--- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > The London terrorists and 
> > the old rich men who make up Bush & Co. are NOT 
> > enemies.  They are PARTNERS.  They NEED each other
> 
> I'd like to tie this thought ˆ to something you said 
> a few days ago, Unc, about how debaters in spiritual 
> forums argue not so much to determine truth as to 
> reinforce their egos -- to reinforce their ignorance.
> 
> I've encountered a school of thought that all opposition 
> derives from the need to reinforce one's place in this 
> relative creation. Good requires evil to exist as good. 
> Otherwise, it's like white paint on a white ground -- 
> there's no contrast to make the white stand out.

I can see this, with one additional monkey wrench
thrown into the works.  It seems to me that there
is, in fact, an interdependency between "good" and
"evil," but that this interdependency is based more
on fundamentalism than any "laws of nature."  The 
more a self is fundamentalist -- that is, convinced 
it knows the "truth" -- the more it seems to require
opposition to that "truth," or "untruth."

Just look at the historical religious and political
traditions that have emphasized this eternal struggle
between good and evil.  The nastiest of them were
all completely convinced that they knew the "truth."
Therefore, they were the good guys in the white hats,
and those who didn't know the "truth" were the bad
guys in the black hats.  In the most horrible relig-
ious wars on this planet, *both* sides felt this way.
"God is on our side," was said, and believed, by both.

The need for "contrast," the black background "to 
make the white stand out" seems to me to be tied
to this paradigm that "we already know the 'truth.'"
Religions and spiritual traditions that don't claim
to know the "truth" -- or that don't feel that there
is a fixed "truth" TO know -- rarely develop a con-
frontational, good-vs.-evil, us-vs.-them relation-
ship with the world in their conceptual models of
the universe.  Taoism and Buddhism spring to mind.
The universe tends to be perceived and modeled more 
as an eternal interplay of energies, none of them 
"good" or "bad," light or dark -- just energies, 
dancing, eternally.

I haven't really thought about this before, but I'd
be willing to bet that the more convinced one is
that he or she knows the "truth," the more you'll
find in that person's belief system a need for there
to be something opposing that "truth."  It's almost
as if the self that fixates on one POV and tells
itself that it's got everything figured out *at the
same time* manifests a situation in the world around
it whose purpose is to dissolve this "truth" and
reveal it as merely the latest in an infinite number
of relative truths, just another thought to be 
ignored on the way to transcendence.
 
> From this perspective, so much of our conflict is just 
> an exercise to give meaning to our lives. 

Or, in my model above, to give meaning and importance
to our selves.

> I, for one, 
> love having meaning in my life. It was one of the big 
> attractions to being in the TM movement. It comes now 
> from having a family. Imagine how fulfilled the jihadists 
> must feel, having a mission they're willing to die for.

There is a certain hopelessness and lack of ability
to enjoy life implicit in the fanatical martyr, yup.
 
> A while back, L B Shriver posted links to a BBC production 
> that examined the symbiotic relationship between our 
> Western religious fundamentalists and those in the Middle 
> East. Aside from the political insights that series provided, 
> it really illustrated how we create our enemies to give 
> meaning to our goodness.

Or just to give *existence* to our supposed goodness.
If you had a belief system (such as Tantra) in which
nothing was inherently either good or evil, would you
need an "enemy" to reinforce that belief system or
lend it "credibility?"  Possibly not.  But the minute
you have a belief system that positions itself as
"good" or "holy," you have a need for there to be 
something to be "bad" or "unholy" to provide contrast 
to it.

Interesting subject.  I don't really have a clue here;
I'm just rappin', off the top of my head.  But it's
certainly an interesting subject.  As the planet-
buster AI bomb in the movie "Dark Star" said, "I must
think on this further..."  :-)

Unc






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to