All very good questions. I have found Covey's idea about our sphere of influence to be true. If we focus our attention to goal and action to where we can influence effectiveness and change, our sphere of influence increases. If we focus outside of our sphere of influence, in other words, spend much of our time thinking and talking about things we can do nothing about, our sphere of influence shrinks.
There is much that can be done on a personal level in regard to homelessness. Every city has an agency that welcomes volunteers etc. I spent some time with the commission in Las Vegas, and had very insightful conversations with a guy who wrote a couple of books about the largest homeless settlement there. Even offered to approach the Mayor on behalf of the commission, as the Mayor Goodman has, what is perceived to be, very rigid views about the problem. But my help wasn't needed there. I find myself asking why less and less as time goes on. It doesn't mean that I don't care, because I do deeply. But a very wise man once told me that when my compassion is not enough, I break my own heart. After watching myself awhile, I knew this to be a deep truth. Sometimes, compassion is all we have and when it is not enough, our hearts break. And sometimes, there is truth beyond compassion. On May 12, 6:16 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > You are drawing conclusions based on historical events that are > insignificant to this idea. For modernist politicians to address > issues in a black and white format does not conclude that we will be > experiencing some militant faction activity. I gave a pure example > with billions being spent on private enterprise and the financial > systems of the wealthy while the people that really matter are > ignored. If things keep going the way the are, it is more likely that > what you suggest will actually happen, but if the political base would > stop dancing around the issues there won't be any need for a militant > revolutionary movement. The bank throws a family of 6 out on the > street and then the government gives "billions" to the bank that threw > them out. Why? > I find it strange that when there is some overseas disaster, the > government send millions in aid. Why? > > On May 12, 4:19 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > While I sympathise completely with your instinct to call a spade a > > spade, Slip, your honest desire to cut through political doublespeak > > and your genuine compassion for those whose suffering is not > > ameliorated and, indeed, increased by such platitudinous > > obfustication, I have problems with your solution in "viewing the > > world simply as black and white in order to eliminate the > > confusion ..." > > > We have seen too many revolutionaries - with, initially at least, > > honest motivation - take this path in the 19th. and 20th. Centuries. > > The results were usually horrific. I'm thinking of people like V.I. > > Lenin, or the Baader-Meinhoff gang. Don't get me wrong, I don't intend > > any direct comparisons with your thinking. But simplification can > > easily distort - leading in the end to simplistic, dualistic thinking. > > There are all sorts of levels of interconnectivity in our world, which > > makes many problems complex - or perhaps only the practical way to > > solutions. > > > Francis > > > On 12 Mai, 22:20, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yaya, that is a generality and may pertain to specific instance such > > > as you say with a harmonious and chaotic world perspective or the > > > color spectrum. I see homeless people, what do you see, people > > > camping? I see war, what do you see, domestic disturbance? I see > > > people starving, what do you see, people that might not be that > > > hungry? One of the major problems in the world is the sidestepping of > > > core issues through a maze of political sophism while societies sores > > > fester and spread like the plague. Politicians spew their rhetoric on > > > the soap box in an attempt to placate the masses. It is time to view > > > the world simply as black and white in order to eliminate the > > > confusion and get closer to the collective mentality, which we will > > > never accomplish if people continue to find loopholes to negate > > > reality. We are experiencing a dissemination of the world via the > > > differentiation of views. With black and white we can identify the > > > issues, address the issues, solve the issues and later begin again to > > > add colors to our world, if you get my drift. > > > > On May 12, 9:19 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Seeing what is before us is a matter of perspective and belief is one > > > > big factor in the shape of what we see. Two people looking at the > > > > same thing do not see the same thing. Their differences make what > > > > they are seeing different to them. If I see the world as harmonious, > > > > and Neil sees it as chaotic, it doesn't mean we are seeing different > > > > worlds, it means our perspectives are different based on our beliefs. > > > > > On May 12, 5:32 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You are right about one belief vs another, and that too is a belief ! > > > > > <<Vam > > > > > It is not a belief it is a fact, all beliefs are beliefs. > > > > > > Clearly any belief to the believer can be the ultimate truth for that > > > > > believer, still, overall and in the context of all beliefs, that > > > > > belief, like all others remains a belief, the truth portion of which, > > > > > is subjective. > > > > > > To effect change one simply needs to see, as you say, what is before > > > > > us, later we can engage analysis. That is one reason why homeless > > > > > people are on the street. Too much time is being spent on the 'why is > > > > > this happening'. The people are there, no home, no food or water, > > > > > and what happens? They fix the banks! > > > > > > On May 11, 11:05 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > There are two observations I wish to contribute, SD, if I may. > > > > > > > You are right about one belief vs another, and that too is a belief > > > > > > ! > > > > > > And I do not say this tongue in cheek. > > > > > > > But a belief isn't " just " a belief. The ' responsibility ' of > > > > > > holding the belief is immediately upon us. So, if I believe the rock > > > > > > is spiritual energy, it becomes encumbent that I ' see ' the > > > > > > spiritual > > > > > > energy the rock is and ' know ' the truth value of my belief. If I > > > > > > do > > > > > > happen to know that my belief is true, then I also know that the > > > > > > contrary belief ( the rock is NOT spiritual energy ) is untrue, > > > > > > regardless of how many people are holding that contrary belief. > > > > > > Therefore, equating one belief to another, forgetting how beliefs > > > > > > are > > > > > > ' rooted ' in individuals, seems facile. > > > > > > > Secondly, without the " Why," how does one determine what change to > > > > > > effect. Which leads to whims. However, I do see the importance of > > > > > > action at whatever that is before us, even if what is before us is > > > > > > not > > > > > > the " ultimate " we might be looking for. > > > > > > > On May 12, 4:05 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Content is irrelevant, probability is equal in regard to the > > > > > > > suppositional base of all religious beliefs. Without empirical > > > > > > > evidence to establish validity of one belief over another the > > > > > > > probability remains equal. Perhaps we can edit out 'ultimate > > > > > > > truth' > > > > > > > which seems to be the catalyst for the focus on belief content. > > > > > > > So I can rephrase in saying "the probability of one belief being > > > > > > > valid > > > > > > > is equal to that of any other belief". > > > > > > > > You think you are going to dissect commentary and take thoughts > > > > > > > out of > > > > > > > context in order to challenge them? > > > > > > > You cut off "regardless of their existence" which was a reference > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > "beliefs". > > > > > > > Nevertheless if you must. > > > > > > > Summarizing suffering into a cause and effect aspect Is another > > > > > > > belief > > > > > > > Not a fact. There is not one religion, religious belief, > > > > > > > spiritual > > > > > > > movement, revered guru or any other "secret" that has alleviated > > > > > > > suffering. So to believe that suffering is a product of a cause > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > effect event is essentially "another belief". Maybe I believe > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > suffering is the result of humanity's failure to achieve a > > > > > > > collective > > > > > > > mentality, simply another belief. It isn't even a non sequitor > > > > > > > consideration as there is nothing that if following but each > > > > > > > belief > > > > > > > stands individually. Put the microscope away! > > > > > > > > You don't see how I can believe that the criteria for validity is > > > > > > > simply belief. Well that is not accurate because I don't believe > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > criteria for validity is simply belief and don't know why you > > > > > > > gathered > > > > > > > that from my statement, which is........"I just don't see that any > > > > > > > belief is any more valid that any other belief, including my own." > > > > > > > This is simple truth. You believe rocks have spiritual energy > > > > > > > and I > > > > > > > believe rocks contain good luck and gabby believes rocks make > > > > > > > good > > > > > > > paper weights, so what makes your belief more valid? > > > > > > > > I say most problems have to to do with unhappiness because that is > > > > > > > simple observation Justin, greedy people are unhappy with what > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > have and so need more, Madoff had millions but obviously he was > > > > > > > unhappy with it. People that are unhappy with their sex life may > > > > > > > resort to any deviation to fulfill that void in their happiness > > > > > > > pocket. People that are unhappy with their finances may rob a > > > > > > > store > > > > > > > or these days kill their family and then themselves. Now you > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > get out your magnifying glass and look for the unhappiness at the > > > > > > > base > > > > > > > of problems. > > > > > > > > When I say "bypassing the Why" I purpose to address the here and > > > > > > > now, > > > > > > > the immediate. Why waste time wondering about the why of it when > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > can use that time to effect change. If we could bypass the why we > > > > > > > could facilitate immediate change and the in reflection address > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > why. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
