On May 8, 7:24 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 8, 5:44 pm, ta <padl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 3:01 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 8, 10:17 am, ta <padl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 8, 9:11 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 7, 10:37 pm, "Sean" <waz...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > > > >
>news:b4902417-e97b-4b8c-b329-8b542d35731a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > > > > On May 7, 4:33 pm, ta <padl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On May 7, 3:09 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> > On May 6, 8:24 pm, "Sean" <waz...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> > > "ta" <padl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >> >
>news:4adca3ce-5b92-4062-b56f-7cabffc44632@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > > > >> > > > On May 6, 12:15 pm, "*Anarcissie*"
<anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > >> On May 6, 11:35 am, ta <padl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> > > >> > They all desire to use the state/government to
control other
> > > > > > >> > > >> > people . . . that is, there is a little dictator
inside all of
> > > > > > >> > > >> > them
> > > > > > >> > > >> > that is trying to get out, which is why politics
is so popular
> > > > > > >> > > >> > among
> > > > > > >> > > >> > the people . . . they can relate.
>
> > > > > > >> > > >> > Of course, states/governments differ in the degree
to which they
> > > > > > >> > > >> > attempt to control people, but controlling people
is still the
> > > > > > >> > > >> > goal.
>
> > > > > > >> > > >> > In "democratic" nations like the US, the control
is more subtle
> > > > > > >> > > >> > . . .
> > > > > > >> > > >> > rather than enforce outright dictator****p, control
is asserted
> > > > > > >> > > >> > through
> > > > > > >> > > >> > the political process and through the
propagandistic media
> > > > > > >> > > >> > (which are
> > > > > > >> > > >> > part of the same underlying control mechanism).
>
> > > > > > >> > > >> > Which is why politics is not only a distraction
and a waste of
> > > > > > >> > > >> > time,
> > > > > > >> > > >> > but actually counter-productive since
participating in a corrupt
> > > > > > >> > > >> > system is by definition an endorsement of that
system.
>
> > > > > > >> > > >> > The answers to the questions that politicos and
their followers
> > > > > > >> > > >> > say
> > > > > > >> > > >> > that want to address are not "out there" . . .
they are "in
> > > > > > >> > > >> > there".
>
> > > > > > >> > > >> > And what is "out there" is a reflection of what is
"in there".
>
> > > > > > >> > > >> Agreed. The question is, what are we going to do
> > > > > > >> > > >> about it?
>
> > > > > > >> > > > Start focusing "in there" instead of "out there"?
>
> > > > > > >> > > And accept what is, live accordingly, don;t become food
for the
> > > > > > >> > > monster,
> > > > > > >> > > create your own positive life with like minded folk, be
happy, do
> > > > > > >> > > what you
> > > > > > >> > > love, and simply ignore all the BS except from the
point of view of
> > > > > > >> > > self-protection and ensuring your own freedom.
>
> > > > > > >> > > Like a virus, it's catching! :-D
>
> > > > > > >> > Well, in that case, everything's all right, in spite of
the wars,
> > > > > > >> > armies, cops, courts, prisons, and so forth -- I could
make
> > > > > > >> > quite a list.
>
> > > > > > >> > Actually, I think it's a delusion to believe that
out-there and
> > > > > > >> > in-there (or in-here) are not connected and dependent on
> > > > > > >> > one another.
>
> > > > > > >> It is a delusion . . . and they are connected/dependent.
The wars etc.
> > > > > > >> are projections of inner turmoil. The problem is that no
one wants to
> > > > > > >> look internally for the source of the turmoil, because the
truth is
> > > > > > >> frightening and uncomfortable. And so it's always the other
guy's
> > > > > > >> fault.
>
> > > > > > >> Politics is nothing more than a convenient vehicle for
fostering the
> > > > > > >> delusion that the inner and outer are somehow disconnected.
It's
> > > > > > >> easier to focus on attacking "the other", which of course
is what the
> > > > > > >> political arena is designed for, than it is to focus on
one's own
> > > > > > >> greed, envy, insecurity, and so forth.
>
> > > > > > >> The reality is that they've got it backwards -- trying to
control
> > > > > > >> other people -- the primary goal of
politics/governments/states --
> > > > > > >> only takes one further away from solving the very problems
associated
> > > > > > >> with the human condition in the first place.
>
> > > > > > > Sure. And this brings us back to my previous question --
what
> > > > > > > are we going to do about it?
>
> > > > > > > I've been engaged, on and off, in various kinds of activism
for
> > > > > > > many years, and I haven't seen a whole lot of progress. I
> > > > > > > don't see a viral spreading of a desire for peace, freedom
> > > > > > > and equality, but a viral spreading of The Fear and Security
> > > > > > > Mind. If you have any idea how to impede or divert this
> > > > > > > development, with concrete examples from what we so
> > > > > > > humorously call the "real world", let's have them.
>
> > > > > > Well, one could stop focusing on "what are we going to do
about it", and
> > > > > > switch "what are you doing about it?" and resolving that
dilemma.
>
> > > > > > For the focus is still "out there" with an assumption that
"doing something"
> > > > > > is going to fix "out there" to your current
expectations/beliefs/desire,
> > > > > > when it isn't.
>
> > > > > > See, when you look at things the way you currently are, all
you are "doing"
> > > > > > is denying your own spoken belief that "in here & out there"
are connected -
> > > > > > well they are. But is the focus the right focus?
>
> > > > > > OK, confused? Probably. :-)
>
> > > > > > The ONLY "in there" of any relevance to you, is YOUR "in
there" - and that
> > > > > > is not where your focus is trully directed.
>
> > > > > > All the answers are trully "in here" - but it's your "in here"
and not
> > > > > > everyone else's "in there" - they have to do their own work
and
> > > > > > self-analysis. YOU can't fix anyone elses "in there", only
they can.
>
> > > > > > Yet from what you "say" your focus is still on what's so wrong
"out there"
> > > > > > and at the same time wondering what you can DO to fix other
people's "in
> > > > > > there" - well ya can't. That's the usual trap for those
feeling that their
> > > > > > "in here" is OK, and desiring to influence everyone else's "
in there" so
> > > > > > that the out there will improve and be fixed. :-)
>
> > > > > > Not going to happen.
>
> > > > > > When you "in here" is in harmony, real harmony with some
individual personal
> > > > > > insight - then one begins to see that what's going on "out
there" is exactly
> > > > > > how it is supposed to be [ given the situation ].
>
> > > > > > So what to do? NO THING at all.
>
> > > > > According to you, then, the African-Americans of the South
> > > > > in the 1950s and 1960s should have accepted racism,
> > > > > segregation, and lynching and done nothing about them,
> > > > > except think good thoughts. Their Civil Rights movement,
> > > > > which actually did secure equal legal and political rights
> > > > > for them by making a lot of real trouble, was a waste of
> > > > > time.
>
> > > > > Is that what you want to say?
>
> > > > Speaking only for myself . . . no, the AAs of the South should not
> > > > have accepted racism. But that is a good example of viral change
-- it
> > > > all started with a change in consciousness, and that spread
outward,
> > > > causing the "out there" to change for the better.
>
> > > > The civil rights movement was about individuals refusing to sit at
the
> > > > back of the bus etc., and the political system was forced to react
to
> > > > the change sparked by those individuals. Politics is never the
cause
> > > > of the change -- politics is always reactionary; a lagging
indicator
> > > > of change engendered by individuals.
>
> > > Politics is the theory and practice of determining whose
> > > will shall prevail (in a community). In the pre-Civil Rights
> > > South, some people desired to keep things as they were
> > > ("Accept what is", as Sean put it) and others desired to
> > > change the existing arrangments. The struggle between
> > > these two groups was a political struggle.
>
> > > Now, if you believe in accepting what is, and then say
> > > that the Civil Rights activists were right to resist racism
> > > as they did, by making a lot of very public trouble about
> > > it, then you've plainly contradicted yourself. Perhaps
> > > you can resolve this contradiction?
>
> > > In any case, it is plain that the Civil Rights movement
> > > did achieve many of its aims, which contradicts other
> > > claims made here (or apparently made -- the writing
> > > is somewhat vague).
>
> > Sean can speak for himself, but here are my thoughts . . . taking
> > action (such as civil disobedience) is the natural result of a change
> > in consciousness (inward focus). I personally never said that one
> > never takes action -- I said that trying to control other people's
> > lives (politics) to solve problems that are rooted inwardly is a
> > mistake. Is resisting unequal treatment trying to control other
> > people? I don't think so.
>
> It's certainly an attempt to affect their behavior.
Civil disobedience, in its purest sense, is an act of self-assertion
-- not as an attempt to control other people, but as an attempt to
assert one's positive self-image. That other people's behaviour
changes is an effect of the inner work that resulted in that self-
esteem.
> > I don't think it's right to accept racism -- not at all. And the civil
> > rights movement did make much progress toward a more level playing
> > field (although it by no means has eradicated racism, and no amount of
> > political force ever could). And it was right to resist it.
>
> > But one can still have political equality and freedom and be
> > psychologically imprisoned.
>
> > Of course, I'd never argue that politically inequality is desirable or
> > preferable to political equality, but it's still swatting at the
> > branches.
>
> I'd like to affect your behavior a little -- I'd like you to
> assume I've done my inward thing, or I'm in the
> process of doing my inward thing, and it's coming
> along passably, but I need to know how to do my
> outward thing as well. For instance, violent, dishonest
> people take my money and use it to kill, maim and
> terrorize other people. I feel that I have a certain
> responsibility to resist that sort of thing, if I can.
> And so we return to the question: What are we
> going to do about it? If you don't like the pronoun
> "we", substitute others, or phrase the question Lenin
> style: What is to be done?
You want me to tell you what to do? If I do that, then I become your
"authority", and I assure you I have no interest in that (nor am I
qualified to offer such advice, since I am a work in progress myself).
Besides, any behaviour that resulted from your actions would then not
be authentic, and would therefore be ultimately unsatisfying.
The answer to the question "what is to be done" can only be answered
by you as a result of your inner work, and since your results may be
different from mine, it's not my place to say.
I struggle with the same question, and frankly, I don't have the
courage to resist to the point of imprisonment. And so I have to keep
asking myself what I can do within the limits of my cir***stances.
> I shall also await Sean's response to my earlier
> question -- it ought to be interesting.
|
