Re: Yuletide
Posted by:
Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 11 January, 2005 11:17AM
Ludde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish wrote: -"...that's what the prison gurads
> say, too."
>
> Is that a joke, like being in the "nuthouse"? Or
> are you in prison? Why? Would you share a few
> thoughts about this experience?
Hah, hah! No, it's a joke, Ludde. Just a feeble attempt at ironic humor.
You don't think I'd tell you if I were actually in prison by suggesting that the guards had commented on my well-adjusted behavior, do you? More likely, I would proclaim my innocence, and comment on the brutality of the guards...
>
> Your new outlook on life sounds very sensible,
> even though it seems like the materialist's and
> atheist's point of view. I will save some of its
> essence in my memory.
>
> I am sure it is a good outlook, as long as you are
> also practically in touch with the spiritual side
> of life, the subtle unmeasurable dimensions not
> seen with the bodily senses. Of course, you
> mention caring for the individuals around you, and
> as long as you fully can handle that as a true
> insight it will be alright. Otherwise I am afraid
> this kind of anti-philosophy 'could' form a
> lifestyle leading into prison as a last stop.
Could be, except for the part about attempting to help those around you *whom you know*.
>
> The pure egoist could easily feel comfortable in
> that philosophy (it is a philosophy, like any
> other. There is nothing wrong with philosophizing,
> it is a way of learning to understand what seems
> confused, growing and maturing, and it will
> eventually lead to more relaxing and security).
> What I miss in it, is more concentration on the
> fact that we are social beings, interconnected.
Let's not get too general in this vague description of interconnection. I've seen far too many people swallow this completely, wholey, and without question.
I am saying that scoping is everything, as regards how one might live one's life in a satisfying and fulfilling manner. Let me explain.
In 188<something>, Krakatoa went off, killing thousands. It was months before most people knew of it, if they ever heard of it, at all. This huge and catastrophic loss of human life affected in lessening degree: the victims themselves; their immediate survivors; those who knew the victims and survivors; those who had economic ties with the victims and survivors; those who had economic tiwes with those who had economic ties with the victims and survivors. To the rest of humanity--and that is the vast majority--this loss affected them in no material way. The greatest material affect was a temporary change in the weather--and that, I'm sure you'll agree, had no causal connection with the loss of human life.
Why do I use this as an example? Quite simply because it illustrates how much of Western humanity tends to do a number on itself. The loss to the victims and those related to them was very real: they required no one to inform them of the catastrophe, nor did they need an itermediary to tell them that they had cause to feel sad. However, for the farmer in Arkansas, he would require both the information of the disaster, AND an intermediary to tell him that he should, in fact, feel bad about something that his inistincts tell him to ignore as meaningless. I don't know about how it is where you live, but around here (Oregon, USA), I can tune in any number of religion-based TV channels that are, guess what? telling me about a heretofore unknown calamity ("the folks in central Africa are suffering from lack of prayerbooks"), and telling me that I should feel just *terrible* about it. I should feel bad enough to send some money "to support our mission to the good Chrsitians of central Africa".
You see, legitmate or not, I can feel no *actual* connection unless I am told to. The natural connection is non-existent.
An orthogonal leap, now.
I seldom wish to quote any "authority", since it seems to me to be a way of arguing that absoloute knowledge is held by some, to be dispensed at their suffrance to those they deem worthy. That sounds suspiciouly like a priestly hierarchy, doesn't it? The exception is when I hear a bit of advice that is so correct that I'd like to steal it, and claim it as my own, but the source of the advice/observation is so well-known that I am afraid to make public use of it without attribution. I'd like to steal it and use it, you see, but I'm afraid that I wouldn't get away with it.
A lot of early Buddhism is like this. It seems to me that it is principally a bunch of advice for how not to make yourself needlessly unhappy--and doesn't this sound like the antithesis of the person who wrings his/her hands in guilt, in New York City, over the Rwanda business some years back? Doesn't it seem that reading about massacres on the other side of the world amongst folks with whom you have no material ties, at all, and stridently developing an ulcer over it, seem like a vertiable insult to no less a philosopher than Siddhattha, his own self? And what, pray tell, could the denizen of the Westside do about it, in any significant sense, to alter the situation there? I'd say that they can do essentially nothing for those involved, but they can, however, make themselves feel like richer, more noble individuals by public breastbeating, then giving some minor token to an itermediary who assures him/her that this token will, indeed, help.
Naturally, there are practical, material lessons to be learned from these tragedies, such as trying to spot potential trouble early, and taking steps to avoid it, but to think that there is a meaningful connection thru which one such individual may consistently and reliably touch another is pure wishful thinking, just waiting to be exploited by the more cynical among us.
This situation reverse itself however, when you focus your energies on actual connections close-at-hand. My co-worker was laid-off; I can join with other co-workers still employed and get money to him (if he'll take it) and this will help him to send his kids to the school he felt was so important to their future. This is a profound material benefit, and I can see it happening without the need for an intermediary. I can therefore worry *a lot* about those close at hand, whom I care about, and offer material/spiritual help that is both effecvtive and genuinely need, rather than offering ineffective material help to a stranger (whom, given the *extremely unlikely* opportunity to meet, I may actively dislike/disrespect) to be admisinstered by an intermediary whose motives could easily fall under the scrutiny of conflict-of-interest statutes, were he a financial advisor.
Is all this clear?
> Interconnected with every living thing, (even the
> trees... we breath what they breath out and visa
> versa). No one is on his own. And when you treat
> others you simultaneously treat yourself in the
> same way. We are actually one big organism, where
> harm to one part affect all other parts in some
> way, eventually if not directly. Here I agree with
> you that ordinary people do best in caring for
> their close community, since other longway
> "caring" is a fruitlees, grinding mental
> frustration if allowed to dominate the mind. And
> of course one should care for oneself.
>
> Lovecraft truly understood the importance of
> social interconnection, and it was an integrite
> part of him. He understood it from deductions of
> his scientific and philosophical knowledge. But
> Lovecraft was extremely intelligent, and composed
> of much knowledge from wide sources; and I doubt
> most people can come to such integrite conclusions
> from purely practical thinking, without either an
> experience from childhood of good treatment or a
> spiritual belief. Lovecraft thought that
> Christianity was good because it held the masses
> at bay from delving into too much destructive
> egoism.
From reading Lovecraft's letters, I can respect his intelligence, but in no way would I want to use him for a guru.
> In our modern new society of liberalism,
> Christianity is loosing ground. Everyone is to be
> "free" to form his own view of life. No set
> values. And with no common moral values to guide
> the community kaos results.
I agree that blind adherence to positive religious doctrine serves as a benefit to social order. This is one of the ironies of life that amuses me to no end, and convinces me that humanity is still pretty animalistic.
>
> p.s. Perhaps we should stop this discussion. It is
> seems to be going outside the area of this forum.
Two points:
1) where might we continue it; and
2) it's not like we're wasting bandwidth on the Forum, you know. This is the first traffic I've seen on it in about two weeks.
I tried my best, I really did, to get something going about a week or so ago, but no response.