I actually understand what you are saying Vam,, I do not think it is forcing ones will on another,, Just to the contrary,, it is looking at ideas to build a better society, hopefully you will add you thoughts and ideas,, looking at what is wrong and not just saying this is bad , this is bad condemning everything,, not this is bad but what is more important is we look at how to improve all of society taking the best of eastern and western ideas..
I do not think India run by a few individuals using corporations is what you want.. or is it? Unfortunately the world is becoming more dependent on the rest of society. The questions come down to what we see as good in our way of life (western) and hopefully what you see as good in your way of life (eastern) but that takes your input in all areas philosophical, financial, and in economics, which includes health care, how to deal with natural disasters, Today unfortunately what happens in your home also effects me here in Holland , Neil in England and Molly in the States , just to name a few.. The question is two part.. 1; How do we create a better society 2: how do we prevent corporations from dominating the world society. But if you do not add you insights on just how you see the world government should be.. How can your ideas be included if you do not add them? Not that any of us have the power to change the world, there are some of us who qualify as "grouchy old men" me included.. But , I repeat But maybe someone will read what we have to say that can improve the world and society. Vam your ideas on what corporations,and government should be like is extremely important,, at least to me. The question is how do we improve all of society and is is it possible to keep the individuality and best of each society. Allan On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:30 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I share your enthusiasm Gabby. All very well Vam - yet the language > around us is so deceptive we have to do something new with it so as > not to be suckered by fine words from the weasel. > > On Oct 24, 5:35 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > From Brihadaranyaka Upanishad ( one of the oldest ) : > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband > > loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true > > nature, is one with the Supreme Self. > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, but > > she is loved for the sake of the self. > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved, > > hut they are loved for the sake of the self. > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it > > is loved for the sake of the self. > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the brahmin, my dear, is the brahmin > > loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self. > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the kshatriya, my dear, is the kshatriya > > loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self. > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, are the worlds > > loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self. > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the gods, my dear, are the gods loved, > > but they are loved for the sake of the self. > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the beings, my dear, are the beings > > loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self. > > > > Verily, not for the sake of the All, my dear, is the All loved, but it > > is loved for the sake of the self. > > > > "Verily, my dear Maitreyi, it is the Self that should be realized— > > should be heard of, reflected on, and meditated upon. > > > > By the realization of the Self, my dear—through hearing, reflection, > > and meditation—all this is known. > > > > On Oct 23, 11:55 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To feel concern for others or love , is a human feeling and a person > > > tries to better the lot of the less fortunate. There is nothing > > > Eastern or Western about this , but it is only a humane sentiment and > > > is common to all societies. If I make the lives of a few others happy > > > I feel happy about it , but that doesn't mean that my behavior is > > > self-centered , rather it would be so if I acted for my personal > > > well-being at the expense of others. > > > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I do not understand much that has been said here... really. > > > > > > What I can make out is this talk of doing something "for others." > This > > > > is shit. You don't do anything for others, because you can't. You can > > > > only do something for yourself. Now, if you believe that owning half > > > > the world or a huge mansion, or a carpeting that takes you 3" into > the > > > > ground is what you want to do for yourself... then that's what you'll > > > > do ! > > > > > > The entire suggestion of doing something for others rests on the > > > > premise that that's what makes me happy. If it doesn't, then one > > > > wouldn't do it. And, even if one does because one is forced to do, it > > > > wouldn't make one happy. Which doesn't help the person... in his > > > > becoming happy ! > > > > > > That's the Eastern thing... I help others because I want to help > > > > myself... because that's the only way I can help myself ! > > > > > > On Oct 23, 4:48 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Somewhat related: > > > > > >> "42 > > > > > >> Note how perverse is the attitude of the weak toward their > > > >> benefactors. They feel generosity as oppression; they want to > > > >> retaliate. They say to their benefactors: ' May the day come when > you > > > >> shall be weak and we will send bundles to America.' > > > > > >> You do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it will > but > > > >> infect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak only by > > > >> sharing your pride, hope or hatred with them." > > > > > >> from "The Passionate State of Mind" By Eric Hoffer > > > > > >> On Oct 22, 8:42 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > One could hold Marx accountable for the horrors of the Soviet > Union > > > >> > and China under Mao. Not his economic analysis but some of > > > >> > revolutionary urging - though surely countless abuses by the > "noble > > > >> > class" are worse. I did some shameful stuff handling informants > in > > > >> > our stupid war in Northern Ireland, excusing it at the time under > a > > > >> > greater good I now know false. We ran an even bloodier war in > > > >> > Indonesia (28,000 dead) most in the UK were not aware of at the > time > > > >> > and many don't know about now (though it's no longer secret). > > > > > >> > I've been led to believe we can't really discuss much on society > > > >> > unless we address the realities of world power and its links to > the > > > >> > money system the rich dominate. Otherwise one more or less cops > out > > > >> > and makes a living. Teaching has led me to realise how scant my > own > > > >> > knowledge is, but also the lack of interest most people have in > > > >> > learning more than what gets them by. > > > > > >> > We now have the technology to show how many things link up and > that > > > >> > the "riches" developed in a shadow banking system that is bigger > than > > > >> > the real economy several times over are fictitious and merely suck > > > >> > value out of toil - and the same technology could also regulate > the > > > >> > economy through 'transparent money' - instead it's used for the > > > >> > opposite purpose and also supports the military complex. This is > > > >> > obvious but people still don't get it. > > > > > >> > On Oct 22, 7:47 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > Life is always full of cause and effects. Everyone is > accountable for the > > > >> > > effects caused by their actions,, even if you claim to have no > choice.... > > > >> > > Allan > > > > > >> > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:48 PM, archytas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > > > People 'escape' responsibility in fictitious ways all the > time RP - > > > >> > > > though I agree that inevitably one can't. I'm always > saddened by > > > >> > > > those who stress we should have communism or capitalism and > can't see > > > >> > > > there is some kind of loop. They want to reduce everything > to a kind > > > >> > > > of baby-talk more appropriate to sport locker rooms than > responsible > > > >> > > > dialogue. The escape from responsibility is into world-views > that > > > >> > > > exclude the other and especially consequences for others. > > > > > >> > > > On Oct 22, 6:26 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > To be held accountable for one's actions , doesn't it look > scary when > > > >> > > > > you know you couldn't have done otherwise given your > personality at > > > >> > > > > the given time and the circumstances. Yet we cannot escape > > > >> > > > > responsibility ! > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:41 PM, archytas < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > I like the theme RP - but what of being 'bound' by > genetics/evolution/ > > > >> > > > > > environment - which gives some clues on how to escape > through > > > >> > > > > > knowledge? > > > > > >> > > > > > On Oct 13, 4:30 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> It is God who binds you and not you yourself , and so > you are > > > >> > > > > >> accountable to yourself and society , but not to God. In > this world > > > >> > > > > >> you are doing everything freely , but in God's presence > you are just a > > > >> > > > > >> puppet. If I am bound to err , it doesn't absolve me of > the action as > > > >> > > > > >> it has been done by me , and if you hurt me , again you > are > > > >> > > > > >> accountable for it as it is done by you. It is only in > God's presence > > > >> > > > > >> that you are innocent as you are a puppet in his hand , > but in man's > > > >> > > > > >> world you are accountable and responsible for every > action unless > > > >> > > > > >> society frees you of that responsibility on the grounds > of insanity on > > > >> > > > > >> your part. You are always the agent and as such always > responsible for > > > >> > > > > >> your every action and inaction. > > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Vam < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > When everything is predetermined... and if we all > accept that as > > > >> > > > > >> > fact... accountability is without meaning ! > > > > > >> > > > > >> > Accountability has a meaning when I have a choice in > the matter, and > > > >> > > > > >> > if I am aware of that personal freedom. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Oct 13, 7:46 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> When everything is predetermined , the obvious truth > that it is man > > > >> > > > > >> >> who is acting , makes man accountable to man and > society and not > > > >> > > > to > > > >> > > > > >> >> God. > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Vam < > [email protected]> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> > But I couldn't see the rational thread between the > "God alone..." > > > >> > > > > >> >> > premise and its "Man alone..." derivative ! > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > On Oct 13, 7:20 pm, archytas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> I rather like the idea RP, of the corollary. > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> On Oct 13, 3:02 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> > AS everything good and evil is done by God's > dictates and > > > >> > > > everything > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> > that a man endures is from God's pleasure , the > corollary > > > >> > > > follows -- > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> > whatever a man does , he is free to do and > accountable to man > > > >> > > > and > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> > society. > > > > > >> > > -- > > > >> > > ( > > > >> > > ) > > > >> > > |_D Allan > > > > > >> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted > text - > > > > > >> > - Show quoted text - > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
