in this thread, if you would be so kind. 

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 5:42 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Yes. Why? Do we believe in people capable of maturity now?

Is that sarcasm? I honestly can't tell. At any rate, I don't think it's valid to compare a Sufi teaching story with your highly speculative thought experiment. Do you? I'm really not understanding why you made the comparison, so it would be helpful if you could fill me in a bit more as to why. Your comment reads to me as snarky.

At any rate, what I (and perhaps others) don't agree with is your premise that all of humanity is going to achieve full awakening (and let's not forget that what "full awakening" means or if it even exists at all is hotly contested). No, I do not believe that is possible, nor do I personally know any awake long term practitioners or teachers who think this is possible (although I do know some who DID think it was possible but changed their minds). In fact, the number of people who actually manage to achieve anything close to "full awakening" seems quite low among practitioners, and those are the ones who made the choice to practice. If people don't want to practice, how would they wake up? Spontaneous awakenings occur, but they are rare. You are new to this forum and dharma in general, but this type of thing has been discussed on the DhO at least since I first landed here around 2011 so it may be "common knowledge" to most people reading your post. That may be why people are not engaging with your thread as you would like. Why should anyone invest time and energy into a speculative discussion with a premise they think is baseless? That wouldn't make sense.

Or it could just be that people, like myself, already spend a lot of time discussing and reflecting on politics and culture and the problems the world is facing with close associates and do not wish to do so on this forum, where most people come to discuss practice (and this may be the ONLY place they get to discuss practice). 

Just some thoughts.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 6:06 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
I appreciated the wisdom of that story, but I really don’t see why imagining what mature people would potentially do to save the planet is so dangerous whereas allegories about the poisening of water supplies are completely safe. So the person who authored it was considered a saint, and maybe also was one, whatever that is. It’s a construction like everything else. A construction made by people. A construction about people who are more spiritually and morally mature than the majority. The man in the story did try to save people. It didn’t end that well, but it didn’t make anything worse either.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 8:02 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
If you are tired of discussing newbie questions, you could just ignore the post. Maybe there are other newbies here who would be interested in the topic. If nobody is interested, that’s just fine. I don’t expect answers to all my posts. I’m fine with people just replying to the posts that do interest them.

I have explained over and over again that I was interested in a discussion that did not end up with depressing remarks about how impossible all change is. Engaging in the discussion is entirely optional. So is derailing it, I guess, and common decency is perhaps also Maya, what do I know, being so new and all.

Of course I’m not comparing myself to a saint. It was a relief to see that you at least believe that some people are capable of enough maturity to be talking about possible scenarios without it turning into a catastrophy. I honestly wondered.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 6:39 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda, your responses are getting more and more angry sounding and are being aimed at folks who very clearly enjoy your presence here and who have contributed to your DhO participation in positive ways. Are you aware of this? Maybe it's time to take a break from this topic and gain some perspective? Just a thought.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 6:41 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
I am so sorry for causing you to perceive that I was mocking your language, that absolutely was not my intent.  My native tongue is not English and I don't know if "a lot" means, in a ballpark, 10%, 30%, 50%, or otherwise, was just wanted to understand that better. 

My own perception is that less than 10% of U.S. populations don't believe in science.  I don't really think people in DHO are so immature as to wanting mocking other people's language, especially for those whose native language is not English to mocking other people's English.

Again, I sincerely apologize for causing your displeasure by my poor English language skill.  

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/7/19 12:34 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Maybe I would notice that people appreciate my presence if they did not assume that I want to throw away human rights, comment on my language, point out to me in so many ways that I’m new and that my question is naive/stupid/dangerous, pathologize my behavior and insist on derailing my thread over and over again instead of just ignoring it. If that’s how you show people that they are welcome here, we seem to have a cultural barrier. Also, in most forums moderators do not moderate threads in which they are actively engaged. Are awakened people so free from bias that you don’t need such precautions? That assumption would be kind of ironic, given the topic, wouldn’t it?

EDIT: Well, at least there was no intentional mocking of language. Good to know. Appologies for the misunderstanding, John!

EDIT again: I do feel welcome. I very much appreciate the kindness, wisdom and helpfulness you all have showed. This particular moment felt very surrealistic, though.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 7:22 PM as a reply to John Not2.
John Not2:
I am so sorry for causing you to perceive that I was mocking your language, that absolutely was not my intent.  My native tongue is not English and I don't know if "a lot" means, in a ballpark, 10%, 30%, 50%, or otherwise, was just wanted to understand that better. 

My own perception is that less than 10% of U.S. populations don't believe in science.  I don't really think people in DHO are so immature as to wanting mocking other people's language, especially for those whose native language is not English to mocking other people's English.

Again, I sincerely apologize for causing your displeasure by my poor English language skill.  



I’m sorry for the misinterpretation, John. In another thread I would probably have asked instead of assuming.

I don’t know enough about the US to make a qualified guess. Do you have reasons to believe that people who do not believe in science are more mature than those who do? I believe it’s more complicated than that. Science has its limitations but also its advantages.

I didn’t think so either, but I honestly don’t know what to believe anymore. If that was the intention of the contributors, to have me see for myself just how impossible the scenario would be (although I explicitly wrote that it was fiction), then mission accomplished.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 8:06 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
John Not2:
I am so sorry for causing you to perceive that I was mocking your language, that absolutely was not my intent.  My native tongue is not English and I don't know if "a lot" means, in a ballpark, 10%, 30%, 50%, or otherwise, was just wanted to understand that better. 

My own perception is that less than 10% of U.S. populations don't believe in science.  I don't really think people in DHO are so immature as to wanting mocking other people's language, especially for those whose native language is not English to mocking other people's English.

Again, I sincerely apologize for causing your displeasure by my poor English language skill.  



I’m sorry for the misinterpretation, John. In another thread I would probably have asked instead of assuming.

I don’t know enough about the US to make a qualified guess. Do you have reasons to believe that people who do not believe in science are more mature than those who do? I believe it’s more complicated than that. Science has its limitations but also its advantages.

I didn’t think so either, but I honestly don’t know what to believe anymore. If that was the intention of the contributors, to have me see for myself just how impossible the scenario would be (although I explicitly wrote that it was fiction), then mission accomplished.
Since the topic was about human maturity, it is my belief that science is a very limited and immature belief system (a religion, just like most other religions), therefore, if the majority of our human population are still brain-washed to believe this very limited belief system, then we humans are very immature, but, humans are in the evolution progress of both growing up and waking up.  Science, unfortunately, is an obstacle to our waking up, it has been, however, very helpful for our growing up process.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 7:46 PM as a reply to John Not2.
An obstacle to waking up but helpful in growing up - yeah, that sums it up pretty well. Well put.

Yes, I agree that turning science into a belief system is very contraproductive. It is important to see the limitations of all tools.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 8:14 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Maybe I would notice that people appreciate my presence if they did not assume that I want to throw away human rights, comment on my language, point out to me in so many ways that I’m new and that my question is naive/stupid/dangerous, pathologize my behavior and insist on derailing my thread over and over again instead of just ignoring it. If that’s how you show people that they are welcome here, we seem to have a cultural barrier. Also, in most forums moderators do not moderate threads in which they are actively engaged. Are awakened people so free from bias that you don’t need such precautions? That assumption would be kind of ironic, given the topic, wouldn’t it?

EDIT: Well, at least there was no intentional mocking of language. Good to know. Appologies for the misunderstanding, John!

Linda, you're obviously very angry--it comes through loud and clear in your last few comments--and you seem to be misinterpreting a number of people's good intentions including my own. I'm happy to talk about this further, but not until you've cooled off and I have more time.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 8:24 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
It is said that Buddha had waking up 2500 years ago, we humans today, 2500 years later, are we more awake now than humans in Buddhas time? I am not convinced that we are, this could be an interesting study project for scientifically minded intellects.

Developmentally, no doubt, we humans have grown up a lot in 2500 years time.

Ken Wilber wrote his Integral Theory book in 1973, today if you ask a person randomly if he had heard of Ken Wilber, 99% of Americans (even among the most educated ones) would likely to answer NO, at least that has been my experience.  Waking up is a VERY slow process for us humans, an unawakened person is not a truly matured human being.  Will humans ever wake up? I doubt that too.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 8:28 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
I’m just trying to make conversation with those who are interested in the topic, if there are such people, and if they dare showing it. Also, I’m vain enough to care about not being mistaken for a potential terrorist or something. I never claimed to be one of those mature human beings. They are fictional, after all. Thus, when people feel the need to point out my lack of experience and so on, that does hurt. Maybe all of you are above that and have forgotten how that feels, I don’t know, but it’s actually not very nice.

I’m not angry. I’m sad.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 8:33 PM as a reply to John Not2.
John Not2:
It is said that Buddha had waking up 2500 years ago, we humans today, 2500 years later, are we more awake now than humans in Buddhas time? I am not convinced that we are, this could be an interesting study project for scientifically minded intellects.

Developmentally, no doubt, we humans have grown up a lot in 2500 years time.

Ken Wilber wrote his Integral Theory book in 1973, today if you ask a person randomly if he had heard of Ken Wilber, 99% of Americans (even among the most educated ones) would likely to answer NO, at least that has been my experience.  Waking up is a VERY slow process for us humans, an unawakened person is not a truly matured human being.  Will humans ever wake up? I doubt that too.


I don’t think people are more awake today. Some people seem to believe so, but I suspect that may be due to changed definitions. This was a fictiobal scenario.

As for growing up, we have probably done so in some respects but regressed in others.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 8:44 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
I would appreciate it if you didn’t insist on being helpful in a way that is not helpful for me.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 9:59 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Crossposting:

I need to find my own balance in dealing with wordly suffering. Nobody can do it for me. When people interfere with my mourning process and tell me that I’m doing it all wrong, that doesn’t help. I have faith in the process. It knows the way. I need to make my own mistakes. That’s part of the journey. I’ll let go of false hopes when I’m ready for it. Trying to take them away from me prematurely will only cause me to hold on to them even more. I know what they are. I also know my limitations in this respect, so that’s why I set boundaries. I would appreciate if people would trust me enough to respect those boundaries. It’s okay to just look the other way. I can take this.

You know that exercise when you make a muscle as tense as you possibly can, in order to notice clearly that letting go is the effortless part? That’s what I’m doing. Pulling and tugging my limbs to make me stop kind of disrupts the process.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/3/19 11:16 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
It's hard to fathom the inertia behind the forces driving the world into the future. For me, it has been helpful to explore what interconnectedness really means. As in "I am one with all the horror and all the tragedy and all injustice and all the love and all the miracles". The world's greed is my greed. The world's hate is my hate. The world's joy is my joy. The world's love is my love. Our own personal shit is the world's macro-shit. Working from that view, you don't feel powerless because the change you make in yourself is reflected in the world. Lately, I've noticed that when I get wrapped up thinking or discussing politics, I suffer a great deal as do those around me with whom I have disagreements - even if I know we all have the best intentions for the most helpful outcome (this thread for example). If I throw the politics aside and just practice Right View (suffering and no suffering) with Right Sati, cultivating joy and cultivating compassion, the world becomes brighter, lighter and richer. I can adequately love and support the people around me. In this way I feel I am really making a difference in the world that transcends political ideals or philosophy. In the information age we get so caught up in what's happening around the world we forget that real change starts in our own minds and the community around us.

..Or maybe I'm just spiritually bypassing ;)

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 12:15 AM as a reply to Nick O.
I’m glad you have found something that works for you.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 2:24 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
“It is the beginning of wisdom to recognize that most men are fools and knaves, but it is the end of wisdom to embrace that vision.”
-Art Kleps

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 3:11 AM as a reply to Monsoon Frog.
Yeah, I prefer to at least be open to the possibility that most human beings have a potential for development. If others choose to deal with the issue in other ways, or in other versions of a similar way, I fully respect that. It’s not for me to evaluate other people’s approaches. I can only speak - to the best of my ability - for what I need, something that may in itself be subject to change.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 5:57 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
I’m just trying to make conversation with those who are interested in the topic, if there are such people, and if they dare showing it. Also, I’m vain enough to care about not being mistaken for a potential terrorist or something. I never claimed to be one of those mature human beings. They are fictional, after all. Thus, when people feel the need to point out my lack of experience and so on, that does hurt. Maybe all of you are above that and have forgotten how that feels, I don’t know, but it’s actually not very nice.

I’m not angry. I’m sad.

Linda, you've been an excellent forum contributor and so this thread and your comments in it took me by surprise. I've gone out of my way to make you feel welcome and comfortable on this forum and shared a lot of my own process in attempts to help you over the last however many months since we seem to have some similarities in wiring. To my knowledge, we haven't had any issues prior to this.

Nobody starts off with experience and I've shed plenty of tears over illusions lost along the way, and occasionally (to my regret) spewed venom at people who've been trying to help me. But mostly I've been grateful to those who pointed my illusions out and generally appreciate it when people are honest and forthright with me and so I try to pay it forward. You stated clearly in the first post of your most recent practice log that you wanted and were receptive to receiving help and a number of people including myself have tried to do that. Of course, good intentions aren't enough and communication sometimes goes awry, especially on internet forums. Nobody here is perfect in any way, myself included, and I apologize that my attempts to help didn't work out.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 6:46 AM as a reply to Andromeda.
Thankyou for acknowledging that communications went awry. It’s okey. I’m sorry that I snapped. I needed to protect my boundaries, and neither you nor Chris seemed to get that I needed that. I know that both of you meant well but this was not helpful. You were unintentionally forcing (I can’t find a better word for it right now, so the nuance sounds stronger than I intend) your insights on me before I was ready for it. I will probably make many similar mistakes along the road (I may already have), and I can only hope that I’ll be able to listen when people tell me that it’s not helpful.

Feedback on my practice log is highly appreciated, and feedback on posts where I ask for advice. This wasn’t that kind of post, and I made that as clear as I could. This was one of those political threads for people who do want to take part in such discussions. Both you and Chris had made it very clear that you did not want to take part in such discussions. I respect your wish to not engage in them, and I thought you would respect my wish to engage in them, even if you think it’s unwise and even if my posts are utterly naive. It’s not your call to make.

It hurts but I’ll be okay. Unless you actually think I’m dangerous; that would hurt as hell. 

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 6:44 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Thankyou for acknowledging that communications went awry. It’s okey. I’m sorry that I snapped. I needed to protect my boundaries, and neither you nor Chris seemed to get that I needed that. I know that both of you meant well but this was not helpful. You were unintentionally forcing (I can’t find a better word for it right now, so the nuance sounds stronger than I intend) your insights on me before I was ready for it. I will probably make similar mistakes along the road, and I can only hope that I’ll be able to listen when people tell me that it’s not helpful.

Feedback on my practice log is highly appreciated, and feedback on posts where I ask for advice. This wasn’t that kind of post, and I made that as clear as I could. This was one of those political threads for people who do want to take part in such discussions. Both you and Chris had made it very clear that you did not want to take part in such discussions. I respect your wish to not engage in them, and I thought you would respect my wish to engage in them, even if you think it’s unwise and even if my posts are utterly naive. It’s not your call to make.


Thank you for acknowledging that you "snapped."

But if someone posts something that appears unwise and naive, why should this not be pointed out on a forum dedicated to awakening? Because your post wasn't JUST political, but started off with a premise that was spiritual. 

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 6:53 AM as a reply to Andromeda.
Maybe because I’m a beginner at this and you have had several decades to think about it, and sometimes newbies need to talk about stuff and process it for themselves.

And maybe because the premise was not the point. It was a fictional framing.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 6:59 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Maybe because I’m a beginner at this and you have had several decades to think about it, and sometimes newbies need to talk about stuff and process it for themselves.

And maybe because the premise was not the point. It was a fictional framing.

You edited your last post after I replied to it and added: "Unless you actually think I’m dangerous; that would hurt as hell." 

A few months back, I made a poorly worded comment to a practitioner with more experience than me that was interpreted as a statement that was very similar to your premise and nearly got my head bitten off. "That's dangerous!" I had to backpedal and explain that wasn't what I'd meant. Why do you think that might be?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 7:03 AM as a reply to Andromeda.
Did that more experienced practicioner have compassion enough to listen when you explained what you actually meant?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 8:04 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
And maybe because the premise was not the point. It was a fictional framing.

Yes, Linda. I know what you were proposing and that you invented a framework within which to propose a thought experiment. I responded with my own thoughts, which were not aimed at you personally, but at the framework you suggested we work under. To me, that framework is a fantasy and, if applied to the real world, potentially dangerous. I was not then and am not now calling you, the person, dangerous. You're obviously a sensitive and caring human being. You don't appear to me to be any kind of authoritarian. You took offense at what I said about utopian thinking and it's been downhill ever since. Please know that at no time did I think anything negative about you as a person. I was engaging in a discussion that matters. You started a good topic. It's still a good topic. I'm truly sorry that you've taken offense and have been upset by my comments. I'll do my best to be careful in the future when we talk. Can we move on?



RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 8:36 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
I don’t know what you mean when you say ”work under”. For the sake of discussion, then yes, for those who are willing. In our practice? No. We can’t base our practice on fictional premises. In politics? If people vote for a solution democratically and voluntarily, such as cooperating to install solar panels in the Sahara desert, then sure. Otherwise, of course not.

Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but in Sweden it is in most contexts considered very disrespectful to invest one’s energy in telling people over and over again that the entire discussion is pointless. It makes other people wary of entering the discussion, especially when the persons who do it are authorities. As moderators, you are authorities, and the two of you combined were quite persistent in tearing down the plausibility of a totally fictional premise and make the case that the topic therefore was pointless. And dangerous, for that matter. As for the latter, I have heard both Shinzen Young and Culadasa talk about the same premise in their dharma talks. I don’t know if they have changed their mind since then, but as far as I know, these talks are still available on youtube. I don’t know which talks, because I wasn’t aware that I would need the reference. I’m not blaming them for my thoughts, but I do think it’s unfair to hold me to standards that not even they live up to.

Thankyou for making explicit that you do not consider me authoritarian or dangerous and so on. You did not reply when I explained what you seemed to have mistaken for a possible violation of human rights and... I don’t know what you thought - a coup? - so I didn’t know.

Sure, we can move on, but I’m not sure what it is in this that you want to discuss. Also, I don’t want to press you to talk about politics if you are not comfortable with that, and the politics - as in specific issues, not governmental forms - are what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 8:43 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Did that more experienced practicioner have compassion enough to listen when you explained what you actually meant?

It was compassionate to bite my head off in that case and I didn't take it personally. I am not suggesting you are dangerous and never have. This is about ideas. 

At any rate, I hope we can move on from this conversation. Thoughts on this?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 8:45 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
This is a very interesting thought experiment, but of course, we are left with one major problem - how to define “awake”! 

E.g. do we include an ethical component? Some of the most ethical and intelligent and kind people I know, who are doing wonderful things in the world, are not at all what we might call spiritual or awake. Whereas there are plenty of so-called spiritual masters who have been abusive and behaved questionably. 

Another issue to consider - if we look at examples of some of the great awakened saints, they often don’t seem too concerned with worldly affairs. Some live as hermits, others are so “God intoxicated” as to be quite incapacitated and need others to help them with the basic daily requirements of living, and there are those who spend a lot of their time seemingly operating in other states of consciousness or realms. (E.g. check out some of the Indian sages like Neem Karoli Baba)

In fact, maybe the un-awake human condition is the only thing that keeps life as we know it going. I suspect if we all suddenly woke up, the implications would be so strange as to be absolutely un-imaginable and incomparable to any system we currently know today. 

But ... it’s very interesting to think about! 

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 10:02 AM as a reply to Andromeda.
Andromeda:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Did that more experienced practicioner have compassion enough to listen when you explained what you actually meant?

It was compassionate to bite my head off in that case and I didn't take it personally. I am not suggesting you are dangerous and never have. This is about ideas. 

At any rate, I hope we can move on from this conversation. Thoughts on this?



I’m still not following why it would be dangerous to explore the idea of what humanity would do if we were not so attached to the way things are now.

Sure, we can move on. I don’t have anything against any of you. Just please do not make a diagnose of my ways of caring about wordly suffering. You be you and let me be me.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 10:05 AM as a reply to Anna L.
Anna L:
This is a very interesting thought experiment, but of course, we are left with one major problem - how to define “awake”! 

E.g. do we include an ethical component? Some of the most ethical and intelligent and kind people I know, who are doing wonderful things in the world, are not at all what we might call spiritual or awake. Whereas there are plenty of so-called spiritual masters who have been abusive and behaved questionably. 

Another issue to consider - if we look at examples of some of the great awakened saints, they often don’t seem too concerned with worldly affairs. Some live as hermits, others are so “God intoxicated” as to be quite incapacitated and need others to help them with the basic daily requirements of living, and there are those who spend a lot of their time seemingly operating in other states of consciousness or realms. (E.g. check out some of the Indian sages like Neem Karoli Baba)

In fact, maybe the un-awake human condition is the only thing that keeps life as we know it going. I suspect if we all suddenly woke up, the implications would be so strange as to be absolutely un-imaginable and incomparable to any system we currently know today. 

But ... it’s very interesting to think about! 


Thankyou for taking an interest in what I mean and exploring the topic further! These are good questions. They help me clarify what I mean and also clarify for myself what is confusing for me.

I don’t think the degree of perceptual awakening is necessarily so important for this thought experiment. I did have the three characteristics in mind, though, but maybe in a more worldly sense. I don’t know exactly where to draw the line. I’d be happy to discuss it further. I was thinking that much of the worldly suffering remains because people have difficulties in letting go of cravings and aversions and ”me” and ”mine” and also tend to fear change. If we are to secure that basic needs are met for at least the majority of the world population while avoiding destruction of the planet (climat crisis/emergency/change, pollution, not blowing it up, not having it implode...), then some people would need to let go of things that they have come to take for granted. That would be a huge challenge. Maybe classical awakening would help with that, maybe not. If it’s not too sensitive to discuss, I would appreciate a calm discussion about what could be given up and how big of a challenge it would be for someone who has gone through different degrees (and kinds, if there are kinds) of awakening. I think that would be interesting. For me it would be difficult to let go of some medications, for instance, and there may be ethical problems to that. Not that I’m that awake yet, but just to exemplify what kinds of issues I have in mind.

That leads to the next aspect. I think there are people who are not awakened that would still be ready and willing to let go of much (not sure how much) because they feel that it would be the right thing to do, even though they believe that there are selves and don’t realize that everything is impermanent. They would perhaps suffer more from it than if they were also awakened, but may possibly gain insights from doing the letting go. There would be no guarantees for that. It would be a difficult time.

It is of course a political opinion that people would need to share. I have that opinion, and it colors how I think about this. I think it’s a fact, though, that there are millions (billions?) of people who do not get their most basic needs met. A climate catastrophy would make matters even worse.

I think people would need to trust each other and know better than to betray that trust. I count that as partly psychological maturity, partly a social conditioning that unfortunately is hard to foster without having it to begin with. I see the fear-based application of game theory as a major problem. People are so suspicious that they take action against their own interest just because someone else might take action that would be even more against their interest. As I see it, that explains why we have so many administrative and distributive systems that waste resources just to prevent people from accessing the very same resources (or some other resources but with the same ultimate result). This is obviously colored by my own political values, but that’s how I see it.

The moral aspect comes in vaguely as the premise that they would genuinely want to benefit all sentient beings. That’s a tricky one, since intent and impact do not necessarily match. Many wordly problems would be complex. The consequences of different choices would be difficult to predict. People often disagree on what is beneficial. There would still be disagreements. People would also still misunderstand each other. I think there would be some things that would be easier to agree upon than others, though. I mentioned some early in the thread. I don’t know if you would agree. There are probably better examples. I would be interested in talking about such issues, mainly because I’m still naive enough to hope that there is no need for awakening to realize some things that would make a change for the better. If people were to talk about them, maybe some ideas would catch on.

Your last point came to my mind, actually, but I didn’t mention it because I wanted to see if someone else brought it up. That idea both saddens me and gives some relief at the same time. I still want it to not be true, but I think it scares me even more to think that saving the world would be theoretically possible but not accomplished just because people don’t believe in it or care enough.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 10:25 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Something that came to my mind while writing early in the thread was that if human beings were hypothetically awakened in a sense that radically diminished their suffering, whereas animals were not, that would potentially have ethical implications that I would personally find hard to deal with in the state in which I am now. It would be even harder to justify animal experiments and meat production. I would prefer not to eat meat, but I have very complicated food allergies and intolerances. I have given up vegetarianism for now, because I haven’t found a way to function on a vegetarian diet, but I’m hoping to be able to change that in one way or another. I’m also currently dependent on medications. These have been tested already, and I could just stick to the same old medz, I suppose, but it got me thinking. I know that there is ongoing research aiming at replacing animal experiments and growing synthetic meat. I think that kind of research would be a major priority.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 10:35 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Domesticated animals (cattle, sheep, livestock of many kinds) and the industries that surround them do contribute heavily to the climate crisis:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/ 

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 10:49 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Yes, that too. And discussions about that are at least in Sweden often extremely infected (is that a correct wording in English?). People would need to mature significantly in one way or another in order to deal with this issue. Taking things less personally might help with that, and that’s something that I think is very difficult for most people.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 11:06 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Yes, that too. And discussions about that are at least in Sweden often extremely infected (is that a correct wording in English?). People would need to mature significantly in one way or another in order to deal with this issue. Taking things less personally might help with that, and that’s something that I think is very difficult for most people.



What Daniel wrote in that thread about sectarianism in the dharma illustrates how difficult this challenge is to overcome. I appreciated that he talked about it so honestly and acknowledged his own limitations in the department of getting over oneself, but it also saddened me. And gave me a sense of relief at the same time. For me it is very important to make a world where people are allowed to have both flaws and other forms of diversity. Everything else would be ableistic and possibly contain basically every similar -ism, depending on what people deem as less preferred. I wouldn’t want a world where people were not allowed to make mistakes either.

Basically, I think trust may be the key component in the kind of maturity I’m imagining. That’s not really a character trait, but more a way of living and approaching the world. As I said above, it entails a social conditioning that is hard to achieve if it’s not already in place. I tend to conflate trust with awakening because my journey so far has been so much about trust. Not being trusted is also what saddens me most.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 11:15 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:

Not being trusted is also what saddens me most.


As a sidenote, I just realized that I just shared on public internet what would be the most effective way to crush me. That may be very stupid, but it’s how I want to live. In trust.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 11:34 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Or not being worthy of trust. That would be the worst nightmare.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 8:55 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
I am very grateful to Anna L for being given the chance to process this. Maybe these are pointless and tiresome thoughts for those of you who have already had decades to talk about this, but I really needed to process this and I needed to do that in explorative communication rather than combative discussion. It was difficult for me to put my thoughts into words, and having every sentence scrutinized with suspicion at that formless stage in the thought process made it even more difficult. So thanks Anna for listening without judging! I shall never forget it.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 9:15 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
spatial:
Linda, are you familiar with Spiral Dynamics? If not, you may find it very interesting:

http://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en/


Thanks, I’m not, and quite frankly I’m always a bit sceptical about systems that try to categorize people, but as I don’t know anything about it I’m not in a position to evaluate it. I just think it would be nice if people would mature enough not to kill each other, let each other starve and lie helpless in their own feces, and destroy the planet. Sometimes I like to daydream about such a scenario for a moment, and I thought it would be nice to brainstorm about what such people would be capable of and see if one or two ideas could actually be of interest to people for real. That’s all.
It's not about categorizing people so much as it is about categorizing the cultural memes that lead people to hold the values that they do. It describes where those memes come from, and the direction in which they must evolve in order to lead to the kind of global awakening I think you're hoping to achieve. I'm no expert on it, but I've skimmed through the book.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/4/19 9:36 PM as a reply to spatial.
Ah! Thankyou for that input! That does sound very interesting. Yes, what I’m after is the kind of social conditioning that would enable trust and faith and exploration in combination with the realization that we are all connected and the ability to find happiness in sustainability and respect for every sentient being.

And enable is a key word here. Enable, not force. Not coercion.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/5/19 5:32 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Good to see the forum did eventually help you get your needs met, Linda.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/5/19 7:16 AM as a reply to Andromeda.
Me too, but I never doubted that. That’s the strength of community.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/5/19 7:10 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda, you’re welcome! I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to engage much in this post as I’ve had a busy weekend and limited screen time. However I understand where you are coming from and I understand your need to process these issues as I’ve been through similar stages myself. I think it’s only natural that studying and practicing the dharma can lead to us wanting to better understand how we are all interconnected and how we may contribute to one another’s suffering. For me, animal rights has been a big issue since getting into meditation. In fact, for a time, the idea of animal cruelty was actually causing me quite a bit of distress (and outrage) and I was struggling to understand what to do about it. It took a while for this intense immediate reaction to settle down into something more manageable. It’s funny how these things can arise and provoke such strong reactions in us. We all have to find our own way to come to terms with the suffering we cause just by being human. 

I’m happy you’re processing this stuff and as time allows I’m always happy to add in my 2 cents 

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 4:29 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Me too, but I never doubted that. That’s the strength of community.

For transparency's sake, let me state here that since you've made it clear you no longer want my help I will not be offering it in the future unless you explicitly ask me for it. I hope you continue to find the DhO a place that nurtures your development in positive ways. Best wishes for your life and practice.

With metta,

Andromeda

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 5:35 AM as a reply to Andromeda.
Andromeda:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Me too, but I never doubted that. That’s the strength of community.

For transparency's sake, let me state here that since you've made it clear you no longer want my help I will not be offering it in the future unless you explicitly ask me for it. I hope you continue to find the DhO a place that nurtures your development in positive ways. Best wishes for your life and practice.

With metta,

Andromeda

You misunderstood me. As I said, I appreciate feeback on my practice and questions related to it. This is not a thread about my practice, and yet you insisted that you were helping even though I asked that the thread should be about politics.

In all our other interactions, I have found your input very very helpful, and I still appreciate it more than I can put into words.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 6:00 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Andromeda:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Me too, but I never doubted that. That’s the strength of community.

For transparency's sake, let me state here that since you've made it clear you no longer want my help I will not be offering it in the future unless you explicitly ask me for it. I hope you continue to find the DhO a place that nurtures your development in positive ways. Best wishes for your life and practice.

With metta,

Andromeda

You misunderstood me. As I said, I appreciate feeback on my practice and questions related to it. This is not a thread about my practice, and yet you insisted that you were helping even though I asked that the thread should be about politics.

In all our other interactions, I have found your input very very helpful, and I still appreciate it more than I can put into words.

Given the spiritual premise of your thread I wouldn't put it squarely in the category of politics at all, but that's beside the point. To be frank I do not want to risk a repeat of the messiness that occurred here if we have another miscommunication. You may want to read over your comments to and about me in this thread and try looking at things from my perspective. I'm sorry if this disappoints you. I have no doubt you'll do just fine without me looking over your shoulder.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 6:03 AM as a reply to Anna L.
Anna L:
Linda, you’re welcome! I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to engage much in this post as I’ve had a busy weekend and limited screen time. However I understand where you are coming from and I understand your need to process these issues as I’ve been through similar stages myself. I think it’s only natural that studying and practicing the dharma can lead to us wanting to better understand how we are all interconnected and how we may contribute to one another’s suffering. For me, animal rights has been a big issue since getting into meditation. In fact, for a time, the idea of animal cruelty was actually causing me quite a bit of distress (and outrage) and I was struggling to understand what to do about it. It took a while for this intense immediate reaction to settle down into something more manageable. It’s funny how these things can arise and provoke such strong reactions in us. We all have to find our own way to come to terms with the suffering we cause just by being human. 

I’m happy you’re processing this stuff and as time allows I’m always happy to add in my 2 cents 


Yes, it’s not like I can skip parts of the process just because others find it meaningless and as causing unnecessary suffering. I am in the beginning of the process and need to walk the road myself.

It’s comforting to know that there are experienced practitioners that have found a balance that seems to be more in line with what I believe is possible for me.

As for animal rights, I have decided to keep making new attemps at extending my very narrow diet with foods that are better ethical choices so as to be able to exclude more foods that are poor ethical choices. So far it hasn’t gone well, but I need to know that I did what I could in order to be at peace. There was a time (a period of 13 years) when I was convinced that I would rather die than eat meat again, but when push came to shove, it turned out that I chose to survive and to avoid degrees of suffering that made me not want to survive. Maybe I can deal with my health issues better now, maybe not.

According to western standards, my economic situation is very uncertain and something of a struggle, but compared to the homeless people on the streets and on a global scale, I am privileged in a way that is not fair. I need to find ways to contribute to make it right, and I need to find a balance so that I can manage it without neglecting other duties or my practice. That’s just how it is.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 6:17 AM as a reply to Andromeda.
Andromeda, I have read through the thread many many times, and I suggest that you do the same. It is possible that this is a matter of cultural barrier, I don’t know, but I was as shocked by your behavior as you were by mine. I cried for hours and hours and just couldn’t believe that kind and wise people like you would persist in derailing the type of thread that you had clearly stated you were not interested in taking part in, and even tell me that my processing is tiresome and pointless and that you have better things to do, as if you were forced to take part.

I respect your decision, even if I will miss your insightful reflections and advice. You have been very helpful to me and I treasured every one of your comments in all other threads.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 9:08 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
I see no reason why much should change. Capitalism would take care of it. 95% of the things we have in shops now would disappear within weeks. Problem solved.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 9:29 AM as a reply to Raving Rhubarb.
That’s an interesting conclusion. How would that happen, and how would that help?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 10:03 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
This is how it works:
People wake up to what makes them happy. People decide to not spend money=time to buy things which don't make  them happy. People stop buying those things. Other people cannot sell those things anymore, so they vanish from the stores. This is how capitalism has always worked - except people's perceptions of what will make them happy are way off, so the stores are full of garbage.

This is why it's helpful:
Fewer ressources are spent for garbage. Ressources are only spent on things which actually make people happy. That's what you asked for, right?

By the way, I don't get why people criticize you for being utopian. I have no (well, few) illusions of mass-awakening happening anytime (except maybe if we mix lsd in drinking water everywhere), but I still think it's a nice thought experiment.
Also, I don't think it's THAT utopian. People don't want to wake up (most of them), but they still want to be happy. If people realize that society's promises do not make them happy, maybe they will do something else. I don't think that "realizing that society's promises do not make you happy" requires awakening of any sort. In fact, it requires neither concentration nor insight into the 3Cs nor the Brahmaviharas. It requires opening your eyes, having a look at the world, reading the scientific studies. That's MUCH easier. I think that some of this will be happening in my lifetime and is, indeed, already happening. Noah has previously linked to the mrmoneymoustache stuff (which, tbh, always seemed a no-brainer to me, lol), there is actually a movement there. This is not a movement of awakened people, nor of idealized weirdo hippies. I could be overly optimistic there, though.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 11:14 AM as a reply to Raving Rhubarb.
Ah. I see your point. Thankyou for elaborating on it!

Yeah, I believe practically any political system would actually work if people really knew what makes them truly happy. It could be that I’m overly optimistic about what makes people truly happy.

Thankyou! We seem to share a similar view on the likelihood of this, despite different political preferences. However, I don’t think mixing LSD in the water would help, and even if it would, I think it would be wrong to do it without consent. It sounds like one of the storylines in Flash, and that didn’t go well. No forced mass-awakenings for me.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 1:39 PM as a reply to Raving Rhubarb.
Raving Rhubarb:
Also, I don't think it's THAT utopian. People don't want to wake up (most of them), but they still want to be happy. If people realize that society's promises do not make them happy, maybe they will do something else. I don't think that "realizing that society's promises do not make you happy" requires awakening of any sort. In fact, it requires neither concentration nor insight into the 3Cs nor the Brahmaviharas. It requires opening your eyes, having a look at the world, reading the scientific studies. That's MUCH easier. I think that some of this will be happening in my lifetime and is, indeed, already happening. Noah has previously linked to the mrmoneymoustache stuff (which, tbh, always seemed a no-brainer to me, lol), there is actually a movement there. This is not a movement of awakened people, nor of idealized weirdo hippies. I could be overly optimistic there, though.
To elaborate on that, I just realized that actually there ARE endeavours to teach people happiness, and it's not restricted only to some internet movements. For example, in Germany there are experiments of introducing "happiness" as a school subject. We take it for granted that large parts of students can actually learn physics and math and physical education. Why shouldn't they be able to learn happiness as well? That might actually end up like sexual education, i.e. the only subject where anyone actually pays attention emoticon
Also, mindfulness and relaxation exercises are introduced in schools. Those probably won't lead to mass awakening, just as the corporate McMindfulness thingy. But maybe people still learn something about themselves by doing those.
What is yet missing (though I'd like to be proven wrong) is the introduction of basic mind change techniques such as CBT and Focusing to everyone. Maybe even brahmaviharas light. This may be a bit more difficult, but I wouldn't say it is utopian - in contrast to mass awakening which will probably never happen.

On the other hand I've been in this game so long that I've sort of forgotten how people without extensive meditation experience actually work, so maybe all of this is too optimistic.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 2:21 PM as a reply to Raving Rhubarb.
Hm. Interesting. I don’t know what to think about it. I hope they don’t get grades in it. It would be horrible to punish people for not being happy enough. Also, I’m trying to imagine anyone of my old teachers teaching me and my class mates how to be happy. I’m not so sure they knew. Maybe one of the special teachers actually did know. She seemed to be at peace with herself. She was not the type that would tell anyone how to live their life, though, and that was probably part of why she was at peace with herself. I think it would have to be done in a very explorative and non-judging way and with respect for diversity. Also, I think it would be important to accept if people were un-happy. I have seen people being so invested in happiness that they shut people out for not being happy, and that is not the kind of world that I would want to live in. I have also seen people go out of their way trying to fix people’s unhappiness in a way that makes the unhappy person feel even more miserable. I have done my fair share of that myself before I learned that it is often more helpful to listen and validate their feelings, even when I see that they are in a loop. The loop usually stops much sooner if I listen and validate. Sometimes planting a seed very carefully and casually is helpful too, but nurturing the plant must be their own choice.

Did you actually have sexual education that was any good? Congratulations! Ours was beyond pathetic. Our teacher mostly made a lot of sexistic jokes. We spent half the class competing in how many alternative names we could come up with for the dick.

I think it would be a good thing for most people to learn tools for finding skillful coping mechanisms. Again, I think that would require diversity in methods.

I know plenty of non-meditating people who are awsome - compassionate, warm, considerate, altruistic and very wise in a wordly sense. They are not always happy, though. Some of them are depressed from time to time, some suffer from anxiety. They do find happiness in other people’s wellbeing and in the miracle of a spring flower or a child’s laughter.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 4:14 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Andromeda, I have read through the thread many many times, and I suggest that you do the same. It is possible that this is a matter of cultural barrier, I don’t know, but I was as shocked by your behavior as you were by mine. I cried for hours and hours and just couldn’t believe that kind and wise people like you would persist in derailing the type of thread that you had clearly stated you were not interested in taking part in, and even tell me that my processing is tiresome and pointless and that you have better things to do, as if you were forced to take part.

I respect your decision, even if I will miss your insightful reflections and advice. You have been very helpful to me and I treasured every one of your comments in all other threads.

Once again, I apologize things went awry in this thread as it was not my intention to be rude. 

Be well.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/6/19 5:22 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
I’m so sorry too. I wish I could have found much better ways to express my intention of the thread and the boundaries that I needed to set up. Our expectations collided completely, and because I like you a lot, that was difficult. I still like you a lot. I’m very sorry that I hurt you.

I do respect your judgement in sooooo many respects. This sage-mage thing seems to be where we collide. I hope I can eventually find a way to earn your trust again.

Very best wishes, sincerely.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/13/19 6:25 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Sorry for bumping up this thread again. I did add a warning in the beginning of the thread, for potential new readers. Anyone who feels stressed out by this thread, I’m sorry for the distress. Please know that the ruminitions of my mind are not that important or relevant. You won’t miss out on anything if you just skip reading this thread. Be well and practice well.

I am currently trying to read the section of MCTB2 that deals with different models of awakening, and I can see how my poor knowledge of the different existing models and ideas is troublesome. Some of my wordings could lead a readers’s thoughts to models that I did not have in mind. For instance, I did not mean that it would be ideal to perfect people’s emotions. I have seen enough sci-fi explorations of that to know how that would be dangerous. I have also seen enough of so called therapies aiming at changing autistic people into ”normal” to know the real danger of that (research shows that these therapies lead to PTSD for alarmingly many autistic people). I think diversity is utterly important. It didn’t even cross my mind that somebody would think otherwise because of my wording. The importance of diversity was taken for granted, and so was the importance of not messing with people’s emotional lives. I see now that I could have been explicit about that. I wasn’t aware of these existing ideas in Buddhism enough to realize the need to be explicit about that. I came into this without any prior knowledge of Buddhism except for some very basic notions learned in school that turned out to have very little to do with the real thing.

I don’t think that people would need to be perfect in any way to realize that operating according to game theory creates unnecessary suffering for us all. I was just thinking that even though people can have an intellectual understanding of that, letting go of the fear-based suspicions that drives game theory behavior is obviously very difficult. I guess I’m trying to grasp whether seeing the three C:s for what they are on a sensate level would make a difference in this. Maybe the game theory behavior is too hard coded in the homo sapiens form for even arahants to let go of it. I wouldn’t know. Maybe it would require the kind of mastering of emotions that even I can see is a slippery slope, and in that case it is a dead end. That is however not what I had in mind. I just want to clarify that. As I see it, emotional maturity in one respect does not in any way mean that the person would be emotionally mature in other respects. I have never met anyone who is emotionally mature in all respects, and I don’t think that is even remotely possible. I don’t even think it would be a good thing. I think it would be utterly boring and lifeless, and any strivings for such a society would possibly be a violation of life itself. So that is not the thought that I was trying to describe.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/13/19 7:28 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
A bit from some recent reading came to mind...
"The fact is that if one grasps and clings, even to goodness, that is dukkha. In this sense, that which the world assumes to be goodness is actually false or evil. Goodness is still dukkha; it has the dukkha appropriate to it because it's not yet void; it's still busy and disturbed. Only when there is suññata, and one is beyond goodness, can there be freedom from dukkha.

Therefore, the main principle of Buddhism as elucidated in the phrase "Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" is nothing other than the complete elimination of grasping at and clinging to things as being self or as belonging to self. There is nothing beyond this."

- Buddhadasa Bhikkhu from "Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree"

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/13/19 1:37 PM as a reply to Nick O.
Thanks for your input, Nick! Yeah, I do believe it’s a dead end to label things as good or bad and turn that into dogma or into some kind of positioning contest or anything like that. Also, I think actions are much more complicated than that. Every action has more than one consequence, and no action is in itself the sole cause of anything. This makes it very difficult, probably impossible, to ”be a good person”. It’s not even possible to do one action that is inherently good, as far as I understand. I still think it matters to try not to cause unnecessary suffering. It probably is not a good idea to be attached to a specific outcome, though, and I can definitely see the fetters in identifying with certain goals. But I still believe that trying not to cause unnecessary suffering as a process can be helpful. Does that make any sense?* Curious/Malcolm said it so well in another thread. It was something like giving up the goal but not the actions.

*) If it does make sense, it is probably a ”duh” thing. Sorry about that. My frame of reference for this comes much more from sci-fi than from Buddhist texts. I only substituted daily meditation for netflix bingewatching for less than eight months ago, and I started with 20 minutes per day according to some rather cocky youtuber’s instructions. I haven’t read a fraction of a fraction of what would have been wise to read.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/13/19 9:50 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Yup, no attachment to goals and arriving at no conclusions. Noble right view is compassionate ongoing open-ended moment by moment investigation into suffering (off-cushion practice). Wrong view , as my teacher would say, is doing a little bit of investigation and then coming to a hasty conclusion. 

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/14/19 3:35 AM as a reply to Nick O.
As long as it is still okay to care about suffering and keep investigating it, that sounds good to me.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/14/19 7:55 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Just be sure you are good to yourself. If dwelling on the suffering of others is detrimental to your own well being, that is not the path. Right View would be to cultivate joy and compassion in yourself to share with others. 

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/14/19 8:37 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:

*) If it does make sense, it is probably a ”duh” thing. Sorry about that. My frame of reference for this comes much more from sci-fi than from Buddhist texts. I only substituted daily meditation for netflix bingewatching for less than eight months ago, and I started with 20 minutes per day according to some rather cocky youtuber’s instructions. I haven’t read a fraction of a fraction of what would have been wise to read.

I'm curious as to who this "rather cocky youtuber" might be...

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/14/19 9:53 AM as a reply to Nick O.
Nick O:
Just be sure you are good to yourself. If dwelling on the suffering of others is detrimental to your own well being, that is not the path. Right View would be to cultivate joy and compassion in yourself to share with others. 


I appreciate your concern, and I’m sure you share that concern with others who have commented in this thread. I’m grateful for the support from all of you, despite my earlier grumpiness. I acknowledge that this is sometimes (often) a tricky balance, but it is the kind of balance that I need to find for myself in spite of the challenges that it might entail. Over the years I have become rather good at taking care of myself and my boundaries, so I believe I’ll manage relatively well.

It is hard sometimes, though. For instance, a friend’s situation is alarming. This friend has multiple disabilities and illnesses and might not survive because of maltreatment and lack of support. He is being discriminated against on various grounds, I would say, but the authorities do not seem to care about the law nowadays. Nor do they seem to care about human rights or fundamental human needs. I could go on and on about this, but I will spare you the horrifying details. Anyway, this affects my balance from time to time, as I’m trying to help him (together with other friends and his family) but nothing seems to make any change. When the goal is the survival of a friend, it is hard not to get attached to it. That is just one example of what I have around me, even if I were to keep my distance to the more global problems. I’m sure I’m not the only meditator who has to face the suffering of others; my situation is hardly unique. All of you have probably had your fair share of it and needed to find ways to deal with it. I know that making other people’s suffering my own personal suffering doesn’t help anyone. I am working at it.

I do cultivate both joy and compassion in myself and share that with others, to the best of my ability. I also cultivate compassion towards myself and encourage others to do the same. There are people who find me very inspiring in that department. Because of my own disabilities and health issues, I have learned over time to find a balance there. Those who know me personally and from other social media can testify to that. I just haven’t shared that on this forum.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/14/19 10:00 AM as a reply to spatial.
spatial:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:

*) If it does make sense, it is probably a ”duh” thing. Sorry about that. My frame of reference for this comes much more from sci-fi than from Buddhist texts. I only substituted daily meditation for netflix bingewatching for less than eight months ago, and I started with 20 minutes per day according to some rather cocky youtuber’s instructions. I haven’t read a fraction of a fraction of what would have been wise to read.

I'm curious as to who this "rather cocky youtuber" might be...


I shouldn’t have framed it like that. Now that I did, I feel uncomfortable about telling who it was. Even seemingly cocky people might get hurt if he were to read it.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 2:13 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
[Warning to potential new readers: this is a thread that get’s kind of messy. I apologize for poor wordings and reactive behavior on my part. Please know that it is temporary, even though the words are still there, and please have faith that the wise people running this forum will not let a beginner’s processing mind ruin the forum for you. Practice well and do not get caught up in the content of this thread. Peace be with you.]



Let us play with the idea that humanity some day wakes up in a way that makes it possible for every individual to distinguish between reasonable needs on the one hand and cravings and aversions that cause unnecessary suffering on the other hand. Let us say that it is a combination of full awakening and any additional psychological maturity that would be required, and a genuine wish to benefit all sentient beings. Suddenly the entire humanity is free from clinging to ”me”and ”mine”. They realize that current systems for production and distribution are based on misguided views, and decide that enough is enough. The planet needs to be saved and priorities need to change radically.

What do you think they would do?

EDIT: Just to clarify, I’m not talking about a revolution. There would be no coercion or force involved. I’m interested in how priorities would change in specific issues. No need to overthrow governments or anything like that. When I say ”systems” I mean in a broader sense. There are systems for practically anything we do. I have a system for how to clean my home, for instance, and for how I do grocery shopping.
tao te ching, trans yutang

80. SMALL UTOPIA

(Let there be) a small country with a small population, 
Where the supply of goods are tenfold or hundredfold, more than they can use. 
Let the people value their lives and not migrate far. 
Though there be boats and carriages, 
None be there to ride them. 
Though there be armor and weapons, 
No occasion to display them. 
Let the people again tie ropes for reckoning, 
Let them enjoy their food, 
Beautify their clothing, 
Be satisfied with their homes, 
Delight in their customs. 
The neighboring settlements overlook one another 
So that they can hear the barking of dogs and 
crowing of cocks of their neighbors, 
And the people till the end of their days shall never have been outside their country.


trans blakney

80.

The ideal land is small 
Its people very few, 
Where tools abound 
Ten times or yet 
A hundred-fold 
Beyond their use; 
Where people die 
And die again 
But never emigrate; 
Have boats and carts 
Which no one rides. 
Weapons have they 
And armor too, 
But none displayed. 
The folk returns 
To use again 
The knotted cords. 
Their meat is sweet; 
Their clothes adorned, 
Their homes at peace, 
Their customs charm.

And neighbor lands 
Are juxtaposed 
So each may hear 
The barking dogs, 
The crowing cocks 
Across the way; 
Where folks grow old 
And folks will die 
And never once 
Exchange a call. 

 

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 2:17 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
Is this one of those political questions masquerading as a dharma question?

emoticon

Is this a political response masquerading as a dharma question?

(smile)

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 2:20 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
To be serious for a minute, I'm not a fan of utopias and theories of human nature that assume utopia is possible and desirable, that human nature is perfectible. I think human nature is what we see of it now, and focusing on what is impossible to achieve (utopia and human perfection) both ignores the reality of human nature and focuses our energies in the wrong direction. I believe we have to deal with the reality of both human nature and how we got to where we find ourselves now if we have any hope of "fixing" the climate crisis.

YMMV

EDIT: And yes, this means that I don't believe it's possible that every human being will wake up in the dharma sense.

   Without a concept of utopia - and we don't have one - humanity is aimless and lost.

t

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 9:00 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
Andromeda:
I'm with Chris on this one. No utopian thinking for me, and frankly it makes me a bit nervous when I see it. I'm too much of a practical realist anyway and not only are the efforts and energies better spent elsewhere, but when utopian thinking goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong. I prefer to dispense with beliefs and ideals as much as possible at this point in my life. 


Beliefs and ideals are not remotely the same thing.

We all need somthing to live up to, at some point in our lives. I'm not sure ideals are ever really "dispensable."

Unlike beliefs, ideals don't need to be defended. Beliefs, says krishnamurti, always eventually lead to violence.

t



from "the songs of kabir" trans tagore:


LXXIX

I am neither pious nor ungodly,
I live by neither law nor by sense,
I am neither a speaker nor a hearer,
I am neither servant nor master,
I am neither bond nor free,
I am neither detached nor attached.
I am far from none: I am near to none.
I shall go neither to hell nor to heaven.
I do all works; yet I am apart from all works.
Few comprehend my meaning: he who can comprehend it, he sits unmoved.
Kabir seeks neither to establish nor destroy.


LXXX.

The true Name is like none other name!
The distinction of the Conditioned from the Unconditioned is but a word:
The Unconditioned is the seed,the Conditioned is the flower and the fruit.
Knowledge is the branch, and the Name is the root.
Look, and see where the root is: happiness shall be yours when you come to the root.
The root will lead you to the branch, the leaf, the flower, and the fruit:
It is the encounter with the Lord, it is the attainment of bliss, it is the reconciliation of the Conditioned and the Unconditioned.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 2:46 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
... when utopian thinking goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong...

Yes. It tends to lead to authoritarianism. It leads to governments that "protect the ideal" and not the human beings who suffer under them.

   Ideals are often misused by exploiters. It is often said that the best argument against christianity, or taoism, is the christians and taoists themselves. To err is human, to be ideal is divine.

   You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

   You are cynics. If it weren't for bread and butter idealism we'd still be fighting in viet nam.


terry

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 2:49 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Your skepticism is duly noted.

I don’t believe in a ”human nature” because to me that sounds like believing that there is an essence to what is empty. I might change my mind later, though, as I’m only beginning to grasp what emptiness might implicate.

I think of this as a way to brainstorm about possible solutions to urgent problems without discarding all ideas prematurely because they seem impossible. It is important to discard all potentially harmful ideas before taking action, of course, but in a beginning phase it could perhaps be helpful to believe in the potential for human development, impermanence if you like, rather than assuming that people will always remain the same.

Your idealism is duly noted.

With affection and respect.

t

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 2:50 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
For all I know, their first point on the agenda could be exactly to make sure that this new common interest does not end up as authoritarianism. They might take measures to ensure that any steps towards authoritarianism are called out early on and nipped in the bud in a non-violent way. I think that would be extremely important for the reasons the two of you point to.

We always seem to enter into these things with very good intentions. Yet they go wrong. I wonder why?

cynicism?

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 2:54 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Anyway, if I were to take part in such a discussion for real some day, which is highly unlikely, I would totally argue for the role of the sage as a valid option for any individual. I don’t think anybody would dispute that.


aloha linda,

   As I have pointed out before, a peaceful solution to over-population and the attendant environmental stress would be to convince huge numbers of people to adopt the buddhist precepts. If we can get a large percentage of the population to commit to not reproducing we could make giant strides toward stabililizing our environment in just a few generations.

terry

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 3:32 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
I would also suggest that since we are currently using a lot of electricity, it would be a good idea to install solar panels in Sahara, unless there are environmental or other problems with that that I’m unaware of, and distribute the electricity to those who are currently primarily using fossile fuels. First locally and then globally if possible. I’m thinking that if people are less invested in ”me” and ”mine”, maybe there wouldn’t be so much discussion about who would have to pay for it. People would soon realize that such an intervention would benefit us all.

I think we would stop using oil rather rapidly. Those who had invested a fortune in the oil business would trust that they would still be fine without those riches. They would take pleasure in knowing that the development was for the greater good, and people would appreciate them for that sacrifice (which would be seen as a minor one by now but still recognized for the great change that it would entail) and make sure that they were okay, because nobody would be interested in retribution. After all, there are no individual selves and there is no point in punishing dependent origination as it would only cause additional bad karma.

I imagine we would stop throwing away food and other useful products because of the empty fact that nobody bought them. We would laugh at the mere idea of doing such a thing. Also, if something needed to be done (such as making sure that somebody could eat and breathe and wash and get some air) and there were people who were willing and competent to do it, I think we would make sure that they had the resources needed. No need to quarrel about who should pay for it.

I believe we would be less interested in compelling packages and more interested in making quality products that last and using a cradle-to-cradle system to make it easier to reuse old materials. I believe we would definitely stop making and selling and using weapons. That would free up resources for more important matters. That would also be the case with all the systems that we have today just for making sure that people don’t get what they need.

There would probably be some overwhelming difficulties to begin with, because so many needs are unmet today. Saving everybody might not be possible. There would be a period of collective mourning. We would have to face the consequences of our previous choices. Maybe people would still find some comfort in knowing that future generations would be free from that kind of suffering, and maybe not clinging to ”me” and ”mine” would relieve people from the suffering that these difficulties would normally entail. Maybe that would be too optimistic. I can’t personally imagine the scenario, so I really don’t know. Would people hurry up to minimize the pain for as many as possible or relax because the suffering was radically reduced anyway thanks to the letting go of cravings? I don’t know.

Other sentient beings would still be able to suffer, so I would guess that animal rights would be on the agenda, together with the entire ecology. That’s a tough one. We have messed up the ecology big time, so it’s not like suddenly stopping using animals would solve everything in a flash (I’m not personally a vegan but I do believe that we need to rethink how we treat animals; I don’t know exactly how).

To be clear, I don’t believe that perfection is possible. I just think that humanity could do better than today.

Just some thoughts, not very well thought through.


   These are good ideas but it would be more practical to change the egotism that leads to materialism and excess. When you wear shoeleather, the whole earth is covered in leather.

   The ideas are problematic. Two examples: in germany half of their power comes from wind farms. These colossal fans are changing the weather by slowing down the wind. They also destroy birds. The problem is trying to supply the absurd amounts of power people are using: look at how cities are lit up. Let's cut demand by 90% and then do power generation. In hawaii we have fruit trees dropping many tons of wasted fruit. We could collect and distribute the fruit, but the effort required would justify creating orchards and harvesting in the normal way. If we were hungrier and lived less wasteful lives, we would naturally eat fruits that become available. During ww2 hawaiians ate everything that grew, and ate better.

   I think everything is perfect already. As blake says, "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." Humanity is in a child phase, and will mature into utopian conditions; not by revolution, but by evolution. That's the way. We are a very clever and successful species. I think we'll be all right. Using "perfect" as a verb: perfect, perfect, perfect. Think of it as "practice."

   If we wanted to perfect the world all by ourselves, we would have no chance. It will take a collective effort. The hardest part is getting people to realize that things are not hopeless.

   It is not that any of this takes effort. We just have to not interfere. Trust the process.

terry


from the hsinhsinming:

In empty brightness your light shines of itself
without labor to mind or sinew, 
there in the place past reckoning, 
beyond the ken of cognition or feeling.

The Dharma-realm of Suchness 
knows no "other," no "self." 
If you desire to approach and enter it, 
only say to yourself "not two."

Where there are "not two," all is uniform, 
nothing not enfolded there. 
Wise ones of the ten directions 
all make their way to this Source.

In this Source, no long or short time spans: 
one moment is ten thousand years; 
no "here" or "not here," 
all ten directions right before your eyes.

The tiniest is one with the huge, 
all boundaries and realms wiped out. 
The largest is one with the tiny, 
extremes no longer to be seen.

Being—this is nonbeing, 
nonbeing—this is being. 
Any view at variance with this 
must not be held!

One—this is all, 
all—this is one. 
When you can see in this manner, 
what worries will not fade?

When trust and mind are not two, 
not two, trust and mind, 
there all words break off, 
no past, no future, no now.

 

 


On high narrow road
old traveler clears wide swath,
tiny scythe glinting.

~basho


THIS SNOWY MORNING
THAT BLACK CROW
I HATE SO MUCH...
BUT HE'S BEAUTIFUL!

~basho

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 4:13 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
You know, taking measures to prevent people from talking about political change tends to lead to authoritarianism, too, so it is good that none of us is prone to use force or coercion to ”protect” anything.

Actually, that is authoritarianism. Do you think I'm shutting you down by expressing my opinion?
 

Also, exactly what are you saying here? What would the alternative be? Not having any politics at all? Like that would be possible. Not having any intentions? Yeah well, I suppose if people were really all fully enlightened, at least in one sense there would be no intentions, but that’s not something that you believe in. Entering political issues with bad intentions - that options is discarded, right? So what remains? Keeping status qou? Like that one never turned into authoritarianism. Letting everyone mind their own business? Yeah, Lord of the flies is a really cosy scenario, right? Deliberatly aiming for politics that are tailored to humanity’s worst character flaws? That’s where we are now, and we are destroying the planet. Does that qualify as going wrong?

You're misinterpreting my comments.

I'm saying that the historical attempts human beings have made at governing based on the notions that utopia is achievable and human beings are perfectible have not done well and most have simply failed. It's a fact of history. I'm not commenting on anything else, or any other form of government.

If it matters, I happen to like the limited government models that have taken hold in the U.S. and in Europe over the last several hundred years. Republics that are based on the notion that we need to protect human rights, not protect the ideal of human perfection.

Please try not to take my comments personally. They're not aimed at you



aloha chris,

   The american "democracy" is based on the notion "that all men are created equal." This notion was formulated and written into the declaration of independence by one of the worst slave-holders to ever live. Charles peirce in ridiculing conventional  logical syllogisms proposed: "All men are created equal. Negroes are men. Therefore, negroes are equal."

   If you have been to an airport lately, or have any concern for privacy, our "republic" may seem to be leaning a little. And government is the least of our worries. The big three of amazon, google and facebook are beginning to emerge as the monsters they are. Facebook, for example, has 2.7 billion subs. Zuckerberg says it is more of a government than a corporation. Now, ask yourself: who elected him? Who ever would? Ditto jeff bezos and larry page. And their ilk. Great power is greatly corrupt. Where is our teddy roosevelt to break them into bits? Who even dreams of protecting privacy anymore? When I was a kid you needed a court order to read mail or listen to calls. Ancient history, eh?

   It is not abourt activism, it is about being awake. Not hiding from truth because it is uncomfortable or unpleasant. Telling the truth to power, to authority.

terry


from "oppression and liberty," by simone weil, this written in the 1930s:


Every human group that exercises power does so, not in such a way as to bring happiness to those who are subject to it, but in such a way as to increase that power; it is a matter of life and death for any form of domination whatsoever. As long as production remained at a primitive stage of development, the question of power was decided by armed force. Economic changes transferred it to the plane of production itself; it was in this way that the capitalist system came into being. The development of the system later restored war as an essential means in the struggle for power, but under a different form; superiority in the armed struggle presupposes, nowadays, superiority in production itself. If the free play of competition is the final object of production in the hands of the capitalists, its final object in the hands of technicians organized into a State bureaucracy would necessarily be preparation for war. Besides, as Rousseau had already understood, no system of oppression is interested in the welfare of the oppressed; it is on their miserable condition that oppression can rest the more easily the whole of its weight.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 8:31 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Chris Marti:
You know, taking measures to prevent people from talking about political change tends to lead to authoritarianism, too, so it is good that none of us is prone to use force or coercion to ”protect” anything.

Actually, that is authoritarianism. Do you think I'm shutting you down by expressing my opinion?
 

Also, exactly what are you saying here? What would the alternative be? Not having any politics at all? Like that would be possible. Not having any intentions? Yeah well, I suppose if people were really all fully enlightened, at least in one sense there would be no intentions, but that’s not something that you believe in. Entering political issues with bad intentions - that options is discarded, right? So what remains? Keeping status qou? Like that one never turned into authoritarianism. Letting everyone mind their own business? Yeah, Lord of the flies is a really cosy scenario, right? Deliberatly aiming for politics that are tailored to humanity’s worst character flaws? That’s where we are now, and we are destroying the planet. Does that qualify as going wrong?

You're misinterpreting my comments.

I'm saying that the historical attempts human beings have made at governing based on the notions that utopia is achievable and human beings are perfectible have not done well and most have simply failed. It's a fact of history. I'm not commenting on anything else, or any other form of government.

If it matters, I happen to like the limited government models that have taken hold in the U.S. and in Europe over the last several hundred years. Republics that are based on the notion that we need to protect human rights, not protect the ideal of human perfection.

Please try not to take my comments personally. They're not aimed at you



I said that it’s good that none of us is prone to force or coercion, so no, I don’t think you are shutting me down. I was merely pointing out that my ideas have as little to do with authoritarianism as your ideas.

I’m very well aware of the fact that no utopia has been successful. I’m also very well aware that the current situation is no success either. I’m not planning to build a utopia. I’m just trying to frame a discussion in a way that allows people to think outside the box.

I haven’t said anything about changing any governmental models. I’m trying to talk about political priorities, in specific issues. Why do you think I’m talking about changing the governmental models? I happen to be a firm believer in human rights.

Of course your comments aren’t personal. They aren’t even targeting anything that I have actually said.
aloha linda, chris,


   I am fascinated with utopias. I highly recommend fredric jameson's "archeologies of the future," which work introduced me to the utopian sci fi of kim stanley robinson. "Years of rice and salt" was particularly great, following the millennial adventures of hsuan tsang's Monkey and friends  through many reincarnations punctuated by periods in the bardo. The book postulates a world in which all the white people were wiped out early by the plague, thus no christianity and very different forms of imperialism. Fascinating.

   In might be useful to consider the etymology of "utopia." Until reading jameson, I always assumed it meant "the true place" from the greek  "eu" meaning true and "topia" meaning place. Actually, it is from "u" meaning "no" and "topia," thus "no-place." Sir thomas more coined the word in his book "utopia" (1516).

   Utopia is an ideal. It exists here and now as an ideal. It is worthwhile to attempt to live an utopian existence, on the local level. We referred to our ideals in the commune as "communism with a small 'c'." Now I think of our selves and our fellow vendors at the farmer's market as "capitalism with a small 'c'." Some of the young people gather produce and sell it to tourists and locals by the bunch for "four to seven dollars, depending on how much you think it is worth." 

   When I lived in wallowa county the whiskey creek gang would go into town on the day the checks came in the mail, and since it was an off day at the food cooperative, we would pick up the key at mary's cafe, open the co-op building, weigh out our produce, put our stamps and money into the till, lock the place up, and drop off the key back at mary's. We thought this the most cool way to shop ever, and valued the trust involved. Some of the board members fielded complaints and worried that this trend could lead to abuses. They held a meeting which we did not attend, and after some discussion decided that trust was what we were all about and that to limit that trust would be to undermine our collective values. So we were allowed to continue as before.


terry




from timothy leary's "translation" of the tao te ching 


VI − 17
Walk Carefully When You Are Among


"holy men" and
"righteous" deeds
Distract from the internal

"Learned men"
Distract from Natural wisdom

Professional know−how
Addicts people to the contrived
And the external

Be respectful and compassionate
But walk carefully when you are among−

learned men
holy men
doctors
government officials
reporters
publishers
professors 
religious leaders
psychologists
rich men
social scientists
women with beautiful faces
artists and writers
men who charge fees
city men
movie makers
men who want to help you
men who want you to help them
Christians and Jews


For such as these
However well meaning
Place you on their chessboard
Addict you to their externals
Distract you from the TAO within


The lesson of the TAO is more likely to be found among−

gardeners
hermits
mountain men
smiling eccentrics
men who build their own homes
children
parents who learn from their children
loafers
amateur musicians
serene Psychotics
animals
men who look at sunsets
men who walk in the woods
beautiful women
cooks
men who sit by the fire
wanderers
men who make bread
couples who have been in love for years
unemployed men

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 5:12 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
Linda, you said this in the first comment on this topic:

They realize that current systems for production and distribution are based on misguided views, and decide that enough is enough. The planet needs to be saved and priorities need to change radically. 

This comment, at least to me, meant that some changes to the way we allocate resources and decide on what we will do on a collective basis are required should every human being someday "wake up" (in the spiritual sense). That, to me, means changes in the nature of government. Is that not what you meant? How else will we make changes to the way we eat, generate energy, where and how we live, how we get around, and so on? I'm open to ideas on how we can make massive changes in a short period of time - because the time we have left before the earth's climate reaches a tipping point is very, very short.

One thing I've run across recently is that we may need to position the problem using different terms. "Climate change" is a neutral phrase. Some people argue that we need to use words like "Climate crisis" to generate a sense of urgency. People, in general, do not seem to think this is at all a crisis. I see today, too, that the British Parliament has now officially declared the climate crisis a "climate emergency."



   You can kiss the climate goodby. It is already far too late. Arousing people to take conservation seriously involves the usual misrepresentations and hullabaloo.  Fomenting a crisis atmosphere may not help much. Asking individuals to sacrifice when the goverment spends half of our (huge!) tax revenues on making war may be missing the point. The point may be for each of us individually to make our peace.

   I already lament the incipient loss of all beaches and reefs, but we won't save them. We'll have to wait until new ones form. We have a new black sand beach on the big island which just formed last year, during the fissure 8 eruption. I haven't been there yet but I hear the sand is still a bit coarse and sharp. Also no shade, and black sand will burn your feet in the sun, and your dog won't walk on it.

  Last I heard - I hardly pay attention - the government was still saying global warming was a hoax perpetrated by the chinese to deter western production and help them compete.

   Building wind machines and wholesale solar power plants to feed a swollen appetite for power may be counter-productive. The "government officials" ostensibly "solving the problem" may be creating more problems. I remember when nuclear energy was touted as "clean power."  A plutonium reactor has a lifespan, in practice, of maybe 35 years, and will be giving off lethal radiation for the next 10,000 years. By the same token the oil we burn in a day took over 10,000 years to form. And hydroelectric dams silt up and become useless (and ruin the river) after fifty years or so. 

   When I was a kid we built hotrods and worshipped speed and power. By the time my children were young, speed and power meant the latest computer. For gaming, of course. Still, a positive trend, it seemed to me.


terry

   

   

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 5:19 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
Andromeda:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
It’s perfectly fine not wanting to engage intellectually, but why do all of you need to tell me that here in this thread? Practically all other threads are not about wordly matters. Is it so provokative that I want to discuss worldly matters in one thread?


Perhaps we care deeply that you practice--and practice well!--and so we are trying to give you gentle nudges to do that rather than spending your time giving your conceptual mind a workout. Just a thought. emoticon

perhaps this is gently patronizing...

I can see where linda might be having a bit of trouble separating the tone-setting and authoritative expressions of chris and andromeda from their ordinary participation as fellow contributors. Personally I relish ambiguity, and love you guys.

t

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 5:26 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
Chris Marti:
Seriously guys, this is a thread about ideas such as cooperating globally to divert the energy production from oil to solar cells. If that worries you all so much, maybe you need to investigate your own reactive patterns. Just sayin’.

Folks typically come to the DhO to talk about meditation practice. It's not surprising that every topic turns to practice matters, even the ones that aren't meant to be focused on practice. Like Andromeda, I suggest you might want to review and participate in a similar conversation over on AwakeNetwork, which has become more squarely focused on climate issues, not practice issues.

Anyone evaluated consumption patterns (carbon footprint etc) of contemplatives ?

   I reduced my footprint consciously and drastically at my cabin  in ocean view (2 story but only 12' square, plus a balcony/lanai). I haul water from the public tap, and conserve every gallon, even using the grey water for flushing. I conserve every gigabyte on line. I generate my own electricity and watch every watt. I burn propane and watch every gallon, and every gallon of gas. I use solar light almost exclusively. A deliberate reaction to babylon. It simply makes me feel better. I always hated waste. (And carol is seriously frugal; besides, she can wade in a drop of dew.)

   For what it is worth. 

t

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 5:40 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
Andromeda:
Osho had 94 Rolls Royces. emoticon

   I lived not far from rajneesh's commune while it was active. It gave all of us communists a bad name, and we despised them. The man was not a contmplative, he was a drug addict. They kept him doped up on valium, and ma anand sheela ran the place by her own dim lights.

   Early on the people of oregon were very accepting of the saffron-robed workers who had jobs in the community. When they started stopping people on the public highway, carrying submachine guns, and turning them around, people started to take notice. When they got into politics, going so far as to attempt to poison potential voters with clinical laboratory stock cultures of pathogenic organisms, they were arrested and shut down.

   All those rolls royces in the desert were absurd and pathetic. Rajneesh was once a respected academic who gave talks illuminating various scriptures, many of which were quite good. He was run out of india when his followers wearing the holy robes of the sannyasin would assault, rape, eat meat, drink intoxicants, and rut in the street. This was ok in america until the voting incident. Many of his folowers were professionals, including doctors and lawyers. Many contributed large sums, thus the cars.

   A low water mark for american spiritual communes. The saffron robe became the mark of a libertine.

terry

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 5:49 PM as a reply to John Not2.
John Not2:
In U.S. parents are required to send their kids to schools to be subjected to science brain-wash, parents could home-school kids but the kids still must take and pass the brain-washing exams (they would need to study and memorize brain-washing materials in order to pass exams), that's law. 

by "a lot", approximately what percentage of the populations in this country that don't believe in science do you suggest? 

and it matters, it matters "a lot" emoticon
aloha john,

   My son once attended a school in oregon where the school board agreed with certain parents to provide all students equal time for creationism. Whenever darwinism came up, it had to be explained that there were folks who saw it otherwise.

   The constitution is only protective if you are inclined to litigate, I discovered. Science is better than nonsense. At least the scientists are more or less consistent and sincere, and not overtly nuts.

terry

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 6:01 PM as a reply to John Not2.
John Not2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
John Not2:
I am so sorry for causing you to perceive that I was mocking your language, that absolutely was not my intent.  My native tongue is not English and I don't know if "a lot" means, in a ballpark, 10%, 30%, 50%, or otherwise, was just wanted to understand that better. 

My own perception is that less than 10% of U.S. populations don't believe in science.  I don't really think people in DHO are so immature as to wanting mocking other people's language, especially for those whose native language is not English to mocking other people's English.

Again, I sincerely apologize for causing your displeasure by my poor English language skill.  



I’m sorry for the misinterpretation, John. In another thread I would probably have asked instead of assuming.

I don’t know enough about the US to make a qualified guess. Do you have reasons to believe that people who do not believe in science are more mature than those who do? I believe it’s more complicated than that. Science has its limitations but also its advantages.

I didn’t think so either, but I honestly don’t know what to believe anymore. If that was the intention of the contributors, to have me see for myself just how impossible the scenario would be (although I explicitly wrote that it was fiction), then mission accomplished.
Since the topic was about human maturity, it is my belief that science is a very limited and immature belief system (a religion, just like most other religions), therefore, if the majority of our human population are still brain-washed to believe this very limited belief system, then we humans are very immature, but, humans are in the evolution progress of both growing up and waking up.  Science, unfortunately, is an obstacle to our waking up, it has been, however, very helpful for our growing up process.

   I would draw a distinction, brother, between "science" and "scientism." Between "scientistic" and "scientific." Science, like technology, has an objective existence. One "does" science. I have tested many thousands of samples of "body fluids" (a phrase which refers to a number of disgusting substances), and belief did not enter into it. We can prove our results are accurate, within specified limits. You don't see planes falling out of the sky, or people getting incompatable blood products; science works. We depend on it all the time.

   "Scientism," on the other hand, perpetuates the subject object view of the world that nondualists know is false. The scientistic think only what may be "proven" "objectively" is really real. This is very naive, and most scientists realize it. You are right in observing that the scientistic world view is the lowest common denominator of common sense in the west. 

   One may practice science and still be a nondualist. One may respect science regardless of the opinions of a particular scientist. Or because of them.


terry

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 6:09 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
Andromeda:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Maybe I would notice that people appreciate my presence if they did not assume that I want to throw away human rights, comment on my language, point out to me in so many ways that I’m new and that my question is naive/stupid/dangerous, pathologize my behavior and insist on derailing my thread over and over again instead of just ignoring it. If that’s how you show people that they are welcome here, we seem to have a cultural barrier. Also, in most forums moderators do not moderate threads in which they are actively engaged. Are awakened people so free from bias that you don’t need such precautions? That assumption would be kind of ironic, given the topic, wouldn’t it?

EDIT: Well, at least there was no intentional mocking of language. Good to know. Appologies for the misunderstanding, John!

Linda, you're obviously very angry--it comes through loud and clear in your last few comments--and you seem to be misinterpreting a number of people's good intentions including my own. I'm happy to talk about this further, but not until you've cooled off and I have more time.

   Frustration is one thing, anger another. You don't think of yourself as provocative, obviously. 

   Confucius said, "When the superior man sees someone doing good, he imitates it. When he sees someone doing bad, he examines his inner self."

t

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 6:11 PM as a reply to John Not2.
John Not2:
It is said that Buddha had waking up 2500 years ago, we humans today, 2500 years later, are we more awake now than humans in Buddhas time? I am not convinced that we are, this could be an interesting study project for scientifically minded intellects.

Developmentally, no doubt, we humans have grown up a lot in 2500 years time.

Ken Wilber wrote his Integral Theory book in 1973, today if you ask a person randomly if he had heard of Ken Wilber, 99% of Americans (even among the most educated ones) would likely to answer NO, at least that has been my experience.  Waking up is a VERY slow process for us humans, an unawakened person is not a truly matured human being.  Will humans ever wake up? I doubt that too.

among those who have heard of ken wilber, perhaps many don't find his philosophy especially useful...

t

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 6:12 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
I’m just trying to make conversation with those who are interested in the topic, if there are such people, and if they dare showing it. Also, I’m vain enough to care about not being mistaken for a potential terrorist or something. I never claimed to be one of those mature human beings. They are fictional, after all. Thus, when people feel the need to point out my lack of experience and so on, that does hurt. Maybe all of you are above that and have forgotten how that feels, I don’t know, but it’s actually not very nice.

I’m not angry. I’m sad.

I sympathize...

t

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 6:16 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Yes. Why? Do we believe in people capable of maturity now?

I do.

The buddha was mature, in this sense.

t

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 6:25 PM as a reply to Nick O.
Nick O:
It's hard to fathom the inertia behind the forces driving the world into the future. For me, it has been helpful to explore what interconnectedness really means. As in "I am one with all the horror and all the tragedy and all injustice and all the love and all the miracles". The world's greed is my greed. The world's hate is my hate. The world's joy is my joy. The world's love is my love. Our own personal shit is the world's macro-shit. Working from that view, you don't feel powerless because the change you make in yourself is reflected in the world. Lately, I've noticed that when I get wrapped up thinking or discussing politics, I suffer a great deal as do those around me with whom I have disagreements - even if I know we all have the best intentions for the most helpful outcome (this thread for example). If I throw the politics aside and just practice Right View (suffering and no suffering) with Right Sati, cultivating joy and cultivating compassion, the world becomes brighter, lighter and richer. I can adequately love and support the people around me. In this way I feel I am really making a difference in the world that transcends political ideals or philosophy. In the information age we get so caught up in what's happening around the world we forget that real change starts in our own minds and the community around us.

..Or maybe I'm just spiritually bypassing ;)

   Right on, bra.

   I quit reading the newspaper and watching tv news - even topical comedy, which I used to enjoy - since shortly before the last american presidential election, between hitler and the devil. I used to vote but since democracy is so obviously non-existent  in the usa I gave it up. Why encourage them, eh?

   All we can do is stay high and speak the truth. Since those endeavors are quite satisfactory, indeed great fun, there is no problem.

   "Life's a beach, and then you dive," as we say in hawaii.

(still smiling)
terry

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 6:34 PM as a reply to Andromeda.
Andromeda:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Thankyou for acknowledging that communications went awry. It’s okey. I’m sorry that I snapped. I needed to protect my boundaries, and neither you nor Chris seemed to get that I needed that. I know that both of you meant well but this was not helpful. You were unintentionally forcing (I can’t find a better word for it right now, so the nuance sounds stronger than I intend) your insights on me before I was ready for it. I will probably make similar mistakes along the road, and I can only hope that I’ll be able to listen when people tell me that it’s not helpful.

Feedback on my practice log is highly appreciated, and feedback on posts where I ask for advice. This wasn’t that kind of post, and I made that as clear as I could. This was one of those political threads for people who do want to take part in such discussions. Both you and Chris had made it very clear that you did not want to take part in such discussions. I respect your wish to not engage in them, and I thought you would respect my wish to engage in them, even if you think it’s unwise and even if my posts are utterly naive. It’s not your call to make.


Thank you for acknowledging that you "snapped."

But if someone posts something that appears unwise and naive, why should this not be pointed out on a forum dedicated to awakening? Because your post wasn't JUST political, but started off with a premise that was spiritual. 
dear a,

   To the really enlightened (and perhaps also those who think they are), everyone's posts seem unwise and naive. Rumi talks about the teacher who is teaching a child her letters, and when the child produces a shaky "alif" the teacher says, oh yes, that is very good, just maybe correct it a bit here and there and it will be even better.

   Whatever linda may have said that was unwise or naive certainly got past me without me noticing.

   But I am not an appointed judge, one who as the prophet has said has been "killed without a knife."

terry

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 6:38 PM as a reply to terry.
Thankyou! <3 _/\_

Lots of really interesting input here. I will respond properly when I have time to find the right words.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 6:42 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
I don’t know what you mean when you say ”work under”. For the sake of discussion, then yes, for those who are willing. In our practice? No. We can’t base our practice on fictional premises. In politics? If people vote for a solution democratically and voluntarily, such as cooperating to install solar panels in the Sahara desert, then sure. Otherwise, of course not.

Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but in Sweden it is in most contexts considered very disrespectful to invest one’s energy in telling people over and over again that the entire discussion is pointless. It makes other people wary of entering the discussion, especially when the persons who do it are authorities. As moderators, you are authorities, and the two of you combined were quite persistent in tearing down the plausibility of a totally fictional premise and make the case that the topic therefore was pointless. And dangerous, for that matter. As for the latter, I have heard both Shinzen Young and Culadasa talk about the same premise in their dharma talks. I don’t know if they have changed their mind since then, but as far as I know, these talks are still available on youtube. I don’t know which talks, because I wasn’t aware that I would need the reference. I’m not blaming them for my thoughts, but I do think it’s unfair to hold me to standards that not even they live up to.

Thankyou for making explicit that you do not consider me authoritarian or dangerous and so on. You did not reply when I explained what you seemed to have mistaken for a possible violation of human rights and... I don’t know what you thought - a coup? - so I didn’t know.

Sure, we can move on, but I’m not sure what it is in this that you want to discuss. Also, I don’t want to press you to talk about politics if you are not comfortable with that, and the politics - as in specific issues, not governmental forms - are what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

In keeping these overactive authorities honest I think you are doing them a real service.

It is not you who are unwise and naive, I think.

These people are far more about power and control than they imagine.

We should stick together. It will make it harder to bounce us.

(winks all around)

t

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 8:48 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Yes, that too. And discussions about that are at least in Sweden often extremely infected (is that a correct wording in English?). People would need to mature significantly in one way or another in order to deal with this issue. Taking things less personally might help with that, and that’s something that I think is very difficult for most people.



What Daniel wrote in that thread about sectarianism in the dharma illustrates how difficult this challenge is to overcome. I appreciated that he talked about it so honestly and acknowledged his own limitations in the department of getting over oneself, but it also saddened me. And gave me a sense of relief at the same time. For me it is very important to make a world where people are allowed to have both flaws and other forms of diversity. Everything else would be ableistic and possibly contain basically every similar -ism, depending on what people deem as less preferred. I wouldn’t want a world where people were not allowed to make mistakes either.

Basically, I think trust may be the key component in the kind of maturity I’m imagining. That’s not really a character trait, but more a way of living and approaching the world. As I said above, it entails a social conditioning that is hard to achieve if it’s not already in place. I tend to conflate trust with awakening because my journey so far has been so much about trust. Not being trusted is also what saddens me most.

trust and loyalty... nietzsche said that man is the animal who can make and keep promises...

t


I've seen this band play; they were wonderful and all of their recorded music is great. This song always makes me cry.


Love and Honesty
(Hawaiian Style Band)

Brown skin, light brown eyes,
Golden hair from sunny skies, a haunting smile, a fresh pikake lei.
Soft touch, a warm embrace, tears of joy they run down my face.
I think of you every single day.
There's more to life than getting by, there's times in life to really try my love for you really made me see.
I won't give up, won't lose my dreams, your being there is everything and I promise you love and honesty.
Sunset, full moon rise, calmy seas and balmy skies.
I'll walk with you beneath the whispering trees.
We laughed so much our throats were dry.
Shared our hearts teary-eyed and let this night remind us there's a way.
There's more to life than getting by, there's times in life to really try.
My love for you really made me see.
I won't give up, won't lose my dreams.
You being there is everything and I promise you, love and honesty.
He makana no na mamo.
Na mo'olelo o na pua o ni'ini'i.
E pili mau i na kupuna o lei a'ala.
I ohu mau i ku'u lei i kealoha pili mau.
There's more to life then getting by, there's times in life to really try.
My love for you really made me see.
I won't give up, I won't lose my dreams you being there is everything and I promise you love and honesty.
I promise you love and honesty.
I promise you love and honesty.

Songwriters: Wade Cambern

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 7:08 PM as a reply to Raving Rhubarb.
Raving Rhubarb:
I see no reason why much should change. Capitalism would take care of it. 95% of the things we have in shops now would disappear within weeks. Problem solved.

then 95% of the shops would disappear... then 95% of the paychecks...eventually you have people eating each other raw...

anything other than slow change is going to be very traumatic...we'll have to ease into it...

perhaps if we started eating fewer animals and having fewer babies...

peace, love and conservation...

if only voluntary poverty would catch on...perhaps mendicant orders...

t

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 8:02 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Anna L:
Linda, you’re welcome! I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to engage much in this post as I’ve had a busy weekend and limited screen time. However I understand where you are coming from and I understand your need to process these issues as I’ve been through similar stages myself. I think it’s only natural that studying and practicing the dharma can lead to us wanting to better understand how we are all interconnected and how we may contribute to one another’s suffering. For me, animal rights has been a big issue since getting into meditation. In fact, for a time, the idea of animal cruelty was actually causing me quite a bit of distress (and outrage) and I was struggling to understand what to do about it. It took a while for this intense immediate reaction to settle down into something more manageable. It’s funny how these things can arise and provoke such strong reactions in us. We all have to find our own way to come to terms with the suffering we cause just by being human. 

I’m happy you’re processing this stuff and as time allows I’m always happy to add in my 2 cents 


Yes, it’s not like I can skip parts of the process just because others find it meaningless and as causing unnecessary suffering. I am in the beginning of the process and need to walk the road myself.

It’s comforting to know that there are experienced practitioners that have found a balance that seems to be more in line with what I believe is possible for me.

As for animal rights, I have decided to keep making new attemps at extending my very narrow diet with foods that are better ethical choices so as to be able to exclude more foods that are poor ethical choices. So far it hasn’t gone well, but I need to know that I did what I could in order to be at peace. There was a time (a period of 13 years) when I was convinced that I would rather die than eat meat again, but when push came to shove, it turned out that I chose to survive and to avoid degrees of suffering that made me not want to survive. Maybe I can deal with my health issues better now, maybe not.

According to western standards, my economic situation is very uncertain and something of a struggle, but compared to the homeless people on the streets and on a global scale, I am privileged in a way that is not fair. I need to find ways to contribute to make it right, and I need to find a balance so that I can manage it without neglecting other duties or my practice. That’s just how it is.

aloha linda,

   You are contributing to make it right, this thread is proof. And you are maintaining a balance. You are what you want to be.

   Trust yourself. Trust in mind. Trust and mind are not two, as the hsinhsinming says.

   Don't let people whose authority has gone to their heads convince you are what you are not. Doubt is corrosive. No way you should have to cry over this. Don't be sad.

   Acceptance is overrated. Being trusted by authorities means you have learned to smile as you kill.


terry



Working Class Hero
(John Lennon, Plastic Ono Band)

As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be
They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool
Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be
When they've tortured and scared you for twenty-odd years
Then they expect you to pick a career
When you can't really function you're so full of fear
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be
There's room at the top they're telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be
If you want to be a hero well just follow me
If you want to be a hero well just follow me

Songwriters: John Winston Lennon

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 7:30 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Thanks for your input, Nick! Yeah, I do believe it’s a dead end to label things as good or bad and turn that into dogma or into some kind of positioning contest or anything like that. Also, I think actions are much more complicated than that. Every action has more than one consequence, and no action is in itself the sole cause of anything. This makes it very difficult, probably impossible, to ”be a good person”. It’s not even possible to do one action that is inherently good, as far as I understand. I still think it matters to try not to cause unnecessary suffering. It probably is not a good idea to be attached to a specific outcome, though, and I can definitely see the fetters in identifying with certain goals. But I still believe that trying not to cause unnecessary suffering as a process can be helpful. Does that make any sense?* Curious/Malcolm said it so well in another thread. It was something like giving up the goal but not the actions.

*) If it does make sense, it is probably a ”duh” thing. Sorry about that. My frame of reference for this comes much more from sci-fi than from Buddhist texts. I only substituted daily meditation for netflix bingewatching for less than eight months ago, and I started with 20 minutes per day according to some rather cocky youtuber’s instructions. I haven’t read a fraction of a fraction of what would have been wise to read.


"beginner's mind is the way"...

it can be hard for the experienced practicioner to maintain the sort of humility that enables spirituality to flower and fruit...

perhaps that is why beginners make the most spectacular progress,

and are lessons to us all...

t


from the gospel of thomas:

"Merchants and tradesmen shall not enter the places of my father."

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/15/19 8:04 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Nick O:
Just be sure you are good to yourself. If dwelling on the suffering of others is detrimental to your own well being, that is not the path. Right View would be to cultivate joy and compassion in yourself to share with others. 


I appreciate your concern, and I’m sure you share that concern with others who have commented in this thread. I’m grateful for the support from all of you, despite my earlier grumpiness. I acknowledge that this is sometimes (often) a tricky balance, but it is the kind of balance that I need to find for myself in spite of the challenges that it might entail. Over the years I have become rather good at taking care of myself and my boundaries, so I believe I’ll manage relatively well.

It is hard sometimes, though. For instance, a friend’s situation is alarming. This friend has multiple disabilities and illnesses and might not survive because of maltreatment and lack of support. He is being discriminated against on various grounds, I would say, but the authorities do not seem to care about the law nowadays. Nor do they seem to care about human rights or fundamental human needs. I could go on and on about this, but I will spare you the horrifying details. Anyway, this affects my balance from time to time, as I’m trying to help him (together with other friends and his family) but nothing seems to make any change. When the goal is the survival of a friend, it is hard not to get attached to it. That is just one example of what I have around me, even if I were to keep my distance to the more global problems. I’m sure I’m not the only meditator who has to face the suffering of others; my situation is hardly unique. All of you have probably had your fair share of it and needed to find ways to deal with it. I know that making other people’s suffering my own personal suffering doesn’t help anyone. I am working at it.

I do cultivate both joy and compassion in myself and share that with others, to the best of my ability. I also cultivate compassion towards myself and encourage others to do the same. There are people who find me very inspiring in that department. Because of my own disabilities and health issues, I have learned over time to find a balance there. Those who know me personally and from other social media can testify to that. I just haven’t shared that on this forum.
from the tao te ching, trans feng:



five

Heaven and Earth are impartial; 
They see the ten thousand things as straw dogs. 
The wise are impartial; 
They see the people as straw dogs.

The space between heaven and Earth is like a bellows. 
The shape changes but not the form; 
The more it moves, the more it yields. 
More words count less. 
Hold fast to the center.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/17/19 6:25 AM as a reply to terry.
terry:

In keeping these overactive authorities honest I think you are doing them a real service.

It is not you who are unwise and naive, I think.

These people are far more about power and control than they imagine.

We should stick together. It will make it harder to bounce us.

(winks all around)

t


I appreciate the validation but I won’t comment on this at a level that is aiming at any person. I really have no interest in that and hold no grudges. (Should anybody be bounced, in any situation, I really hope that I would somehow show my support.)

At a more general level, this is relevant to a discussion we just had at this workshop I’m on right now together with other autistic people. I will comment on this as a general issue that takes place in human interaction. I’m not talking about this thread. Just think this aspect is of relevance to the topic of maturity.

I think it is very common for most of us human beings to deny when we act from a position of power, and what our actions do. Impact and intent are different things. I think it’s important to be able to separate those from each other. Sometimes the communication becomes very infected because talking about impact is taken as aggressiveness towards a person, and so power dynamics go uninvestigated in a way that doesn’t help anyone. Many different kinds of power can be at play at the same time, so this can occur on different levels and in different directions at the same time. For some reason, power is often seen as something ugly. That normative view doesn’t really help, because it creates resistance to seeing what is.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/17/19 6:34 AM as a reply to terry.
terry:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Yes. Why? Do we believe in people capable of maturity now?

I do.

The buddha was mature, in this sense.

t


I do too. Not in the sense of somebody being super mature all the time and in all respects, but in the divine glimpses that can make real change.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/17/19 6:40 AM as a reply to terry.
terry:
Raving Rhubarb:
I see no reason why much should change. Capitalism would take care of it. 95% of the things we have in shops now would disappear within weeks. Problem solved.

then 95% of the shops would disappear... then 95% of the paychecks...eventually you have people eating each other raw...

anything other than slow change is going to be very traumatic...we'll have to ease into it...

perhaps if we started eating fewer animals and having fewer babies...

peace, love and conservation...

if only voluntary poverty would catch on...perhaps mendicant orders...

t


I think this a very important point. Rapid changes can be ruthless, especially to those that do not have the means to ptotect themselves when others do. Not being able to protect oneself would not be a problem if protection wasn’t needed, and unfortunately the idea of a need for protection often creates the conditions that makes protection needed.

Voluntary poverty catching on could make a difference, I think.

RE: Sustainable priorities for humanity 2.0
Answer
5/17/19 4:29 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
terry:

In keeping these overactive authorities honest I think you are doing them a real service.

It is not you who are unwise and naive, I think.

These people are far more about power and control than they imagine.

We should stick together. It will make it harder to bounce us.

(winks all around)

t


I appreciate the validation but I won’t comment on this at a level that is aiming at any person. I really have no interest in that and hold no grudges. (Should anybody be bounced, in any situation, I really hope that I would somehow show my support.)

At a more general level, this is relevant to a discussion we just had at this workshop I’m on right now together with other autistic people. I will comment on this as a general issue that takes place in human interaction. I’m not talking about this thread. Just think this aspect is of relevance to the topic of maturity.

I think it is very common for most of us human beings to deny when we act from a position of power, and what our actions do. Impact and intent are different things. I think it’s important to be able to separate those from each other. Sometimes the communication becomes very infected because talking about impact is taken as aggressiveness towards a person, and so power dynamics go uninvestigated in a way that doesn’t help anyone. Many different kinds of power can be at play at the same time, so this can occur on different levels and in different directions at the same time. For some reason, power is often seen as something ugly. That normative view doesn’t really help, because it creates resistance to seeing what is.

yes

power is one thing, domination and control another...true power is never used...

t