Sadly, as we know Riggers, Magna Carta was just the rich agreeing to cut the world up between them (there was another failed imperialist attempt in Berlin in 1861)! It has been fairly standard to put the philosophical as underpinning everything else - I'm queasy about this as most people don't do it at all well. I tend to think we could produce more acceptable rules for 'the impersonal' than bureaucracy and find ways not to be captive to current madness. This is possible in philosophy but we need it in day-to-day engagement. I can't see this as 'secular' in the way we have come to use the term but it has to be something we have comparatively agreed to structure freedom and what is key to peaceful religion. In the end we have to accept that we do make ethical judgements and that these entail some kind of control statement about others and what 'we' might be. I can find no internal place of safety in which it is honest to deny this, as I can find no such place to deny the possibilities of god or religion either. Much of my thinking concerns how we can deny leadership decision- making and allow us to do our best with what is undecidable - a money system not controlled by accountants and money-lenders would be a good start, but here we need to recognise that the current system is connected with war and war by other means, and that we are genuinely frightened to stop beggaring neighbours.
On 2 Oct, 12:47, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > "This may seem to drain all passion from life" - it may seem to, but > in fact, the opposite is true, it intensifies passion for life in > terms of how we feel it. How we express those feelings, or emote may > change, and so it may appear that we are less passionate because the > louder emotions may be absent. However, our engagement in the process > of life is strengthened, our perceptions and awareness heightened, and > our feelings purified. > > "it requires that we dampen the attachment we have not only to our > selves but also to special others." - I think that clarify might be a > better word than dampen. The attachments (and I just recently had > this discussion with my go to guy on Buddhism) that are to be released > are the ego attachments, the parts of self image that separate us from > others, that distort our empowerment and inhibit our relatedness. > When we can let go of the barriers to limitless intimacy, our > connection to all others is clarified as is our own self image. This > completely engages us in life. > > "yet we are frightened to move to the delights of peace because this > will only let others develop power, including the power to exert their > ethical judgement on us." indeed, a suffering to be released. > > http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArchive/tabid/400/articleType/Ar... > > Here is a link that has several other links for Chopra, Wilber and > Dawkins. The Chopra links will lead to the contemporary Buddhist > ideas on the alleviation of suffering, which is a step by step process > of internal discovery that leads to a clarification of self and > the"absolute, unmanifest reality of this and every moment." It is a > journey, according to Buddhism, into God consciousness through the > alleviation of suffering and, by releasing our own, we release all > others. How we are called upon to participate in ways that alleviate > suffering for the community is individual. So, > > "we know the answer is secular democracy based on improvements of what > we have managed around the world." we be a matter of participating as > is true to our calling. > > "The best for me will be the moment when we laugh at and > ridicule any notion raised by parochial politicians of our great, > noble history in the recognition this is a future we need to build by > recognising the past as myth. " > > I wish you all the best and more. > > On Oct 1, 9:43 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Chan Buddhism has a rather excellent rejection of conventional ethical > > values as blinkering and distorting (see Hui Neng, Liuxu tanjing, and > > The Recorded Conversations of I-Hsüan), and also a sense that one can > > become attuned to the world so as to move with its grain I am less > > sure about. The special emphasis on the elimination of suffering and > > on the way it explains suffering by referring to the human attachment > > to self as fixed ego entity challenges Western orthodoxy. Realization > > that the self is not a bounded and discrete entity may encourage a > > much more impersonal view of oneself and one's projects and desires. > > One's concern widens to all of life, and one dampens one's desires so > > as to lessen attachment to the self's cares and concerns. This may > > seem to drain all passion from life, and it requires that we dampen > > the attachment we have not only to our selves but also to special > > others. Western ethics tend to uphold only a limited altruism that > > allows one a private sphere of life free from moral demands and in > > which one gives much more weight to the cares and concerns of the self > > and those close to the self. There are themes in Western philosophy > > that parallel the kind of impersonal altruism urged upon us by > > Buddhism. Some utilitarians have strongly held to the theme that each > > counts for one in calculating what produces the greatest good, and > > they have derived challenging consequences from that theme for the > > question of what one should be prepared to give to alleviate the > > suffering of strangers, arguing that the way many in affluent nations > > indulge themselves and their own is simply insupportable in a world of > > widespread and severe suffering. Some have seen the sort of impersonal > > concern that utilitarianism may demand as an indication that it > > unsuitable for human beings, who are so strongly partial to themselves > > and their own. Buddhism presses for the possibility that impersonal > > concern is humanly possible, and the fact that it is a vibrant and > > long-lived tradition with many committed practitioners provides some > > support for the viability of impersonal concern as a ideal that is > > capable of claiming allegiance and influencing how people try to live > > their lives. A barbarian such as myself, of course, only prefers this > > because I just can't stand wailing women! > > The problem really is that what is offered as 'success' is so naff, > > yet we are frightened to move to the delights of peace because this > > will only let others develop power, including the power to exert their > > ethical judgement on us. None of this matters as long as most of the > > world is consumed by idiot economics and almost no ability to tolerate > > peaceful diversity based on minimal rules within practical security. > > The issue is political and not philosophical and we know the answer is > > secular democracy based on improvements of what we have managed around > > the world. The best for me will be the moment when we laugh at and > > ridicule any notion raised by parochial politicians of our great, > > noble history in the recognition this is a future we need to build by > > recognising the past as myth. > > > On 1 Oct, 19:56, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the laugh. In the context of Conan, this makes sense: > > > > 'To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the > > > lamentation of their women' > > > > No doubt, the world has its barbarians and what they see as the best > > > in life may differ than the viewpoint of the worlds mystics. The > > > barbaric love of conflict will only take Conan so far, as it is > > > limited to the lower states of consciousness. So what is best, is > > > relative and ever changing with the emergence of greater possibility > > > and awareness. > > > > On Oct 1, 1:32 pm, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Don't mean to derail the conversation, but as far deep quotes from > > > > Conan the Barbarian, I found a different one more impressive. I can't > > > > find it online, but I did find its analog in the written REH stories: > > > > > [The] chief [of the gods of Cimmeria] is Crom. He dwells on a great > > > > mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. > > > > Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send > > > > you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he > > > > breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall > > > > men ask of the gods? ... There is no hope here or hereafter in the > > > > cult of my people. In this world men struggle and suffer vainly, > > > > finding pleasure only in the bright madness of battle; dying, their > > > > souls enter a gray misty realm of clouds and icy winds, to wander > > > > cheerlessly throughout eternity. > > > > > Conan, first fictional prehistorial proto-athiest?? > > > > > What's best in life for me depends on my mood, at the moment it is to > > > > sit in a quiet corner and read a book with some beverage laced with > > > > caffene. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
