DQ: The driving force behind every war and act of violence is love.
IB: WOW!! Let's just start with this statement. So let's say two tribes live on the opposite side of a river, and both tribes need it's water to survive, but there is not enough water for both to survive. Result: WAR.
Now replace water with oil and I think you have the reason for the war in Iraq. How does love play into this?
Love of consumerism, wealth, the comfortable lifestyle, successful marriages, social status, American dominance, the herd, ignorance, submissiveness, mindlessness, etc, have all contributed to the war on Iraq. As has love of Allah, the Koran, Muslim culture, the herd, hating the West, mindlessness, submissiveness, gullibility, etc, within the Iraqi population.
S: If you define ‘respect’ as ‘recognizing’ the 'worth', then there would be nothing at all that I could not respect, including the ‘recognizing’ part.
I-Beam: I think you hit the nail on the head...I'm not going to belittle you and tell you that must be a new epiphany for you, but don't you have respect for everything initially? I do. It dictates that I think about my actions all the time and take responsibility for them. I think as we become familiar with things we give them different levels of respect.
I can relate to what you are saying, but what I have said is a result of a meticulous logical exercise after actually disrespecting the initial apparent “respectâ€. Taking responsibility for your actions is a reasonable thing to do, but ultimately there is nothing “responsible†as such, and knowing this, actually makes me Know rather than simply understand what you are saying. If you could look at it from the perspective that I am looking at it, then you wouldn’t have questions such as… Does God need to be all-powerful? Is complete power complete enlightenment?
In my opinion, give it time, absorb, and think for yourself.
I have my own observations of what god is Sapius, I'm asking David and you others on the board about what you think. So in this case, yeah I think I have to ask what your oppinion is, because I am not very good at guessing.
"meticulous logical exercise" Hey this is exactly the same method I used, but I think we arrived at different conclusions.
but ultimately there is nothing “responsible†as such, and knowing this, actually makes me know rather than simply understand what you are saying.
I disagree with you on the "nothing 'responsible' as such"
This to me seems like a very esoteric way of not excepting responsibility. Yet maybe you need to explain this further...
absorb, and think for yourself.
Doing it every minute of everyday.
Last edited by I-Beam on Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
DQ: The driving force behind every war and act of violence is love.
IB: WOW!! Let's just start with this statement. So let's say two tribes live on the opposite side of a river, and both tribes need it's water to survive, but there is not enough water for both to survive. Result: WAR.
Now replace water with oil and I think you have the reason for the war in Iraq. How does love play into this?
Love of consumerism, wealth, the comfortable lifestyle, successful marriages, social status, American dominance, the herd, ignorance, submissiveness, mindlessness, etc, have all contributed to the war on Iraq. As has love of Allah, the Koran, Muslim culture, the herd, hating the West, mindlessness, submissiveness, gullibility, etc, within the Iraqi population.-
Those to me are all secondary causes. But to simplify matters let's just talk about the ancient tribes on either side of the river. Sure you could say all those same things about them. Love of their culture, their people, their children....etc. At it's root you still have simple survival, and I think everyone wants to survive, and have their ideas survive. On your personal website in your Biography section you state that "My aim in life is to awaken as many people as possible to this marvellous reality, which I sometimes call God or Tao." Why is this important to you? Is it your love and passion for the ideas, or your love and passion and belief that some people might actually understand this teaching and pass it on to future generations? Would you be willing to die for these beliefs, be it in peaceful protest or violent opposition?
Why is it that people like to pull primitive peoples out of their hats to prove a point. Do you know much about them. Have you read much of them?
I doubt that any of them would invite a war like we are fighting today, of choice, open ended, and without imaginable end. They might have had problems respecting their neighbors as anything but dangerous beasts. They might look for reasons to respect those near by.
Primitive peoples are very much like us, and very different in their value systems. I cannot imagine the primitive peoples who would choose to engage in war over such slight differences as we have with the Muslims, or who would pay so much in blood and treasure for a product we only recently had for a fair price in paper money.
propellerbeanie wrote:Why is it that people like to pull primitive peoples out of their hats to prove a point. Do you know much about them. Have you read much of them?
For the same reason people like Western movies. In the western there is a good guy and a bad guy, and their motives are pretty black and white. In our modern society we have come a bit complex, even in our reasons for war. Compare World War II to the War in Iraq. While both may be complex, I think the direct attack on Pearl Harbor is alot easier to grasp than the United States apparent reasons for war in Iraq.
I doubt that any of them would invite a war like we are fighting today, of choice, open ended, and without imaginable end. They might have had problems respecting their neighbors as anything but dangerous beasts. They might look for reasons to respect those near by.
Oh I agree completely. There was not such a thing as a "superpower" back then either. I think that concept didn't really arise until the end of European colonialism. You had the idea of Empire...every European country seemed to want one. But until the latter half of the eighteenth century I don't think any of them really moved toward an attempt to become a superpower. In order for that to happen you had to have a modern industrial society capable of complete domination of it's foes through technology and shear military might.
As far as being familiar with primitive cultures, my minor was in ancient history. I really enjoyed Plutarch, Fritz M. Hichleheimm and others, and continued reading them after college. I took two years of anthropology and loved it. Considered having a double minor. But the second I stepped into those junior level classes where they started talking about bone structure, alleles and the like, I realized I was way out of my league. I didn't have the background for it. I had only taken one biology class beyond eigth grade...you were required have four credits of Biology in my high school, and I wound up taking this my Senior year with a bunch of rowdy freshman. In college I was able to avoid it all together.
Primitive peoples are very much like us, and very different in their value systems. I cannot imagine the primitive peoples who would choose to engage in war over such slight differences as we have with the Muslims, or who would pay so much in blood and treasure for a product we only recently had for a fair price in paper money.
Once again I would agree completely. But the war in Iraq is over oil, not the differences Christians have with Muslims. I might write another thread or something about this. With the expansion of the Chinese economy; however, we would have eventually seen oil prices start to rise. The United States has not been as proactive in its search for alternative energy resources as other countries have. Remember Bush did not even sign the Kyoto accord. But I am going to save the rest of this argument for the other topic.
As far as anthropology I think alot of you missogynists would find the "Machivellian Intelligence" theory in anthropology very interesting.
In our modern society we have come a bit complex, even in our reasons for war. Compare World War II to the War in Iraq. While both may be complex, I think the direct attack on Pearl Harbor is alot easier to grasp than the United States apparent reasons for war in Iraq.
Non sense. The technology has become more complex, and people always have been. As the Iroquois said: Never leave home without a plan. I have worked with these people and have found them like others to be highly intelligent and fully human.
I doubt that any of them would invite a war like we are fighting today,
Oh I agree completely. There was not such a thing as a "superpower" back then either. I think that concept didn't really arise until the end of European colonialism. You had the idea of Empire...every European country seemed to want one.
Non sense again. The Iroquois confederacy, The Romans, The Germans, The Arabs, the Othman Turks; all in their day were superpowers, and if our sphere is the sphere, their skill was no less than ours, there justice no more or not less just than ours. The difference is slight. We lose power when we lose friends, and we lose power when we use power, and in our time, and I guess not long we will be toppled from our thrones, so anarchy may more justly reign.
But the second I stepped into those junior level classes where they started talking about bone structure, alleles and the like, I realized I was way out of my league. I didn't have the background for it.
Sounds like physical anthropology. You can do all kinds of anthropology every day, and all the time. Bank on this: people are people, and in the last three thousand years, and for some a longer period yet, they have not changed much.
Primitive peoples are very much like us, and very different in their value systems. I cannot imagine the primitive peoples who would choose to engage in war over such slight differences as we have with the Muslims, or who would pay so much in blood and treasure for a product we only recently had for a fair price in paper money.
Once again I would agree completely. But the war in Iraq is over oil, not the differences Christians have with Muslims.
I am afraid you are wrong. For those leading the war the purpose is only control and profit from oil. The difference which make the prosecution of this war possible is our differences of religion, for if our religions were the same what we do would quickly appear to be murder. At the wall of religion is where morality ends. It is not wrong for a jew to kill a muslim, or for a Muslim to kill a Jew, and it has never been wrong for a Christian to kill a Muslim. It has always been wrong for a Muslim to kill a Jew or a Christians, except under certain ceircumstances.
As far as anthropology I think alot of you missogynists would find the "Machivellian Intelligence" theory in anthropology very interesting.[/
quote]
what is it. I think Natives could all manage Machivelian.
Non sense. The technology has become more complex, and people always have been. As the Iroquois said: Never leave home without a plan. I have worked with these people and have found them like others to be highly intelligent and fully human.
No it's not "Non sense" at all. What you have written doesn't even address, what I said in that statement. Fully human? That sounds like a racist comment. Studying anthropology for two years in college I can tell you quite possitively that human haven't really evolved physically at all since about 30,000 B.C. Not really sure what you mean by fully human. Though you may have been trying to make some positive reference about Native Americans this sounds very demeaning. Also, when you talk about the people you deal with, those are people living today, not 12,000 years ago. We certainly have evolved socially in the last 12,000 years.
It is not wrong for a jew to kill a muslim, or for a Muslim to kill a Jew, and it has never been wrong for a Christian to kill a Muslim. It has always been wrong for a Muslim to kill a Jew or a Christians, except under certain ceircumstances
What you are showing me here is that you have studied very little about the actual religions, versus the fundalmentalist movement which began in America in the 1920's, in Iran with the Ayatollah Khomeni, and Isreal in the 1940's. A good book to read on the subject is actually former President Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Values. Now I don't really share alot of his values...but what I really learned alot about that I did not know is how the fundamentalist Christian movement has taken over alot of the mainstream Protestant churches starting in the 1980's and there subsequent alignment with the Republican right. Very interesting stuff.
what is it. I think Natives could all manage Machivelian.
What it is, is a theory about the observed behavior among Bonobo's and how they apparently go about establishing social structure. It has nothing to do with political philosophy. I suppose a search on the web could point you to some books on the subject.
Non sense again. The Iroquois confederacy, The Romans, The Germans, The Arabs, the Othman Turks; all in their day were superpowers, and if our sphere is the sphere, their skill was no less than ours, there justice no more or not less just than ours. The difference is slight. We lose power when we lose friends, and we lose power when we use power, and in our time, and I guess not long we will be toppled from our thrones, so anarchy may more justly reign.
Are you sure?
A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and has the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale. It was a term applied to the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. Any retrospective application of the term to an earlier great power or global empire is anachronistic.
Origins
The term "superpower" was first used in this context in 1930, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, but did not become a primarily descriptive term for the USA and USSR until the immediate post-war years (in the 1920s the term was used to describe electrification).
The term in its current political meaning is relatively new and was coined in the book The Superpowers, written by W. T. R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor at the Columbia University in 1943. Fox used this word to identify a new category of power able to occupy the highest status in a world in which, as the war then raging demonstrated, states could challenge and fight each other on a global scale. According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain with its empire.
The Suez Crisis made it clear however that the British Empire, ravaged by the destruction of two world wars, could not compete on an equal political, military or economic footing with the Soviet Union and the United States without sacrificing its reconstruction efforts, even acting in concert with France and Israel.
As the majority of the war was fought far from its national boundaries, the United States did not suffer the industrial destruction or massive civilian casualties that marked the wartime situation of the countries in Europe or Asia. During the war, the USA had built up a strong industrial and technological infrastructure that had greatly advanced its military strength into a primary position on the global stage.
Following the war, nearly all of Europe had aligned either with the USA or the Soviet Union. Despite attempts to create multinational coalitions or legislative bodies (such as the United Nations), increasingly it became clear that the USA and the USSR were the dominant political and economic powers of the newly emerging Cold War, and had very different visions about what the post-war world ought to look like. This was reflected in the NATO and Warsaw Pact military alliances. This implied that these two nations were part of an emerging bipolar world, in contrast with a previous multipolar world. Whether a true reflection or not, a number of nations undertook various programs to guarantee their own independent "superpower" status, such as the development of nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom, France, and China, as a rite of passage for being a "world player."
The idea that the Cold War period revolved around only two nations, or even only two blocs, has been seriously challenged by some scholars in the post-Cold War era, who have noted that the bipolar world only exists if one ignores all of the various movements and conflicts that occurred without influence from either of the two so-called superpowers. Additionally, much of the conflict between the superpowers was fought in "proxy wars", which more often than not involved issues far more complex than the standard Cold War oppositions.
There have been attempts to stretch the term back in time in historical context. As such some considered as superpowers the Mongol Empire, Ancient Rome and even the empire of Alexander of Macedon.
Criteria
The criteria of a superpower are not clearly defined and as a consequence they may differ between sources. The following criteria should therefore be interpreted as a non-exhaustive list of power factors that are generally associated with superpowers.
Current factors
Cultural
Strong cultural influence, having soft power. Cultural influence incorporates developed philosophic school and ideology.
Geographical
It should have a wide land or sea area under its control. Territory allows a country to mine minerals and grow food, increasing its self-sufficiency. It is an important factor in nuclear and conventional land warfare as it allows possibilities such as retreat, regrouping and reorganisation as well as placing distant radars and missile silos - even a rich country with small territory is more vulnerable in a military sense.
Economic and financial
Superior economic power is characterized by access to raw materials, volume and productivity of the domestic market, a leading position in world trade as well as global financial markets, innovation, and the ability to accumulate capital.
Demographic
A superpower should have a large and educated populace and should have highly developed infrastructure and pronounced cultural and economic ability to shape the regions around them as well as the ones under direct control.
Military
Pre-eminent military ability, characterized by relative invulnerability, ability to deter or cause great damage, and capacity to project unified military might globally.
Political or ideological
A functioning political system that is capable of mobilising resources for world political goals and immense ideological influence.
Possible factors
Fossil fuel superpowers
Fossil fuels are increasingly scarce and are expected to deplete in this century. Having access to fossil fuels is therefore becoming increasingly important. Reliance on fossil fuels could also result in a multiplication of the value of fossil fuels such as oil. Resource rich nations like Russia could very well gain from this.
Technological superpowers
It has been predicted by many members of the international community, including Dick Morris (former advisor to President Bill Clinton), that technological growth in the coming decades will result in manufacturing industry going the way of farming and losing its place in the economy. Such a situation would particularly damage the economy of emerging superpower China
Robotics, particularly from Japan and the United States will end the need for manufacturing employment. Workers in manufacturing industry would lose out to the more efficient forces of robotics.
The services and information technology sector would increase in growth as a result of the technological revolution.
These changes may result in new criteria for Superpower Status known as the ability to become a Knowledge or Scientific superpower.
Globalization indicates that most technologies will be widespread in the future through internet and other global services.
The Cold War era
Main article: Cold War
Main article: Major powers
██ Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
██ United States of America
The term 'superpower' was originally coined to describe the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America.
The Soviet Union
The Soviet Union represented the ideology of Communism and led the Warsaw Pact, known as the Eastern Bloc in the West. The Soviet Union was a political, military, and economic superpower.
The United States
The United States represented the ideology of capitalism and led NATO during the Cold War. It was militarily, politically, and economically opposed to the Soviet Union, and was a political, military, cultural, and economic superpower.
Power distribution after the Cold War
The post-Cold War world is considered a unipolar world, as the United States is the world's sole remaining superpower, with the largest economic and military capabilities.
Some analysts think the hegemonic stability theory explains the current evolution in international relations. Hegemonic states tend to overstretch their power. At the same moment new rivals will become gradually more powerful, eventually replacing or counterbalancing the weakened hegemony. This scenario could be happening at the moment, as high military spending could weaken the USA in the long term. Other - currently major - powers could possibly benefit from this decline, eventually overtaking the USA's leading position.
A possible signal that a multipolar world is emerging is the strategic partnership between the (rising) China, India and the European Union, designed to create a multipolar world, although this is gradually being supplanted by an even newer emerging partnership between the United States, Japan and India. India may be the key and balance to 21st Century power sharing and brokering systems.
The United States as the remaining superpower
Only the United States currently fulfils the six criteria of a superpower. Because the United States currently has no equals in terms of power projection and influence, it is often called a hyperpower, although this term is disputed.
Demographic power
Demographically, it has a large, slowly growing population of almost 300 million.
The infrastructure of the United States is well planned and highly developed.
It has a high literacy rate and a well-organized educational program.
Political power
Politically, it has a stable democratic system.
It is a key player in the United Nations due to its peace efforts in the past, although relations have been problematic in the recent past.
It is an influential member of the United Nations Security Council (whose headquarters are in New York) with veto power.
American opinion is supported by other nations, especially the United Kingdom and Israel. Its stance on issues like Iran is also backed by the majority of the European Union Member States, in contrast to its stance on Iraq.
Economic and financial power
Economically, the USA is the world's largest national economy. It is characterized by moderate to high economic growth.
It is headquarters for many global corporations and financial institutions.
The surge of tertiary and quaternary sectors happened in a larger scale in the US than anywhere else.
Its size, location and physical conditions allows the country to still be an agricultural and a commodity powerhouse (although it is dependent on oil), having strategic reserves of those resources.
Its technological growth and innovation is matched by none. The nation holds the leadership or important role in different knowledge fields such as new materials, electronics and telecommunications, information technology, aerospace, energy, biotechnology, bioinformatics, chemical engineering, and software, among others.
Its capital markets are the most important and developed in the world, including icons such as the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq.The market capitalization of those exchanges surpasses of any other country and the fixed income market is enormous. Also its futures and options exchanges (Chicago Board of Trade, Chicago Board Options Exchange, New York Mercantile Exchange, Chicago Mercantile Exchange) hold a central role.
It has a decisive influence on financial international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, both with their headquarters in Washington, DC.
The American dollar is the most important reserve and convertible currency in the world.
Military power
Militarily, the USA spends more on its military than the next twelve countries combined. However, due to the size of its economy, the United States actually spends a far smaller percentage of its Gross National Product on its military than many countries. The USA also has significant military allies (like NATO and ANZUS) and military bases throughout the world.
In raw numbers Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal, at approximently 7200 active weapons compared to the 5700 active weapons of the United States. However, since the fall of the Soviet Union the state of Russian nuclear forces has deteriorated considerably. The United States maintains the largest "first strike" force in the world, the arsenal of which includes intercontinental stealth bombers and ICBMs.
The United States is the only world power able to project large scale military power to any point on earth. The United States military is unchallenged as the most powerful in the world.
Cultural power
American culture is highly influential, especially throughout the English-speaking world, the rest of Europe, some countries in Asia and Latin America. According to some analysts, this indirectly enhances the power of the US. This power is often called soft power, or the ability of a state to indirectly influence the behaviour or interests of other political bodies through cultural or ideological means.
The American culture and values, although fused somewhat with British culture, influence the way that the rest of the world thinks of the West. Effectively, Modern Western Culture and American Culture are seen as synonymous.
The American way of life is a model for many intellectuals, athletes, politicians, artists, scientists and ordinary people throughout the world.
The American colleges and universities are known for their excellence, attracting international students (opinion leaders in their respective countries) and facilitating cultural exchange.
Hollywood spreads these cultural values to most of the world, excepting only those areas where its materials are excluded for political or cultural reasons.
Potential superpowers
██ China
██ European Union
██ European Union candidate countries
██ India
It is possible that sooner or later another country will attain the power that the United States currently possesses. The following nations (China and India) and one supranational entity (the European Union) are referred to in many media sources as having the potential to become a second superpower.
China
Main Article: Potential Superpowers - China
The People's Republic of China is often considered a rising superpower due to its large and stable population, its rapidly growing economy, and its rapidly growing military spending and capabilities. China possesses nuclear weapons. It has military, political and economic power.
European Union
Main Article: Potential Superpowers - European Union
The European Union contains the world powers United Kingdom, Germany, and France, along with many other countries in Europe. If considered as a full unit, the EU, along with the United States, fulfils the criteria to be a superpower. It may be argued that the European Union is too politically and culturally fragmented to be considered as a single unit.
India
Main article: Potential Superpowers - India
The Republic of India has the potential to become a superpower due to its large workforce, its rapidly growing economy, and its rapidly growing service sector and software industry. India maintains the world's third largest military and possesses nuclear weapons.
Major Powers
Main article: Major powers
██ Brazil
██ France
██ Germany
██ Japan
██ Russia
██ United Kingdom
A major power is a country that cannot be regarded as a superpower, but nevertheless plays an important role in the world. These major powers are very powerful and influential in several aspects. Some major powers are in relative decline, having once been Great Powers (France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom). Note that while China, India and the European Union are potential superpowers, they are at this moment still considered as major powers.
Brazil's large population and strategic location makes it a growing power in the world. It is major biofuel user and a large-scale provider of commodities.
France has the fifth largest economy in the world and possesses nuclear weapons. It is also one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council and a key member of the EU, NATO and the Council of Europe.
Germany has the third largest economy in the world and is a key member of the EU, NATO and the Council of Europe.
Japan is currently the second largest economy in the world. It is a world leader in terms of its technological capabilities.
Russia is territorially the largest country in the world and possesses an abundance of natural resources. It has a large, but declining, population and has the world's largest-equal arsenal of nuclear weapons, though the military has struggled to stay effective for financial reasons. Since the 1998 financial crisis its economy has shown substantial growth. It is a key member of the Council of Europe, CIS and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
The United Kingdom has the fourth largest economy in the world. It possesses nuclear weapons and has a technologically advanced military. It is also one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and is a key member of the EU, the Council of Europe, NATO and the Commonwealth of Nations.[/b]
I have my own observations of what god is Sapius, I'm asking David and you others on the board about what you think. So in this case, yeah I think I have to ask what your oppinion is, because I am not very good at guessing.
Sorry about that, I didn't mean it to be so. In my opinion, all the confusion actually begins by using the word God itself. I never use it as a meaningful word at all, so at least I have made it clear from my side. Whatever you like to attribute the word God to, doesn’t make much sense to me.
"meticulous logical exercise" Hey this is exactly the same method I used, but I think we arrived at different conclusions.
Sure you did, and if you have reached a different conclusion and are absolutely sure about it, why do you have doubts and ask others opinion? Simply state that it is the Truth, and explain if need be. It doesn’t matter if others agree or not, as long as you are absolutely sure.
I disagree with you on the "nothing 'responsible' as such"
This to me seems like a very esoteric way of not excepting responsibility. Yet maybe you need to explain this further...
Well, you might see contradiction at this point, but actually there isn’t any. Once one Knows the true workings of Nature and Self, one cannot help but truly respect (according to your definition, including that of ‘worth’) every jot or a title. Now how would the words or actions of this person be? It makes one so conscious of his words and actions that it is almost impossible for him to knowingly work against the respect or worth that you are talking about. So he is deadly serious about “his†responsibilities, although he is deadly sure that he is not going to hell otherwise.
Sure you did, and if you have reached a different conclusion and are absolutely sure about it, why do you have doubts and ask others opinion? Simply state that it is the Truth, and explain if need be. It doesn’t matter if others agree or not, as long as you are absolutely sure.
Reaching a conclusion about certain aspects about God and the universe are entirely different than claiming to know everything about them. I think there is alot that humanity still has to learn about the nature of God and the universe. Wouldn't you agree?
Consider the entire human race and where we all live. It is in one place in the universe. Would you agree that if you were to spend your entire life in one place, you would have no first hand knowledge of other countries and places? It is one thing to read something in a book, and something entirely different to have first hand knowledge of it. The same can be said for the universe and God.
As far as doubting, I think this is a very healthy thing to do. If you do not doubt your own conclusions and the conclusions of others, I think you have ceased to question. I don't know how a person who hasn't yet reached enlightenment would expect to gain it without constant thought and meditation. Doubt is not a form of weakness Sapius, it just means that you are brave enough to constantly question truth and seek its nature. Truth is truth and will hold up to any scrutiny. It is the weakminded who don't question the nature of things that will never reach enlightenment.
Last edited by I-Beam on Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
Well, you might see contradiction at this point, but actually there isn’t any. Once one Knows the true workings of Nature and Self, one cannot help but truly respect (according to your definition, including that of ‘worth’) every jot or a title. Now how would the words or actions of this person be? It makes one so conscious of his words and actions that it is almost impossible for him to knowingly work against the respect or worth that you are talking about. So he is deadly serious about “his†responsibilities, although he is deadly sure that he is not going to hell otherwise.
Actually you explained this a little better. I think I understand your view on this, but if you care to expand on how the SELF's actions actually fit in with this I think I might agree with you, but I am still not certain what you are trying to say by it. Don't really understand "every jot or title", this seems too vague a terminology for what you are trying to explain. As far as "hell" I can't really say I believe in a heaven or hell. Those concepts seem like very dogmatic concepts to me.
Non sense again. The Iroquois confederacy, The Romans, The Germans, The Arabs, the Othman Turks; all in their day were superpowers, and if our sphere is the sphere, their skill was no less than ours, there justice no more or not less just than ours. The difference is slight. We lose power when we lose friends, and we lose power when we use power, and in our time, and I guess not long we will be toppled from our thrones, so anarchy may more justly reign.
Are you sure?
A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and has the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale. It was a term applied to the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. Any retrospective application of the term to an earlier great power or global empire is anachronistic.
When you first made this comment about super powers you used the term 'concept', as though the thing did not exist without a concept, or before the concept. I assure you the thing did exist before the concept, and many have taken a turn at that game, including Britain. Actually, the Catholic Church following the eleventh century qualifies as well, wielding much more power for its size than its size justified. And that is the real goal of being a super power. It is to accomplish things without a fight; which is a thing we cannot manage but now must, being up to our elbows in Iraq.
quote="I-Beam"] Studying anthropology for two years in college I can tell you quite possitively that human haven't really evolved physically at all since about 30,000 B.C. Not really sure what you mean by fully human. Though you may have been trying to make some positive reference about Native Americans this sounds very demeaning. Also, when you talk about the people you deal with, those are people living today, not 12,000 years ago. We certainly have evolved socially in the last 12,000 years.
And you know humans haven't evolved physically in the last 32,000 years. How did you come by this knowledge? Are you blessed? Socially, We have evolved. But how do you tell this?
It is not wrong for a jew to kill a muslim, or for a Muslim to kill a Jew, and it has never been wrong for a Christian to kill a Muslim. It has always been wrong for a Muslim to kill a Jew or a Christians, except under certain ceircumstances
What you are showing me here is that you have studied very little about the actual religions, versus the fundalmentalist movement which began in America in the 1920's, in Iran with the Ayatollah Khomeni, and Isreal in the 1940's.
Actually It was Popes handing out blanket pardons for the killing of heathen Muslims during the crusades that sort of gives it away. Israel has been a going proposition for Jews for far longer than the 1940s, and the Puritans, which is the equal, though anachronisticly, of fundamentalist Christianity preceedes the founding of this country in this country. But I do enjoy both anthropology and Religion, so stick around and let me smack ya.
By the way, The shah was the man that made Khomani. Our support for puppets like the Shah, who traded cheap oil for cheaper food and the weapons of repression found out that all of his farmers on the street made fertile soil for fundamentalist seeds. And that plant is still growing, is it not?
When you first made this comment about super powers you used the term 'concept', as though the thing did not exist without a concept, or before the concept. I assure you the thing did exist before the concept, and many have taken a turn at that game, including Britain. Actually, the Catholic Church following the eleventh century qualifies as well, wielding much more power for its size than its size justified. And that is the real goal of being a super power. It is to accomplish things without a fight; which is a thing we cannot manage but now must, being up to our elbows in Iraq.
You didn't even read that long post of mine did you. In it, it refutes everything you are saying here. Are you one of those people who just doesn't like admitting when he's wrong. If I was presented with this by someone else my inclination in observing overwhelming evidence contrary to my believe, I would have to say "hey you were right".
And you know humans haven't evolved physically in the last 32,000 years. How did you come by this knowledge? Are you blessed? Socially, We have evolved. But how do you tell this?
I read books written by people who have devoted their entire lives to the study of Anthropology.
But I do enjoy both anthropology and Religion, so stick around and let me smack ya.
I think I am beginning to get you propellerbeanie...you're one of those people that likes to pretend he is "winning" an argument, rather than enjoying the intellectual interchange.
Actually It was Popes handing out blanket pardons for the killing of heathen Muslims during the crusades that sort of gives it away. Israel has been a going proposition for Jews for far longer than the 1940s, and the Puritans, which is the equal, though anachronisticly, of fundamentalist Christianity preceedes the founding of this country in this country.
That statement about past Popes may be true, but that has nothing to do with present day fundalmentalism, the present day view of the modern religions you are describing. Also: I wasn't talking about the idea or formation of Isreal, but the twentieth century fundamentalism that is currently dominating it.
Last edited by I-Beam on Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DQ: The driving force behind every war and act of violence is love.
IB: WOW!! Let's just start with this statement. So let's say two tribes live on the opposite side of a river, and both tribes need it's water to survive, but there is not enough water for both to survive. Result: WAR.
Now replace water with oil and I think you have the reason for the war in Iraq. How does love play into this?
DQ: Love of consumerism, wealth, the comfortable lifestyle, successful marriages, social status, American dominance, the herd, ignorance, submissiveness, mindlessness, etc, have all contributed to the war on Iraq. As has love of Allah, the Koran, Muslim culture, the herd, hating the West, mindlessness, submissiveness, gullibility, etc, within the Iraqi population.-
IB: Those to me are all secondary causes. But to simplify matters let's just talk about the ancient tribes on either side of the river. Sure you could say all those same things about them. Love of their culture, their people, their children....etc. At it's root you still have simple survival, and I think everyone wants to survive, and have their ideas survive.
If the two tribes consisted of rational people whose minds were relatively free of attachments, then they would have no trouble sitting down together and working out a strategy of survival that would benefit both tribes. The mistrust and defensiveness that is invariably generated out of a person's love would be absent.
When a man goes off to fight a war, whether it be a modern war or a primitive tribal battle, he usually does it in order to impress the chicks or his mates, or to protect his wife and kids, or for patriotic reasons, or because he is bored with his life. In each of these cases, he is being motivated by emotional love.
Those who refuse to fight in wars for reasons of conscience are roundly derided by both men and women. During the American Civil War, pacifists and conscientious objectors were often paraded in front of the womenfolk who spat at them with derision. Women, marriage, conventional love, and the desire to be at one with the herd are very much at the heart of war.
On your personal website in your Biography section you state that "My aim in life is to awaken as many people as possible to this marvellous reality, which I sometimes call God or Tao." Why is this important to you? Is it your love and passion for the ideas, or your love and passion and belief that some people might actually understand this teaching and pass it on to future generations?
It is simply a result of my valuing truth.
Would you be willing to die for these beliefs, be it in peaceful protest or violent opposition?
It would depend on the situation. But as a rule, I tend to regard suicide as a last option.
If the two tribes consisted of rational people whose minds were relatively free of attachments, then they would have no trouble sitting down together and working out a strategy of survival that would benefit both tribes. The mistrust and defensiveness that is invariably generated out of a person's love would be absent.
When a man goes off to fight a war, whether it be a modern war or a primitive tribal battle, he usually does it in order to impress the chicks or his mates, or to protect his wife and kids, or for patriotic reasons, or because he is bored with his life. In each of these cases, he is being motivated by emotional love.
Does it to impress the chicks? Although I chose the silliest thing in those two paragraphs, I'm afraid I disagree with what you have said, and other than your own oppinion, I have found nothing in my experience or my reading that supports this view. Outside of your own beliefs, can you think of a source that might present a supporting view to this.
And be specific please....like an actually book or artical on the matter that I can read.
If the two tribes consisted of rational people whose minds were relatively free of attachments
I added this at the end of course. I wanted to address this separately. How can a society be free of attachment and be rational. What would be rational if a long drought gripped the land and not enough water existed for both tribe's populations? In many areas of Northern Africa long droughts have gripped the land for a decade or more, like the Darfur region of Sudan for instance (since this is something that is actually happening right now), leaving your source of water means you will probably die of dehydration before reaching another. So what might be the "logical" thing to do here? Kill all the newborns, the elderly and the downtrodden? I think there are some situations (differences) both among people and among nations were you simply reach a point where no rational course of action exists.
Last edited by I-Beam on Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Yeah but what the hell do you care if other people know it? What is your motive for wanting to promote it?
It would depend on the situation. But as a rule, I tend to regard suicide as a last option.
So can I correctly assume that you support peaceful protest, and you would consider suicide, but only as a last resort? When I said violent opposition that wasn't what I had in mind, so I liked your response. Tell me would you actually take up arms or kill another human being though?
DQ: When a man goes off to fight a war, whether it be a modern war or a primitive tribal battle, he usually does it in order to impress the chicks or his mates, or to protect his wife and kids, or for patriotic reasons, or because he is bored with his life. In each of these cases, he is being motivated by emotional love.
IB: Does it to impress the chicks? Although I chose the silliest thing in those two paragraphs, I'm afraid I disagree with what you have said, and other than your own oppinion, I have found nothing in my experience or my reading that supports this view.
Outside of your own beliefs, can you think of a source that might present a supporting view to this.
Which planet to do you live on? Almost everything that young men do is to impress the chicks and get in their pants. Making money, climbing the social ladder, playing sports, joining a rock band, hooning around in cars - it's all done to attract females and have sex with them. Going off to war is no different.
And be specific please....like an actually book or artical on the matter that I can read.
You need a book to tell you this stuff?
DQ: If the two tribes consisted of rational people whose minds were relatively free of attachments
IB: I added this at the end of course. I wanted to address this separately. How can a society be free of attachment and be rational.
By its individual members becoming rational and free of attachments.
What would be rational if a long drought gripped the land and not enough water existed for both tribe's populations?
In many areas of Northern Africa long droughts have gripped the land for a decade or more, like the Darfur region of Sudan for instance (since this is something that is actually happening right now), leaving your source of water means you will probably die of dehydration before reaching another. So what might be the "logical" thing to do here? Kill all the newborns, the elderly and the downtrodden?
That may well be the best option. It would be a drastic step, but better, surely, than the whole population dying out.
If these tribal populations in Sudan had been more rational and unattached to begin with, then they might have been able to take steps to ensure that their precarious situation didn't arise in the first place. They might have curbed their urge to copulate willy-nilly and engage in useless tribal wars and rituals, and they might have succeeded in securing new sources of water.
Having said that, we in the West are not much different. It is estimated that here in Brisbane, Australia, water could run out in three years time if no significant rains occur - which, given our arid climate, is a definite possibility. We had some good rain late last year, but it missed all the catchment areas. If we were smart we would immediately set to work building other dams where the catchment areas would be more effective. But the best location for these dams is probably in the suburban areas around the foot of the local mountain, so it's never going to happen. People's attachments to their houses and lifestyles will always nip it in the bud. As a result, the entire city is probably going to suffer because of people's emotional attachments.
I think there are some situations (differences) both among people and among nations were you simply reach a point where no rational course of action exists.
Sure, but usually when that point is reached, it is because the population concerned has engaged in a long course of irrational, ignorant, short-sighted behaviour. Our entire planet is currently at risk because of this.
DQ: It is simply a result of my valuing truth.
IB: Yeah but what the hell do you care if other people know it?
I don't care if they know it.
What is your motive for wanting to promote it?
It seems less irrational than wanting to promote insanity.
DQ: It would depend on the situation. But as a rule, I tend to regard suicide as a last option.
IB: So can I correctly assume that you support peaceful protest, and you would consider suicide, but only as a last resort? When I said violent opposition that wasn't what I had in mind, so I liked your response. Tell me would you actually take up arms or kill another human being though?
Again, it would depend on the situation. I'm usually a peaceful, non-violent chap, so it would be out of character for me to attempt something like that. But if I had a compelling reason to kill someone, then I would have to find it in myself to do it. Ideally, though, it wouldn't be for emotional reasons that I would do it.
I think I understand your view on this, but if you care to expand on how the SELF's actions actually fit in with this..
I hope you don’t see contradictions, but simply put, Cause and Effect. I am caused by the total thinking process, which entails innumerable past causes that make me what I am. The SELF and “Iâ€, are no two different things.
Don't really understand "every jot or title", this seems too vague a terminology for what you are trying to explain.
Would ‘without any exceptions’ suffice?
As far as "hell" I can't really say I believe in a heaven or hell. Those concepts seem like very dogmatic concepts to me.
So what crime do I commit, according to you, if I say the same for God? Irrelevant of how you say you define it.
( I shall respond to your post prior to this one, shortly.)
Which planet to do you live on? Almost everything that young men do is to impress the chicks and get in their pants. Making money, climbing the social ladder, playing sports, joining a rock band, hooning around in cars - it's all done to attract females and have sex with them. Going off to war is no different.
Same one as you bud...just seems in entirely different social circles and geograpical locations. While I completely agree that young men do al the things you describe, I would not agree or even try and sum up everything that men do by saying it "is to impress the chicks and get in their pants."
This sounds very Fruedian, and let's face it...Lombraso and Freud were idiots. What we now know about human physcology makes alot of their theories simplistic and misguided.
Having many friends who are or have been in the peace core or the Marines, I can honestly say their objectives were not "to impress the chicks and get in their pants." They had a real desire to serve their country and help people. I don't think going to Somalia to help local health authorities had anything to do with jumping down someone's pants.
Your response sounds like the kind of simplistic thing you would expect to hear from an eighteen year old, not someone who is pressing forty.
That may well be the best option. It would be a drastic step, but better, surely, than the whole population dying out.
Word for word, this sounds like that old utilitarian arguement about the life raft. "If you and your son and Eistein are in a life raft that only has room for two, who are you going to save?"
It's a ridiculous arguement. If it's a choice of killing myself or my son...Eistein's in the water baby. Ask M. Faizi if she would be willing to kill her kids versus fighting those who threatened to kill them.
I know some westerners who have a vague and loose understanding of Eastern philosophy, think that the idea of of enlightenment is to let go of all of societies problems cares and attachments, and read into this that this means loving nothing, caring for nothing...ecetera ecetera ecetera. I have read many of the Upanisades that would both agree and dispute this.
I have asked my conscience if this seems reasonable, logical, truthful. I would have to say that my conclusion is strongly against this kind of thinking. To me it just sounds like someone giving up. Like a bum on the street that does not care if he lives or dies. Feeling nothing, learning nothing, observing nothing...
It seems less irrational than wanting to promote insanity.
Weak argument. Doesn't sound like you really know.
But if I had a compelling reason to kill someone, then I would have to find it in myself to do it. Ideally, though, it wouldn't be for emotional reasons that I would do it.
What about yourself?
Not for emotional reasons huh? I think you'd be pretty emtional if some guy walked up and shot your best friend, and you had a chance to kill him.
If any human being was pointing a gun in my face with the intent to kill me, and my option was to either kill the other person or myself, I would kill the other person. I would also extend this to my loved ones (friends and family).
In general, I abhor violence, and don't like guns (though I have been around them my entire life), but the act of killing another human being who has committed no crime...this is one of the most evil and entropic things a human can do. I would not commit suicide in protest to a government, foreign oppressor or the like, and suicide from depression or hopelessness I can't say I would even consider it. Time passes, things change, who knows what lies in the future. But having never been put in the situation of extreme depression for a long period of time, I can't honestly say what I would do.
I think peaceful protest is admirable, though I often wonder what it accomplishes. I don't ever see myself marching in a peace rally, or to protest a certain decision the government has made. I think there are far better methods of addressing disagreement. Starting with negoiation.
DQ: Which planet to do you live on? Almost everything that young men do is to impress the chicks and get in their pants. Making money, climbing the social ladder, playing sports, joining a rock band, hooning around in cars - it's all done to attract females and have sex with them. Going off to war is no different.
IB: Same one as you bud...just seems in entirely different social circles and geograpical locations. While I completely agree that young men do al the things you describe, I would not agree or even try and sum up everything that men do by saying it "is to impress the chicks and get in their pants."
It's a very strong biological and emotional force. The genetic continuation of the species hinges on it. The whole world revolves around it. Songs are continually sung about it. Books are continually written about it. Movies are continually made about it. Even viagra has been invented so that old people can keep on doing it.
It is not the only force which drives people, but it should never be underestimated.
This sounds very Fruedian, and let's face it...Lombraso and Freud were idiots. What we now know about human physcology makes alot of their theories simplistic and misguided.
Having many friends who are or have been in the peace core or the Marines, I can honestly say their objectives were not "to impress the chicks and get in their pants." They had a real desire to serve their country and help people. I don't think going to Somalia to help local health authorities had anything to do with jumping down someone's pants.
Not in the crude sense that you paint it, but it's definitely there nonetheless.
More often than not, when a man wants to embark on an altruistic adventure, such as joining the peace core, he is doing it because he is spellbound by a certain kind of woman - e.g. the Virgin Mary or Mother Teresa type. He dearly wants to be involved with women of that kind and share his adventures with them - joining the peace core is one way of doing this. And yes, he secretly wants to gets into one of these women's pants.
Of course, he would probably tell himself, and others, that he is really doing it to help people, to ease their suffering, etc, etc. But we can safely ignore that.
Your response sounds like the kind of simplistic thing you would expect to hear from an eighteen year old, not someone who is pressing forty.
And you're going around with your eyes shut. You're steadfastly avoiding the roots of human behaviour, prefering instead to thrash about in its branches, where it's more fun.
DQ: That may well be the best option. It would be a drastic step, but better, surely, than the whole population dying out.
IB: Word for word, this sounds like that old utilitarian arguement about the life raft. "If you and your son and Eistein are in a life raft that only has room for two, who are you going to save?"
It's a ridiculous arguement. If it's a choice of killing myself or my son...Eistein's in the water baby. Ask M. Faizi if she would be willing to kill her kids versus fighting those who threatened to kill them.
Ask an emotional, attached person what a rational, unattached person would do in those circumstances? What a good idea.
I know some westerners who have a vague and loose understanding of Eastern philosophy, think that the idea of of enlightenment is to let go of all of societies problems cares and attachments, and read into this that this means loving nothing, caring for nothing...ecetera ecetera ecetera. I have read many of the Upanisades that would both agree and dispute this.
I have asked my conscience if this seems reasonable, logical, truthful. I would have to say that my conclusion is strongly against this kind of thinking. To me it just sounds like someone giving up. Like a bum on the street that does not care if he lives or dies. Feeling nothing, learning nothing, observing nothing...
This is like a drug-addict asking his conscience if it seems reasonable to live without drugs. "To me, living a life without drugs just sounds like someone giving up".
You make it plain that your mind is far too addicted to the emotional roller coaster of life to appreciate the deep wisdom expounded in Eastern texts.
DQ: It seems less irrational than wanting to promote insanity.
IB: Weak argument. Doesn't sound like you really know.
Allow me to put it another way. When a person values truth for many years and begins to develop some wisdom, his valuing of truth gradually ceases to be emotional in nature and instead becomes a spontaneous part of his nature. He continues to value the truth in this spontaneous way, even though he no longer places any emotional investment in it. Similarly, he continues to promote Truth-consciousness in the world, even though, again, he has nothing emotional riding on the outcome. He can't think of a good reason to stop doing this, and so he doesn't stop doing it.
DQ: But if I had a compelling reason to kill someone, then I would have to find it in myself to do it. Ideally, though, it wouldn't be for emotional reasons that I would do it.
IB: Not for emotional reasons huh? I think you'd be pretty emtional if some guy walked up and shot your best friend, and you had a chance to kill him.
If I was emotional in that situation, it would mean that I had slipped from my enlightenment. Indeed, simply having a best friend in the first place would indicate that I had already slipped from my enlightenment.
A man's best friends should always be his truthful thoughts, and his understanding of God - nothing else.
If any human being was pointing a gun in my face with the intent to kill me, and my option was to either kill the other person or myself, I would kill the other person. I would also extend this to my loved ones (friends and family).
See how quickly love turns to hate and violence?
To love other people is to hate and abuse then, and to kick them in the head and kill them.
