Leidee Posted February 8, 2007 Just going to jump in here... Something I keep feeling through Wayfarer's posts is a lament for the belief that we have lost the ability to care in a direct, obvious physical way - or, maybe more accurately, that we have lost the interaction involved with caring. Personally, I do not believe that people don't care and I also do not believe that people care less now than they did 50 years ago. My life is full of rich experiences, both in "real life" and in on line experiences where I give caring - be it warmth, words, sense of humour, touch, smiles (smiles is a big one guys and m'leidees!) and I find most people are just waiting, waiting so patiently for someone to be KIND to them. And all it took for this change to occur in my life was to change the way I thought and felt about myself and to extend that change into the way I would treat other people. Wayfarer - have you watched The Secret? I don't know much about quantum physics (other than I think Fred Wolff is a frkn LEGEND) but, in essence, your thoughts shape your reality. If you already envisage or imagination what you are going to see/experience in the near future, it is almost impossible to see the real experience through the fog of your expectations. Also, Wayfarer - I do find it interesting that whilst you lambast society for not caring you mention your work for tenant's rights (from memory - so forgive me in advance if I have the details incorrect!). Why? Sean - did you get that inquiry from Byron Katie? Anyway - that's my two cents. Peace out Leidee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wayfarer64 Posted February 8, 2007 I am not disagreeing with the notion that we make our own reality through our projections of mind into the future. Where are most people projecting themselves? Are their typical goals materialistic or spiritual? I am just taking note of trends that are cyclical as well as linear. We have discussed elsewhere how societies tend to swing in a sort of infinity figure from left to right... Not linear or circular but a sort of spiral perhaps, with several crossing and over-laping trends. But a cut-throat materialism is the general value system being manifested. Again, my point is that virtue is traditionaly about being a contributing citizen not a seeker. There are certainly trends towards an acceptance of others that is totaly imbedded in our society. There is far less racism, sexism or acceptance of other social strictures that inhibit free interaction- for instance, than there were 50 years ago. But that does not preclude the very notion that you bring up- Why should you care about anyone else or expect them to care about you? My point is that that very notion would have boggled the minds of people until very recently. The whole basis of virtue is a social one, not an internalized or introspective one. There is no virtue other than in how we are treating each-other. We have become isolated as a society far more than what was typical ever before. Once again I doubt that many TaoBums fit into that societal mold as a majority of our demographic. But the basic nature of the digital age has given a Natural rise to the very notion of why should I care about anyone else. It is not needed now. It once was. That is my point. I am not putting that large of a value on the phenomina intailed as it may seem. I may miss the tribal qualities of being a hippy in the 60's & 70's, the free love and fearless sexuality, the changing of social norms etc... but I do not lament the passing of the mayhem that went with it. I expect change in a very deep and accepting manner. But there is a hardness of attitude within our society that was less acceptible in the past. It may be more honest for some to behave that way than it is for others. I do know that basic human needs include a convivial social framework in which to live. The more cut-throat we need to be in order to stay in the rat-race the less compassion is needed to fit into the social norms. As more women join the corporate world of getting ahead at any cost the more our kids are seeing the need for selfishness in life etc... We may have fought in the school yards but there were seldom any weapons and never any guns as is pretty common today. These are harder times with less need for civil interaction and caring, so there is less being shown. It is as natural to us as creating global warming or extending our wills in amy other manner available. It is what people do best. Most here at the TaoBums do not appear to be striving to conquer anything but themselves. But I see the trending towards selfishness as real in the wider world. China and India are each a very good example of this trend away from extended family life into big-city competition. The USA is already there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted February 8, 2007 I don't know much about quantum physics (other than I think Fred Wolff is a frkn LEGEND) but, in essence, your thoughts shape your reality. Chinese astrology's take: 40% of reality is destiny, written in the stars, can't be changed; another 40% is shaped by personal actions and choices (not thoughts); the remaining 20% is left to pure chance. Marcus Aurelius's take: "the body is flowing waters, the mind is dreams and vapors." My personal take: most people's thoughts shape their unreality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sean Posted February 8, 2007 Sean - did you get that inquiry from Byron Katie? Yes, I've gotten a lot out of her method of inquiry and also the 3-2-1 Shadow Process recommended by the Integral Institute. And the Meta Model of NLP (Structure of Magic ) come to think of it. Your post is exactly what I was trying to get at with WayFarer btw. Whenever I find myself thinking or saying sweeping generalizations about entire cultures, particularly when it involves assumptions of my ability to mind read, I get a lot more out of reversing the statements and treating them as projections of my own issues that need to be resolved, as opposed to trying to defend them as real and "out there". Sean Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wayfarer64 Posted February 9, 2007 Nietzsche believed that the aim of true morality must be to safeguard the natural advantage of the strong, brave,enterprising, superior... Darwin, in "The Descent of Man" had already opined the survival of the fittest rule and social Darwinism is a popular concept today. Further back we have Carlyle in "Past and Present" (Happy, my brother? First of all, what difference is it whether thou art happy or not?)... So the concept of morality has many componants. Both Bolshevism and Fascism were intensely moral, in pretension at least, and bristle with harsh thou shalt-nots...As H.L. Mencken noted in his " Treatise of Right and Wrong"... For many mellenia people have looked outside of themselves in an effort to deny the role of revelation and delve into the realm of objective observation to find truths that were not based on their own internalized rationalizations. Noone thinks of themselves as being "wrong" in the actions they perpetrate. We all rationalize our activities. The Pol Pots and Stalins etc. can each find it in themselves to allow the most heinous of cruelties with some interpretation of their actions that will excuse the obvious disregard for their victim's wellfare. The changing moral climate of various time-frames has been going on since men gathered around a fire for the first time ever. An observation of aspects of these changes in how we inter-act is not mind-reading. The study of history itself is based on such observable phenomina. There will always be shifting norms in acceptible behaviors. It remains that virtue is still gauged by the basic laws of conduct,-thou shalt not- Kill, steal, bare false witness etc... Still, a one-time sin such as adultery is no longer a big deal as it once was. There is no law against it in New Jersey, though there may still be in other states and nations. The French relaxed their rules on adultery before most, for instance, and they were staunch Catholics for many centuries... The Catholic church remains anchored in less modern strictures, but is rapidly losing adherants...Life goes on... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonah Posted February 9, 2007 Some more food for thought - te as your present-moment karmic bank-account... From wikipedia: Translating te into English is problematic and controversial. Arthur Waley believed that te was better translated "power" than "virtue", and explained with a "bank of fortune" metaphor. "It is usually translated 'virtue', and this often seems to work quite well; though where the word occurs in early, pre-moralistic texts such a translation is in reality quite false. But if we study the usage of the word carefully we find that te can be bad as well as good. What is a 'bad virtue'? Clearly 'virtue' is not a satisfactory equivalent. Indeed on examining the history of the word we find that it means something much more like the Indian karma, save that the fruits of te are generally manifested here and now; whereas karma is bound up with a theory of transmigration, and its effects are usually not seen in this life, but in a subsequent incarnation. Te is anything that happens to one or that one does of a kind indicating that, as a consequence, one is going to meet with good or bad luck. It means, so to speak, the stock of credit (or the deficit) that at any given moment a man has at the bank of fortune. Such a stock is of course built up partly by the correct carrying out of ritual; but primarily by securing favourable omens; for unless the omens are favourable, no rite can be carried out at all. "(1958:31) Based on the cognate relation between te and zhi "to plant", Waley further noted the early Chinese regarded planting seeds as a te, hence it "means a latent power, a 'virtue' inherent in something." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wayfarer64 Posted February 9, 2007 From another thread this seems very applicable here- Lao-Chuang mysticism are still conspicuous: the underlying pure entity which is just there (the One, the Tao), and the perfect man who is not bound by perception and emotion. No flight from the world is advised by Seng-chao, but a reflective, responsive attitude towards it. "Because the true man views the transformations of the universe as all of one breath, he passes through, adapting himself to whatever he encounters." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spectrum Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) Two quotes: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" - Krishnamurti 'The autumn sun lets fall a pale radiance' The great void, the cool sky is calm Crystal billiance, the white sun is autumn The round light contains all things And its broken image enters the quiet stream Far up and uniting with the blue depths Away and down floating with the river plain The shades at noon make all the trees distinct The slanting light falls on the high houses Sung Yu climbed up and resented it Chang Heng looked into the distance and grieved But if that last glow can be trusted Will those paths in the clouds be sad, sad? Wang Wei (699-761) Edited February 11, 2007 by Spectrum Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
