Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby charon on November 14th, 2019, 7:38 pm 

Then don't discuss it, I don't mind :-)

But it matters that human beings are in confusion, doesn't it? Which obviously they are. And if you look at the causes of that confusion, what do you see?

You don't have to discuss this either but it might be worthwhile.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby Serpent on November 14th, 2019, 8:56 pm 

charon » November 14th, 2019, 6:38 pm wrote:But it matters that human beings are in confusion, doesn't it? Which obviously they are. And if you look at the causes of that confusion, what do you see?

They are many and various. I'm not at all sure confusion is the real problem. Obfuscation, deception and disinformation certainly are. So is anxiety. Most people may be confused about some issues, while quite clear on others. The power elite are not confused, though they have the wrong agenda; zealots are not confused, though they may follow bad causes.
It'll all get sorted out, after the AI takeover.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby charon on November 15th, 2019, 12:52 am 

I think that's the point, that they're many and various. We're not talking about being confused over trivial things but being confused about living as a whole.

My trouble is I'm rather serious and I don't know how serious you want to be. Certainly the things you mention, like deception - self-deception and deceiving others - are all indicative of confusion. But are they causes or effects?

I think most people are completely confused, but they wouldn't accept that. They wouldn't accept that their consciousness is in a state of total confusion and the chaos of the world is the result.

As you said, a person with, say, a belief or a cause can be very clear about it - what they want to achieve, what they want to conquer, who they want to influence or get rid of, and so on. Hitler was quite clear about what he wanted to do. But that whole movement of identification with the cause or belief to me indicates confusion. The ambitious person is very definitely confused because ambition is destructive.

Being confused, and probably not seeing it clearly, people turn to guides, leaders, and all that. They'd say that they were quite clear about what they were doing - but they wouldn't be doing it if they weren't confused. They wouldn't need leaders, they wouldn't be followers.

Most people gladly accept the ways of the world because they see no alternative but it may be that belonging to the world in that sense is confusion in itself. A person who is clear doesn't belong to anything inwardly, he has no need.

It's a difficult subject, I'm sorry to have brought it up.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby Serpent on November 15th, 2019, 1:31 am 

charon » November 14th, 2019, 11:52 pm wrote:I think that's the point, that they're many and various. We're not talking about being confused over trivial things but being confused about living as a whole.

Then you'll have to separate individuals rfom groups, and that's not easy.

My trouble is I'm rather serious and I don't know how serious you want to be.

I don't particularly want to be serious on this level. You seem to be want a one-stop solution to the human condition - and that's just not going to happen.

Certainly the things you mention, like deception - self-deception and deceiving others - are all indicative of confusion.

No, they are not, and they don't even belong in the same sentence. Deception of others is conscious and purposeful; aimed at a recognized outcome. Self-deception is something quite different. The short version for its aim would be escape - if the subject were aware of doing it.

But are they causes or effects?

Both.

I think most people are completely confused, but they wouldn't accept that. They wouldn't accept that their consciousness is in a state of total confusion and the chaos of the world is the result.

I think that's back-assward.

But that whole movement of identification with the cause or belief to me indicates confusion. The ambitious person is very definitely confused because ambition is destructive.

You mean, any belief or action you think is wrong comes from confusion?
Naw, lots of times, they're lucid and evil; other times, they're lucid and disagree with you.

Being confused, and probably not seeing it clearly, people turn to guides, leaders, and all that.

All social animals have leaders. They go about selecting leaders in different ways.

They wouldn't need leaders, they wouldn't be followers.

Confusion isn't the only reason people follow a leader. Think about how this began. Imagine being in a troupe of clever apes in a situation of changing climate. (A stretch, I realize!) Everybody you know and love is in danger. If you stay where you've been living, the food will disappear and the water will dry up. You have to leave. But - to where? Which way? If they all go off in different directions, they'll almost certainly be picked off by jackals. What happens next?

Most people gladly accept the ways of the world

Take out 'gladly'.
because they see no alternative

Ah, but seeing alternatives is what most of the conflict and strife is about. People see alternatives - but maybe not all the same alternative, and there are those who like things just as they are. That's usually the sticking-point: somebody's got their own way and will try very hard to keep it. The people who have their own way at any given time also have the means to protect their own interest, so the people who want a different way must expand a great deal more energy. They often fail.

but it may be that belonging to the world in that sense is confusion in itself.

Survival requires a recognition of reality as found.
A person who is clear doesn't belong to anything inwardly, he has no need.

I have never met such a person. Sounds like Dianetics.

It's a difficult subject, I'm sorry to have brought it up.

It's a big subject. Probably better tackled in segments.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby charon on November 15th, 2019, 8:05 am 

...

Then you'll have to separate individuals from groups, and that's not easy.


I'm not sure we can. Groups are the individuals that compose them. Which makes me wonder if they are really individuals because they're part of a group.

I know what they say - 'They may be in a group but everyone's unique' and all that. Well, I can't see much point in being in a group in that case!

You seem to be want a one-stop solution to the human condition - and that's just not going to happen


You're quite right, it's not - even if I did have a one-step solution!

Deception of others is conscious and purposeful; aimed at a recognized outcome. Self-deception is something quite different. The short version for its aim would be escape - if the subject were aware of doing it.


Absolutely, but would someone who was clear in themselves want to deceive others, much less themselves?

You understand, I'm giving a deeper meaning to the word clear. I can be very clear about certain things but I'm talking about being clear per se, not 'about' something. Does that make sense?

I think that's back-assward.


I'm not sure what that means. Back to front?

You mean, any belief or action you think is wrong comes from confusion?


Not what I think. Obviously the attachment to any belief is the result of confusion otherwise why bother? I cling to my belief - which separates me from others - out of loneliness, fear, a desire for comfort or hope, and so on.

All that is confusion as far as I'm concerned. A clear person wouldn't have any of that. That's the whole point.

All social animals have leaders. They go about selecting leaders in different ways.


You're missing the point. Why do we want to be led? Sheep need to be led, guided, otherwise they don't do anything. But we're not sheep, we're supposed to be intelligent human beings!

Confusion isn't the only reason people follow a leader.


No, I'm saying following a leader is itself confusion. Why would a person with a clear mind want to follow anybody?

What happens next?


Depends on the apes :-)

Either they cooperate intelligently or they do the usual thing, which is elect a leader - or have a leader forced upon them -and the clever ones fight for leadership. Stupid, ugly business. We've forgotten how to cooperate, we don't know what it means.

See, in following a leader one's own integrity is usurped. I'm just a drone to be given orders. Where is my own intelligence then? It goes down the drain - that's usually what happens next.

Take out 'gladly'.


You mean unwillingly then? Possibly, but that means they don't accept it. Those people in Hong Kong are not accepting it, thank god. And good for them.

Ah, but seeing alternatives is what most of the conflict and strife is about. People see alternatives - but maybe not all the same alternative, and there are those who like things just as they are. That's usually the sticking-point: somebody's got their own way and will try very hard to keep it. The people who have their own way at any given time also have the means to protect their own interest, so the people who want a different way must expand a great deal more energy. They often fail.


Exactly, which means cooperate, not 'my way' and 'your way'.

Survival requires a recognition of reality as found.


But not necessarily an acceptance.

Sounds like Dianetics.


I know :-) When I was writing 'clear' I thought Dianetics too! I definitely don't mean Dianetics. If they weren't lost beings they wouldn't do Dianetics or anything else like that.

Probably better tackled in segments.


I was thinking that too.

We probably ought to be very clear first what we mean by confusion. I think, fundamentally, it means a state of disorder. After all, if there was order in the world there wouldn't be wars, there'd be peace. But, as things are now, there's complete disorder. Maybe pockets of good here and there, but basically not.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby Serpent on November 15th, 2019, 1:39 pm 

charon » November 15th, 2019, 7:05 am wrote:...
I'm not sure we can. Groups are the individuals that compose them.

Not exactly. Each individual contributes something to the group - something that is then no longer their own to control, but makes the group richer and more powerful than the same number of separate individuals could be. Each member also receives something from the group - something that then makes that individual richer and more powerful than he would be alone. The transaction - and it's a continuous give-and-take throughout the life of the individual - changes the character of each participant. It's the nature of the multiple transactions between the group and its individual members that characterizes the group.

Which makes me wonder if they are really individuals because they're part of a group.

Yes and no. It's the duality of all social animals. You have an inward face and outward face - and they constantly affect each other's expression.

I know what they say - 'They may be in a group but everyone's unique' and all that. Well, I can't see much point in being in a group in that case!

Can't you really? Go walkabout for a month: speak to nobody, rely on your own tool-making and hunting skills to survive.

You're quite right, it's not - even if I did have a one-step solution!

You did offer one already: stop having ideas and go to the shop. Sounds a bit like something a former US president advised one sorry day.

Absolutely, but would someone who was clear in themselves want to deceive others, much less themselves?

I'm not sure what "clear" means to you. D.J. Trump wants, has always wanted, to be seen as the most powerful man in the world: the Ultimate Alpha. He's been very clear about that in the four decades I've been aware of him. He's achieved that - by any means necessary, including deception on a massive scale. Rupert Murdoch wanted to be the most influential man in the world - felt but not seen. He's achieved that through mass deception on a sneakier route.
If they also entertained a degree of self-deception, it would be for the purpose of face-saving in the mirror of their society's declared values; that is, to escape censure by some internalized social conscience. But I don't know that either man has done so.

You understand, I'm giving a deeper meaning to the word clear. I can be very clear about certain things but I'm talking about being clear per se, not 'about' something. Does that make sense?

It's an imaginable state but improbable of attainment.

[back-assward]

I'm not sure what that means. Back to front?

Upside-down, wrong way around, yes.

[what you think is wrong comes from confusion?]

Not what I think. Obviously the attachment to any belief is the result of confusion otherwise why bother?

Why bother? People don't "bother" to believe things. They believe according to input from their environment. And, yes, that data can be very confused and confusing. We each make what sense of it we can. We have pattern-recognizing, pattern-seeking, pattern-forming brains.

I cling to my belief - which separates me from others - out of loneliness, fear, a desire for comfort or hope, and so on.

That may be someone's motivation, and all of those desires are valid.
All that is confusion as far as I'm concerned. A clear person wouldn't have any of that.

Maybe not. I don't see it demonstrated. I've never seen a "clear" person. I've certainly known people who think critically and logically. Yet everyone I know believes something - or, rather, quite a lot of things, but for what I consider clear thinkers, all those beliefs cohere as a self-consistent world-view and set of convictions.

That's the whole point.

Yet here you are, defending a belief that other people's beliefs are all wrong.
You're missing the point.

I disagree.

Why do we want to be led?

Because we each don't know everything we need to know and can't do everything we need to do in order to survive. We need to pool our resources, skills and efforts in organized endeavours. The projects we undertake as groups (of whatever size) need to be co-ordinated, else we'd sound like an orchestra before the conductor steps on stage.

Sheep need to be led, guided, otherwise they don't do anything.

Poor example. Sheep have been bred by humans to be docile and stupid (by human standards). And yet, what they would do, left to their own devices, is graze, seek shelter from storms and evade predators - iow, live their natural life. They would also have a top ram and several younger rams to stand out front and defend the flock and senior ewes to surround the lambs in the center.

But we're not sheep, we're supposed to be intelligent human beings!

Which just means that our collectives and endeavours are more complex and require more kinds of organization.

[Confusion isn't the only reason people follow a leader.]
No, I'm saying following a leader is itself confusion. Why would a person with a clear mind want to follow anybody?

Because he doesn't know the way to the nearest well? Isn't strong enough to draw a bow? Can't find the medicinal herb that will cure his headache? Has not clue #1 how to build a Mars rover?

[What happens next?]

Depends on the apes :-)
Either they cooperate intelligently or they do the usual thing, which is elect a leader - or have a leader forced upon them -and the clever ones fight for leadership. Stupid, ugly business.

A natural business. Evolution is messy and ugly and mindless.

We've forgotten how to cooperate, we don't know what it means.

When did we know? How did we forget?

See, in following a leader one's own integrity is usurped. I'm just a drone to be given orders. Where is my own intelligence then? It goes down the drain - that's usually what happens next.

You seem to think all leadership is absolutely despotic. This is an inaccurate assessment.

You mean unwillingly [accept the world] then? Possibly, but that means they don't accept it. Those people in Hong Kong are not accepting it, thank god. And good for them.

They're an exceptional minority, and a lot of them will yet be killed and hurt. The majority of the world's population lacks that courage or desperation, or have something still to lose. The majority also feel that it's worth their while to make the compromises required by their circumstances. The choices are usually quite limited. Life is hard and precarious for very many people in the world.

Exactly, which means cooperate, not 'my way' and 'your way'.

That would be nice. That's how Utopias generally work: by consensus - which, incidentally, doesn't preclude leadership. It's remarkable how similar utopian ideals have been through human history.

[Survival requires a recognition of reality as found]
But not necessarily an acceptance.

Successful non-acceptance comes in five waves: 1. the martyrs, 2. the uprising 3. the consolidation [?purge] 4. new status quo; complacency 5. the erosion of integrity; decline.
Those are concerted revolutions, with an ideology, organization and leadership.
Lacking that organization, you stop at the first wave - they don't survive and nothing changes.
Hong Kong is in the second wave now. My prognosis: it will end there, followed by repression, reprisals and worse conditions than before.
Non-acceptance is always a risk.

[Probably better tackled in segments.]

I was thinking that too.

We probably ought to be very clear first what we mean by confusion. I think, fundamentally, it means a state of disorder. After all, if there was order in the world there wouldn't be wars, there'd be peace. But, as things are now, there's complete disorder. Maybe pockets of good here and there, but basically not.

Wars are highly organized, hierarchical undertakings. They are intended, by each participating group, to accomplish something. The objective is sometimes very clear; at other times obscure and/or compound, and sometimes downright murky. Some of the events become confused and disorderly because of miscalculations, random factors and destructive outcomes.
Peace can also be clear, obscure, complicated or murky.
There is not complete disorder: the traffic lights are still mainly reliable; there is food on the grocery store shelves in prosperous western cities; schools, courtrooms, sanitation departments and hospitals all over the world are functioning efficiently.
There is a high and rising level of disorder due to excess population, dwindling resources, esoteric technology and climate change, as well as an unprecedented concentration of wealth and power. There are conflicting interests on a vaster scale than has ever existed before.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby charon on November 15th, 2019, 2:59 pm 

Thanks, good post. They're getting longer and longer!

I'm probably not making myself very clear, ironically. Most of the time I'm talking psychologically. When I say 'led', for example, I mean depending on being told what to rather than think for oneself.

When I say leaders I don't mean those in charge of a project or some other set-up. They almost certainly know more than we do - for example a doctor - and we'd be wise to listen to them. I'm talking more of leaders in the sense of those who guide ideological groups and that sort of thing.

You're perfectly right about the benefits of being in a group but it depends on what kind of group. I'm not talking about isolation. We all belong to something outwardly, a family, a business firm, a club, and so on. But there's a massive difference between belonging to something outwardly and belonging inwardly. Psychologically we like to belong because we feel safe, protected. It benefits us in inward ways, not just in outward terms. If a certain group or person doesn't supply what we want we go somewhere else. So really it's a process of mutual exploitation; they all support each other. In that sense standing alone is impossible - but one has to stand alone. Not necessarily outwardly but inwardly.

Clarity in the sense I mean it is akin to freedom. Not only outwardly, the freedom from oppression, but the freedom inwardly - the freedom from problems, confusion, dependency, fear, and all the rest of it. After all, that is our life. What is happening inwardly is much more important than the outer circumstances. We can have all the freedom we want outwardly but if there's no freedom inwardly life isn't worth living. And most people are not inwardly free at all, hence all the problems in the world. The outer state is a reflection of the inner state of each one of us.

Is that any clearer?
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby Serpent on November 15th, 2019, 3:45 pm 

charon » November 15th, 2019, 1:59 pm wrote:Thanks, good post. They're getting longer and longer!

I'm probably not making myself very clear, ironically. Most of the time I'm talking psychologically. When I say 'led', for example, I mean depending on being told what to rather than think for oneself.

That is one kind of leadership. Don't conflate all leadership with the one of which you most disapprove.

When I say leaders I don't mean those in charge of a project or some other set-up. They almost certainly know more than we do - for example a doctor - and we'd be wise to listen to them. I'm talking more of leaders in the sense of those who guide ideological groups and that sort of thing.

Then you should say what you mean.

I'm not talking about isolation. We all belong to something outwardly, a family, a business firm, a club, and so on.

All of which groups, inward and outward, have some decisions to make and their actions need to be co-ordinated. How the conductor is chosen by the group is of importance in their functioning.

So really it's a process of mutual exploitation; they all support each other.

Exploitation is negative and predatory; mutual support is positive and co-operative. You need to distinguish those concepts.

...but one has to stand alone. Not necessarily outwardly but inwardly.

You can do both, but you don't have to.

Clarity in the sense I mean it is akin to freedom. Not only outwardly, the freedom from oppression, but the freedom inwardly - the freedom from problems, confusion, dependency, fear, and all the rest of it.

No, no, no! Those things may all have been in Pandora's box once upon a time, but they are loose in the world now; don't come as a package; are not so manageable - and certainly not with "all the rest of it".

After all, that is our life. What is happening inwardly is much more important than the outer circumstances.

Only after the basic needs have been met. You can't have a spiritual life if you're dead... unless you believe in an afterlife, which is many people's internal response to external hopelessness and powerlessness.

We can have all the freedom we want outwardly but if there's no freedom inwardly life isn't worth living.

That is a personal opinion to which you are entitled but to which nobody else is obliged to subscribe.

And most people are not inwardly free at all, hence all the problems in the world. The outer state is a reflection of the inner state of each one of us.

Sure. Have you considered the challenge of bringing "clarity" to multiple troupes of schizophrenic baboons, all overpopulating their territory and running out of water?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby edy420 on November 15th, 2019, 7:30 pm 

I've finally found someone I want to vote for.. This year will be my first vote in 17 years.

This political party is not one of the main two, which people vote for, so it got my thinking.
Why is there usually two main parties at the top, who go head to head for the top spot, year after year?

I think its because they have a rivalry. In any combat sport, a rivalry draws in fans. Politics is too, a combat sport in a way..

Am I on to something?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby Serpent on November 15th, 2019, 7:53 pm 

edy420 » November 15th, 2019, 6:30 pm wrote:I think its because they have a rivalry. In any combat sport, a rivalry draws in fans. Politics is too, a combat sport in a way..

Am I on to something?

It does become a rivalry between two sides, which the media enjoy, because it's easy to present simplistically and dramatically for an audience they've been under-serving for so long, it's almost dumbed down to the level of the reportage.
But I don't think that's an underlying motivation for the candidates; they just perform on the stage they're given. It's mainly down to money. You can't get your message to a lot of voters without funding, and the big money goes to parties that are seen as capable of winning and delivering the quid for their quo. And that support, of course, narrows the field and the coverage, so that minority interests and working class issues are systematically shunted off the agenda.

This year, I voted my conscience, too. Of course, I was aware that my vote wouldn't count anyway - in my riding nobody ever displaces the conservative dynasty, at least until the big city refugees outnumber the rednecks - so there was no question of strategic voting. Still, it feels Good to Go Green. We had lawn signs, too, though we have no lawn.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby charon on November 16th, 2019, 12:28 pm 

Serpent -

That is one kind of leadership. Don't conflate all leadership with the one of which you most disapprove.


What do you consider good leadership, then? As I said, this isn't the same as someone being charge of something; you need a captain on a ship, or an organiser. I mean leadership where someone says 'I know the way. Follow me' and they all troop gaily after :-)

But, to bring it closer to home, may I ask you something? Do you follow anyone? Do you have a leader? Just curious.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby Serpent on November 16th, 2019, 6:44 pm 

charon » November 16th, 2019, 11:28 am wrote:What do you consider good leadership, then? As I said, this isn't the same as someone being charge of something; you need a captain on a ship, or an organiser. I mean leadership where someone says 'I know the way. Follow me' and they all troop gaily after :-)

That would be a guide, and you'd better not go on a white-water adventure without one.
But that's exactly what leadership is supposed to be: a person or persons who "know the way" - the way to find what the group needs, the way to get what the group needs, the way to use and distribute what the group needs and the way to protect what the group needs - including its cohesion.
The elders, or chiefs of a native North American nation would have all those duties - though not necessarily thrust upon one person - it was more commonly a council of elders. There might be one leader in hunting and war, someone else to arbitrate internal conflict and rehabilitation, another (most often a senior woman) to organize the preservation, storage and disbursement of food supplies. All three, or more, would normally decide serious issues, like criminal behaviour, dissent, policy changes, outside threats or major undertakings - usually after lengthy consultation with responsible adults in the tribe and careful deliberation among themselves.
There would also be a shaman - spiritual guide, psychologist and healer - who might or might not be a member of the council. Also, there might be specialized teachers of various crafts and skills.

A good leader is one who 1. has learned the various jobs he or she has to carry out 2. is prepared to do so, if necessary at the cost his or her own comfort and pleasure 3. takes seriously the responsibility of the office 4. puts the welfare of the tribe before any other consideration 5. respects and values each individual member 6. knows where, when and how to ask for advice and 7. has the full confidence of his or her people.

Do you have a leader?

Not now. I have known one Ojibwa elder who met all the qualification I listed above - and was elected six times. He died last year at age 95. Just a long-time acquaintance, though; I'm not Ojibwa. In my youth - that would be mid-sixties to early seventies - I stuffed envelopes for, got hosed by police with and marched around after Abby Lippman, Kalman Kaplansky, some anti-war types, human and animals rights activists and tree-huggers, but I can't recall any names.
I have supported a few political leaders, most recently, Jack Layton of the federal NDP. He's dead, too. I'd follow Elizabeth May (our very own Harriet Jones) but she's gone and stepped down.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby charon on November 16th, 2019, 8:49 pm 

Okay, but you haven't answered my primary question. Why do you want to follow anybody?

You see, to me all this is confusion. Because people are confused they want a leader. But the leaders are also confused, obviously, which is why they've all failed. Be quite sure about that, that all leaders, social, political or religious, have failed to bring order into society. On the contrary, they've brought trouble, dissension, conflict, violence.

This is factual, it's not a theory. Of course, you may say bringing order isn't their concern, the concern is just to get something done, some reform or other, or an ideological change. But patchwork reform isn't an answer if one considers the mess we're in. It's like chopping the head off an animal that simply grows a new one, or several. That's one point about society, that it's self-perpetuating in its disorder, it just keeps carrying on.

That's why I'm saying that the way of peace is not to belong to anything inwardly. Thus you have no cause, no goals, no aim, no platform. It means you live anonymously; therefore you're automatically a good citizen in whatever unfortunate society you inhabit.

And you'll say being without any cause, goal, aim, etc, is just to drift aimlessly through life. Is that true? Is the person who is pursuing all these things bringing peace? Obviously not, so there must be another way. And there is.

Don't think I'm some kind of hippy or religious nut because I talk about peace. Anybody who has suffered the results of social conflict will tell you what it's like. And, unless they're the type of person who thrives on trouble and violence, and they certainly exist, they won't need to tell you what it's like.

So these leaders are no leaders at all, and that's the first thing to realise.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby Serpent on November 16th, 2019, 11:29 pm 

charon » November 16th, 2019, 7:49 pm wrote:Okay, but you haven't answered my primary question. Why do you want to follow anybody?

I've answered it several times. Because they know a direction, a plan or a method that I don't know; because they have a skill I lack; because they can organize large numbers of people to get something done that I believe should be done.

You see, to me all this is confusion.

I am not astonished.

This is factual, it's not a theory.

It's neither. It is opinion.

But patchwork reform isn't an answer if one considers the mess we're in.

It's all we have, atm (ugh! I can't use that short form anymore) at the moment.

That's why I'm saying that the way of peace is not to belong to anything inwardly. Thus you have no cause, no goals, no aim, no platform. It means you live anonymously; therefore you're automatically a good citizen in whatever unfortunate society you inhabit.

That is your choice.

And you'll say being without any cause, goal, aim, etc, is just to drift aimlessly through life. Is that true?

Sure, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Don't think I'm some kind of hippy or religious nut because I talk about peace.

I have no quarrel with hippies or most religious - or any other kind of - nuts, as long as they don't oppress other people or abuse animals.

Anybody who has suffered the results of social conflict will tell you what it's like.

I have and I know - no need for a second opinion. (One of my cousins got his head shot off, crossing a street - he was unarmed.)
My personal response to the cold war would have been to take all the money they were pouring into the arms race and use it to carpet-bomb the USSR with chocolate bars and blue jeans; the USA with birth control pills and visiting nurses (they'd have parachutes). Nobody acted on my suggestion.

So these leaders are no leaders at all, and that's the first thing to realise.

By "these", you seem to mean all.
IOW, you haven't budged a centimeter from your original contention.
Well, I hope you achieve zen.
For the rest of us conflicted, confused, dissatisfied mortals, the struggle between good and evil continues.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

Postby charon on November 17th, 2019, 1:03 am 

For the rest of us conflicted, confused, dissatisfied mortals, the struggle between good and evil continues.


Exactly, that's the whole point. Except your 'good' isn't good at all, that's why it continues.

There's a vast difference between the good and what you think is good; the one is not the other. Where there's good there's no evil, the two can never be in a struggle.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Previous

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 guests