On May 8, 8:09 pm, "Sean" <waz...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> ....
> >> > 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?
>
> No, that's not what I am saying at all.
>
> MLK is an example of a man being true to himself, and BEing who he was.
>
> He didn't wage war, he didn't promote violence, and he didn't make every
> white man the enemy. Think about that.
He was, however, a vigorous activist. He did a lot
of different things in the world, some of which had a
considerable effect on it. His life and work, then,
clearly and directly contradict your precept to do
"nothing at all" (see above). So now we have
"do something if you feel like it" (King) and "do
nothing" (previous suggestion). Your synthesis
of this contradiction may prove interesting.
|
