From: Chen Yixiong, Eric (cyixiong@myrealbox.com)
Date: Sun Jul 21 2002 - 03:22:52 MDT
<<<< When in operate in our society, the more attachment we have in respect to our environment, they more dependency we have on
others. When you desire some stuff, you have to folk out money or some other payment for it. Later you may find that you might
absolutely need to depend on others for your life's operation because you desire so many things. Expensive addictive drugs
illustrate this effect very well. People closer to true freedom make do with the least, not the most desires. >>>>
<< Yes, of course. This is understood. But, you are romanticizing Buddhism and applying it to modern 20/21st century people. >>
I doubt what people call the new morality of relativism. There exist certain principle that remain the same from the past to now, as
long as we remain sentient beings, and has validity. Some actions do contribute to some effects, and if you want to achieve
something, then you have to follow the principles. The principles stay the same all the time, and remains the same in the 21st
Century. Ignore them at your own peril.
In the theory of Sociologistics, the concept of power has a different meaning that what most of people understand. Power comes from
dependency, and actual power from the balance between dependency. When one depends on another, one empowers the other person. When
others depend on one, one gains power. Wherever the power does good or evil, I do not judge in this generalization. In simple terms,
your desires gives rise to dependency on others and empowers others. If you would want more freedom, you should correspondingly
decrease your desires to shift the balance of power towards yourself. I think Buddhism says something like that too.
When you say you have a right to do this or that, you actually say that you demand others to allow you to do that or that you feel
that you can do what the action you want no matter if others like it or not will not stop you. You have to "protect" your rights
from others who want to "take" it from you. All these sounds very adverse, like conquering and defending territories.
With such adverse thinking, most of you will find adversity and conflict very familiar and welcome. While calling yourselves
open-minded, some of you will not hesitate to flame certain people or insult them, confessing their sins rather than listening to
them. Adverse debates on CNN Crossfire excites you rather than makes you feel revolted at the unhappy atmosphere. All these might
sound nice but actually it might do more harm, especially in creating irrational fears among people who already have great fear of
technology that like that there exists a gang of people who want to make super-intelligent robots to take over the world and who
wants to do it regardless if others want to opt-out or not.
You would feel much more receptive to the idea of rebelling against your governments instead of working on a peaceful win-win
solution. You would rather live in a mental war-zone of us verses them than an alternative zone of independent living that takes
advantage of the differences instead of trying to convey everyone to the same mindset. This mindset permeates your works of fiction,
your speech and the way you see the world thoroughly, and often goes without question or notice.
Buddhist philosophy has helped me a lot in developing a more open mind. I think it can help others do that. I don't think the
mindset of relativism and materialism will help us do that. I think we have to grow out of our adverse and materialistic mindset and
Buddhism can help us do that. Buddhist philosophy has its usefulness, even if you do not believe in the religious parts like
reincarnation (and neither do I).
I do not think in a romantic way about Buddhism, but in that merely it has good validity in guiding us in our lives. I only find
interest in the philosophical component, not the religious one. I don't believe in crystal power and most new age stuff, though I do
find it a little interesting. Most of the time I prefer to develop myself in multiple areas and fields of study of the psychological
and technical, not mystical, kind. I attempt to learn as much of the world as I can and apply these as well as I can. I make
mistakes too. The mistake I try most to avoid: "Having an attachment to a mental concept."
<< There is nothing wrong with being attached to you friends and responsibilities. There is something severely wrong with not being
self-responsible. >>
I disagree. I see it as a difference in mindset. Because many of us have accepted and assimilated the concepts of our society into
our minds, as well as certain aspects of our brain's programming, it makes sense to feel responsibility for genetically related
families.
You use the relationship perspective to speak about this, and I use the detached logic perspective. We have many more differences
and debating about this would not help.
<< It is my belief that this is of far greater current-day necessity than Zen Buddhism, but it does not mean that we can achieve
transhumanist goals without certain aspects of the Buddhist philosophy which is indeed beneficial to both our perceptions of the
world around us and the manner in which we respond to the world around us. >>
I agree here. I don't intend to choose the career of a Zen master. I want to take part in the exciting evolution of humanity via the
Singularity.
<<<< Once, while on the subway, I thought deeply about life and suffering. Then, all of a sudden, I realized why we should remove
our desires. We pay the price with the immense dissatisfaction we constantly receive, a form of suffering, from our desiring to
acquire certain things and yet our apparent inability to fulfill them. When I can sense the suffering from my past thinking clearly,
then I can realize innately why I should live with minimal desires and attachment. I still "own" things in a legal sense, but I know
they do not really belong to me. >>>>
<< While I understand your thoughts on this, I do not agree with it for myself. >>
You would not understand it until you experience it directly for yourself. Before this, I do not really understand it too.
<< This is not a fact, only an assumption based on an overly rigid stance or opposition to the West. While I may not agree with the
governmental policies and practices of the "West", I certainly do not think that this phrase is the credo for the West. Let's take
into consideration all the many helpful and humanitarian acts the West does on a daily basis and then reconsider the phrase. Sounds
like bad propaganda to me. >>
See what happens: you had just made some assumptions about what I said and then use the incorrect (in the sense that if you want to
understand what I say) mindset to perceive it.
When I said "West", I put quotation marks to indicate that I mean it differently than what it literally says. In the correct
context, I do not refer to a geographical region but to the duality school of thinking and logic associated with Socrates and in
widespread use by developed countries in the world today.
This demonstrates the problem we have in our societies today: People do not listen to each other, but merely hear each other. Free
speech hardly helps when people only stand on soapboxes, assert their rights to talk freely and talk all they want but no one
listens (but that does not mean I oppose free speech, dualistic readers!).
<< Yes. I think there are flaws in the representation of Libertarian ideas. I think that it is probably the smartest political
perspective, but not the most user-friendly. >>
I see a difference between a popular perspective that looks correct, and a perspective that actually offers usefulness. If I have
enough money I will probably bet that Libertarianism will go the way of communism by 2050.
Over the this and the next decade, I predict that Libertarianism will gain increasing amounts of influence to make it inroads into
many Governments around the world, with parties dedicated to Libertarianism in operational in almost all developed countries and
some developing countries. Once sufficiently popular, some Libertarian radicals will set off a wave of violence in the not too far
future to gain their freedom from government. Some more peaceful ones will try to build societies that will eventually fail and
deteriorate into rudimentary governments a little like how China's failed experiment with communism deteriorate into capitalism.
While this happens, they will vigorously defend Libertarianism while under attack by new political thought that arises to challenge
it.
Disclaimer: I do not have an axe to grind with those of you who support Libertarian thought. I just want to say that I think that
Libertarianism hardly constitutes a working solution for our societies, especially when it has such an adverse mindset (such as with
concepts of rights). No other solutions fulfilling my criteria exists too and I actively explore alternative systems.
<< This seems like an avoidance for dealing with the issues that face us today. >>
Just my two cents opinion: Denying the validity of Buddhist thinking seems like an avoidance for the issues we must confront one
day.
<< Thank you for your reply and I wish you well. >>
Same to you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:36 MST