Humanity self destruction
|
Posted:Oct 20, 2010 12:32 am
Last Updated:Oct 24, 2010 2:13 am 11280 Views
|
In my field, usually I am hired to make more effective procedures and balance quality and designing to improve lives, however many times those changes or improvements in products or procedures are just to increase profits and not only raise functionality on the item itself. I see a trend from some years ago, in movies and news, all about how we are destroying, or how the world will end and I see the Gates foundation with their billions and other doing charity work, which I suppose is done to bring welfare and to avoid the path all those researches and news are talking about. From 2000 until now, I have seen more than 10 different movies that destroy the planet, solar flares, meteor, comets, flooding, polarity reversal, global warming and still there is more money invested in wars around the planet and conflict that grow better ( not chemically modified ) food. It is ridiculous that now you have to pay 3 times to get natural food, a normal seed put in the earth to grow normally, than the one that is modified and developed chemically. But I guess the ones that invest and make the profits from changing our natural way of life are happy about it. Also the medicines companies that get benefits from us get poison from those new modified foods. But they are linked also to the companies that make the modified food, is a vicious circle.
What countries are fighting for I wonder, if there is no future, the last documentary I saw about food production, warns that there is an imminent war is on the near years already.
The guys of the documentary made their pile of cash, by making it, and create a new vision of what we are doing for the planet, and well, banks, they cash from debt and wars is the biggest way to put a country in debt, so banks are not really into lending for opportunities and help any economy, they are just waiting for new ways to profit without create a new crisis, all their thinkers are hired with the objective of create those ways to promote products in which they raise profits and pay shareholders while people is deceived by new financial products.
All those banks are just waiting, wondering when they can cash again in the next big debt movement. Anyway governments will bail them out if their plans go wrong, and the normal common people is now the cushion of any big corporation that sustain the stock exchange of a country. Right now countries can take what you pay, and put you in debt without even ask. And the banks will be saved by those moves, right now there are not shareholders the responsible ones anymore, or the CEO's that no matter a big collapse of their procedures and structures cash out with a pile of cash for doing all wrong. I believe the personal interest has never been so self centered than in the last 20 years. All the team work is just an old motto of the 70's , total quality is nothing more than take all you can and try to people believe in your strategies to make them rich, while you become rich in the process. Countries ally with one today that will fight tomorrow. All the interests are totally derailed. You never know what a country exactly want, we have wars that lasted for around a decade or more that started with a purpose and ended in nothing.
Politics has become like high school, when you only study for the exam in order to pass, politicians nowadays only effort for the election night and study all they need to say and how they need to act, just to pass their exam in election night, after that, is salary in pocket and forget about to practice the theory you make others believe in, again, you sell your idea while you become rich, as many of the politicians go to power, just to see what they can squeeze from it, it has nothing to do with people interest anymore, only with self way to catch contracts, lobbyists or someone who needs the politician position in order to make any profit.
This is not a new past, all the empires were made by conquer and destroy, but at that time, there was too much land and not so many people destroying it. Cars ?
You have a car to be more comfortable and go faster to a destination ?
Who can go faster nowadays ?
Life at least in the ancient times was about family, shelter, food, still in some places is all about that. In other again someone convince you that the way to be yourself is having things you don't need and you cannot afford, and they become rich in the process. Maslow said it and that is a total reality, to be human and survive you need food and shelter. You do not need to put all you dream about in a credit card. About half of the planet population that tries to acquire a house, ends up paying it when is too old to enjoy it, or just die before happens. But the shareholders of the bank will be happy about it, they have their money in there, and they are protected now by governments, that spend money that is not theirs, increase debts and help any financial institution in problems, or at least help the ones that put money in those politicians that take the position exactly for that reason.
Governments suppose to be administrators of resources, the representative of your interests. But that does not work like that long time ago.
And the documentary of the food wars continue. I wonder who will pay for a world war for land and crops ?
How much money that can be used in help each other will be wasted to fight for water, corn, rice and beans ?
Or a comet that is coming, or floods, and disasters.
We are the comet of the planet, the disaster, the meteor, the solar flare. Since we became " civilized " all we think is how we can destroy the planet and all living things inside it.
I do not see the future on this, when we are already on the limit of our planet and still the movies talk about destruction and we all keep supporting governments and the moves they do to get to our collapse. This planet really needs a reset button and an dolphin take over.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Now jokes... Time of the month to be silly ...
|
Posted:Oct 30, 2008 8:34 pm
Last Updated:May 20, 2024 12:13 pm 11153 Views
|
About medical operations:
One day, after a man had his annual physical, the doctor came out and said, "You had a great checkup. Is there anything that you'd like to talk about or ask me?"
"Well," he said, "I was thinking about getting a vasectomy."
"That's a pretty big decision. Have you talked it over with your family?"
"Yeah, and they're in favor 15 to 2."
About church:
A Sunday school teacher asked her little , as they were on the way to church service,
"And why is it necessary to be quiet in church?"
One bright little girl replied, "Because people are sleeping."
About Romantic details :
A gentleman entered a busy florist shop that displayed a large sign that read "Say It With Flowers."
"Wrap up one rose," he told the florist.
"Only one?" the florist asked.
"Just one," the customer replied. "I'm a man of few words."
IF YOU LOVE SOMETHING...
Set it free.
If it comes back, it will always be yours.
If it doesn't come back, it was never yours to begin with.
But, if it just sits in your living room, messes up your stuff, eats your food, uses your telephone, takes your money, and doesn't appear to realize you set it free...
You either married it or gave birth to it.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Just some quotes.... From George Bernard Shaw ...
|
Posted:Oct 30, 2008 8:29 pm
Last Updated:May 20, 2024 12:13 pm 11021 Views
|
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
A lifetime of happiness! No man alive could bear it; it would be hell on earth.
A fashion is nothing but an induced epidemic.
A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.
Few people think more than two or three times a year; I have made an international reputation for myself by thinking once or twice a week.
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other people without blushing.
The man who writes about himself and his own time is the only man who writes about all people and all time.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
- Philosophy or Religious Principles in South East Asia - An Open Debate -
|
Posted:Oct 17, 2008 7:40 pm
Last Updated:May 20, 2024 12:13 pm 12076 Views
|
-------------------------------------------------
Extracted from the conference: Philosophy in the South Asian Subcontinent: A Unity in Maladjustment
By Prof Galib A. Khan - University of Dhaka
-------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT: Philosophy in the south Asian subcontinent differs from Western philosophy in the following three ways: (1) it is based upon religion; (2) love of tradition becomes an obstacle for philosophical development; and (3) authority is accepted as a source of knowledge. I argue that future philosophical development demands that the above three differences be removed. Furthermore, philosophers from the subcontinent must concentrate on contemporary issues.
As a professor in philosophy at the University of Dhaka, if I ask myself about the extent of the philosophical heritage, which I may claim to have inherited from the past, I shall find myself in a difficulty in finding a precise answer. If I look back for my heritage, beyond fifty years towards the past, I shall find that the past heritage to which I belong, incidentally coincides with that of the South Asian subcontinent. In the context of philosophy, that heritage is what we find mainly in the traditions of the Vedic philosophical schools (specially the Vedanta school), Buddhism and Jainism. These philosophical traditions are also considered as oriental philosophies. An orientalistic outlook in the context of these philosophical traditions may find it difficult to draw a line of demarcation between the past and the present status of these traditions. It is my intention to draw attention to the fact that, in the context of philosophy, our past heritage is in a sense an obstacle to our future progress; and to this extent, our heritage and our future are in a unity in maladjustment.
Unlike western philosophy, Indian philosophy failed to develop, strictly speaking, beyond its ancient identity. Indian philosophy cannot be divided into the ancient, medieval, modern and contemporary periods, as it can be done with the western philosophy. What has come to be known as contemporary Indian philosophy, is nothing more than some re-interpretation of the same traditional schools, which prevailed in ancient India. In this sense, there is no true live Indian philosophy except as a shadow of the past, and there is no present in Indian philosophy except as a re-interpretation of the past.
This limitation of Indian philosophy is usually considered as a common objection. Indian scholars are aware of this situation, though I think, the way they deal with this situation is not adequate. I shall have an appraisal of one such case, which refers to a renowned Indian scholar who flourished in early twentieth century and in course of time became the President of India.
Professor Radhakrishnan is aware of the charge that Indian philosophy 'remains stationary and represents an endless process of threshing old straw'. He of course makes four possible meanings of this charge, and it seems, there is a mild way of defending Indian philosophy against three possible meanings; he connects the other meaning with 'a characteristic of the Indian mind'.
Radhakrishnan admits that 'The charge of unprogressiveness or stationariness holds when we reach the stage after the first great commentators'. Considering Samkara and Ramanuja among the great commentators, we may say that the stationariness is about one thousand years old. From the following quoted passage, we can imagine how this stagnation took place. Radhakrishnan says:
After the eighth century philosophical controversy became traditional and scholastic in character, and we miss the freedom of the earlier era. The founders of the schools are canonised, and so questioning their opinions is little short of sacrilege and impiety. The fundamental propositions are settled once for all... . We have fresh arguments for foregone conclusions, new expedients to meet new difficulties and a re-establishment of the old with a little change of front or twist of dialectic.
It is now seventy five years gone since Radhakrishnan made this comment. During this long period the situation has not changed at all. Even Radhakrishnan himself could not emancipate himself from the boundaries of the tradition to which he belongs. Thus we observe that Radhakrishnan 'is a follower of Samkara', and that 'Radhakrishnan reconciles the views of Samkara and Ramanuja...'. Other contemporary Indian philosophers are Vivekananda, Tagore, Gandhi, Aurobindo Ghosh, K. C. Bhattacharya and Iqbal. All these philosophers, except Iqbal, belong to the Vedic tradition. Among them, Vivekananda, Tagore and Ghosh are viewed as contemporary advaitins, i.e., the followers of the advaita version of the Vedanta school. Bhattacharya, though he was influenced by Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena in his attempt to defend the advaita view of the Vedanta school, yet he did not accept Kant's view of the unknowable. 'At this point, Bhattacharya joins issue with Kant and follows the Upanisads which declare Brahman [i.e. the Absolute] to be beyond speech and thought and yet not unknowable'. Among all these thinkers, only Gandhi was least influenced by the age-old Indian tradition. The reason behind this is clear; Gandhi was more a political thinker than a philosopher in the traditional sense. Though he was influenced by the Gita, yet the hard political realities of Gandhi's time made him more independent from the ancient traditions. In the political domain, even the socialistic and communistic ideas of Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, have come to be qualified as 'the plastic spirituality of Hinduism'. On the other hand, Iqbal, a muslim philosopher, though was much influenced by western thought, yet has remained confined to a different tradition, one which is more than one thousand years old.
The purpose of bringing all these facts to focus is to show that philosophy in the South Asian subcontinent has failed to emerge beyond its ancient phase. If we now accept this finding, it will be rational on our part to find out the causes which are responsible for this failure and to suggest what we can do for a better future.
I shall say that there are different causes why philosophy failed to develop in India beyond the ancient phase. Of these three causes, two are more psychological than philosophical and the other is epistemological.
The first main cause is that in the South Asian subcontinent, philosophy is based on religion. Since religions do not change, so philosophies based on religion do not change as well, except in the form of interpretation and re-interpretation. In Indian philosophy there are nine schools. Carvaka materialism is the only school, which is not based on any religion. Six other schools, viz., Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisesika, Mimamsa and Vedanta, accept the authority of the Veda, the religious scripture of Hinduism. The two other schools, Buddhism and Jainism, are also religion-based.
But religion determines human life in such a way that the followers of a particular religion behave in some particular pattern. A philosophy, when it happens to be based on some religion, becomes related with how the followers of that religion think, feel, desire, hope, learn, intuit, and in a word, behave. This is why I would say that the unprogressiveness of Indian philosophy, via its religion-basis, is due to a reason, which is more psychological than philosophical. In the psychological sense of the term 'conditioning', we have been conditioned to philosophize in some particular pattern.
The second cause of the above mentioned failure is our attachment to our heritage. It is clear that heritage is something which we receive from the past. If we feel satisfied with what we receive from the past, then why should there emerge a present which is more satisfactory than the past? We have seen in the above that Radhakrishnan has admitted, though not in the strong sense, the charge of unprogressiveness of Indian philosophy, and has yet himself remained unprogressive, being a follower of Samkara. This is because, Radhakrishnan himself suggests that for a glorious future, Indian philosophers may have two things, one of which is 'a love of what is old...'. It is this love which is a problem. Love leads to emotional attachment and obstructs true rational considerations. And love makes things behavioral. This is why I think that this cause of the unprogressiveness of Indian philosophy is more psychological than philosophical.
The third cause of the unprogressiveness is the fact that the prominent schools of Indian philosophy accept authority or testimony as a source of knowledge. It is claimed that, 'regarding some matters, such as God, the state of liberation, etc., we cannot form any correct idea from ordinary experience; philosophy must depend for these on the experience of those few saints... . Authority, or the testimony of reliable persons and scriptures thus forms the basis of philosophy'. This stand is fully accepted by Mimamsa and Vedanta schools, and it is a fact that the other schools, except Carvaka, accept this stand to some extent. Even the Nyaya school, which is well-known for its contribution to logic, surrendered to this tradition. For the proofs for the existence of God, Nyaya school puts forward an argument from the 'Authoritativeness of the Scriptures'.
Finally, I shall say that I hope, I am not misunderstood as saying something against our heritage. Even though I have opposed our love for our heritage, I have recommended our respect for the same. And everything I have said, I have said with the desire in my mind for a better future. And I believe, for a better future we must overcome the drawbacks of the past; but for overcoming the drawbacks, we must first admit the drawbacks. This is only what I have done. I hope, may philosophy educate the humanity in the twenty-first century, and that we in the South Asian subcontinent be a part of it.
References:
S. Radhakrishnan ed., History of Philosophy: Eastern and Western (London: Allen and Unwin, 1967), vol. I.
Cf., W. T. Stace, A Critical History of Greek Philosophy (London: Macmillan, 1962),
S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy (London: Allen and Unwin, 1941), vol. I. First published in 1923.
Cf., B. K. Lal, Contemporary Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1989).
S. Chatterjee and D. Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy (Calcutta, India: University of Calcutta publication, 1968 ), p. 8.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
RISK TAKING... The Art of suffering.
|
Posted:Oct 17, 2008 7:39 pm
Last Updated:May 20, 2024 12:13 pm 11217 Views
|
The Fourteen principle of my TH guide codes says : " Remember that great love and great achievements involve great risks " and I think is the addendum to that one that talks about suffering and how we have to try to love and do things better than expected without worrying about the failure of consequences of that can bring. Some years ago, I met a screen play writer that spent like 20 years trying to get the right one, he was already broke , on the financial abyss, when he got the opportunity of his life, It was awesome how he can tell the story about all that he has been through to get to his achievement. The famous author of the Harry Potter books was in the same situation when finished her first chapter. So, I was wondering, argent we all looking for the same : The sale of our lives, the building or our lives , the contract of our lives, the webpage of our lives, the love of our lives, our soulmate, whatever you want to call it ?
Maybe not. The world is divided in the risk takers and the ones that just follow the surviving ritual. Better called the " ok " life.
No risk, no big opportunity expected, no big efforts, just " ok ".
" When I was 5000 days old I learnt that the important thing in a soccer match is not how many goals you receive, it is to score more than those that you receive . At 11478 days old I learnt that fishing is not about the big catch, is about patience and lose a lot of bait until you get the right catch "
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
- What a Pure Eastern Bealives - K'ung-fu-tzu - PART 3 -
|
Posted:Oct 17, 2008 7:35 pm
Last Updated:May 20, 2024 12:13 pm 11602 Views
|
The Evaluative Problem of Li
The essentially functional character of li suggests that li practices are evaluated in terms of their efficacy in realising the Confucian objectives. Li is constitutive of the Confucian objectives in the sense that, within a particular community, general participation in li practices (with the appropriate attendant dispositions and attitudes) is both necessary and sufficient for the realisation of the Confucian objectives. We cannot conceive of one obtaining without the otherThis does not mean that the Confucian objectives are defined in terms of general participation in the existing li practices of the community, for the objectives can be realised in other communities with a different set of conventional practices. In this sense, the Confucian objectives transcend participation in the actually existing li practices, and participation in li is a means to the full realisation of the Confucian objectives.
Since the realisation of the Confucian objectives transcends the participation in li, they provide a perspective from which existing li practices can be evaluated and revised. The full realisation of the Confucian objectives is not required for evaluation of existing li practices to take place. Speaking in general terms, what is required to inform an evaluative process involving li is an understanding of what the objectives are and what the realisation of these objectives involved (this understanding is acquired through Confucian education). In specific terms, one also needs an adequate understanding of the structure of the particular situation that necessitated the evaluation, the roles of each individual involved in the situation, and the relevant li practices that govern the situation. Members of the community may propose revisions in these practices on the basis of economic or other considerations, provided that this does not affect their efficacy in realising the Confucian objectives fully.
More importantly, revision in li practices is based on improving the efficacy of these practices in realising the Confucian objectives. It is in this sense that we may build on the li practices of the previous generations, and thereby "broaden the Dao" .
However, revision of existing li practices has to proceed against the background of a general acceptance of these practices, for it is the existing practices which make available to members of the community the objectives under consideration. There is then reason to oppose any change initiated without good justification; the relevant practices have to be relatively stable to perform their function.
The Problem of Evaluative Underdetermination
What if considerations for the efficacy in realising the Confucian objectives underdetermine how a li practice is to be revised? In such situations, considerations for the efficacy in realising the Confucian objectives determine at least two possible ways of revising a li practice, but leaves it undetermined which revision is the better one. Even the junzi is not immune to this problem – "the junzi agrees [in principle] with other junzis, but may differ in opinion with them [with respect to the particulars]". It does not help to suggest that we choose the revision that is closest to the existing set of li practices, thus maintaining the conservative Confucian attitude. This only pushes the problem back a step. What are we to do when the conservative attitude also leaves it open which revision to adopt, bearing in mind that if the community moves in different directions in such situations, social chaos is the likely outcome.
Recall that a properly motivated member of the Confucian society (whether it is the ideal or the chaotic society) would have made a committed effort to learn li. Such a person would be well-versed in the specific li practices that govern her roles and the situations she is in. The properly motivated member of the society observes the cues available to determine dispositions and attitudes of her counterparts in the same situation, and thereby determine the best course of action in such situations. The properly motivated member of the Confucian society deals with each situation with flexibility and fluidity, and she is able to do this because she is well-versed in li. These remarks are vague and ambiguous, but necessarily so. Cases of evaluative underdetermination are often complex, and no hard and fast rule can encapsulate the various ways these complexities may manifest themselves. One’s ability to handle such situations depends on one’s body of knowledge (zhi) and wisdom (zhi) (hence the importance of learning), and the stage of one’s progress in self-cultivation.
References
Fingarette, Herbert. 1972. Confucius: The Secular as Sacred (Harper and Row).
Graham, A. C. 1989. Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China (Open Court).
Hall, David and Ames, Roger. 1987. Thinking Through Confucius (State University of New York Press).
Hansen, Chad. 1992. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation (Oxford University Press).
Lau, D. C. 1970. Trans., Mencius (Penguin Books).
Lau, D. C. 1979. Trans., Confucius: The Analects (Lun Yü) (Penguin Books).
Shun, Kwong-loi. 1993. Jen and Li in the Analects. Philosophy East and West 43: 457-479.
Tu, Wei-ming. 1979. Li as a Process of Humanisation. In Humanity and Self-Cultivation: Essays in Confucian Thought (Asian Humanity Press).
Tu, Wei-ming. 1985. Selfhood and Otherness: The Father- Relationship in Confucian Thought. In Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative Transformation (State University of New York).
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
What I believe - EMPOWERMENT -
|
Posted:Oct 17, 2008 7:34 pm
Last Updated:Oct 24, 2010 2:14 am 11299 Views
|
" Cognitive power ( Rational Power, Intellectual Power - there are many acotations - ) is the only real power that exists, because a real power has 3 characteristics :
- UNIFIES ( CONCEPTS, PEOPLE, COMMUNITIES, COUNTRIES)
- BALANCE ( BRINGS EQUILIBRIUM AND STABILITY )
- BRING PROGRESS AND WELFARE ( TO EVERY PART OF THE COMMUNITY )
The rest are just forces not supported by honor itself "
POLITICAL POWER... There is not...
ECONOMICAL POWER ... There is not...
SOCIAL POWER ... Hummm ... ( Consequence of Unification... )
But that is just what I believe.
" Everything that happens, always happens for a REASON "
I am working in a theory of evolution of this power called " Reasonal Power " , but still in process.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
What a Humanist Integralist Scientist Believes - Part 3 - The Character of Reason -
|
Posted:Oct 17, 2008 7:33 pm
Last Updated:May 20, 2024 12:13 pm 11560 Views
|
I believe that to recognize the truth is not primarily a matter of intelligence, but a matter of character. The most important element is the courage to say no, to disobey the commands of power and of public opinion; to cease being asleep and to become human; to wake up and lose the sense of helplessness and futility. Eve and Prometheus are the two great rebels whose very «crimes« liberated mankind. But the capacity to say »no« meaningfully, implies the capacity to say »yes« meaningfully. The «Yes« to God is the »no« to Caesar; the »yes« to man is the »no« to all those who want to enslave, exploit, and stultify him.
I believe in freedom, in man’s right to be himself, to assert himself and to fight all those who try to prevent him from being himself. But freedom is more than the absence of violent oppression. It is more than »freedom from.« It is »freedom to« - the freedom to become independent; the freedom to be much, rather than to have much, or to use things and people.
I believe that neither Western capitalism nor Soviet or Chinese communism can solve the problem of the future.
They both create bureaucracies which transform man into a thing. Man must bring the forces of nature and of society under his conscious and rational control; but not under the control of a bureaucracy which administers things and man, but under the control of the free and associated producers who administer things and subordinate them to man, who is the measure of all things.
The alternative is not between »capitalism« and »communism« but between bureaucratism and humanism.
Democratic, decentralizing socialism is the realization of those conditions which are necessary to make the unfolding of all man’s powers the ultimate purpose.
I believe that one of the most disastrous mistakes in individual and social life consists in being caught in stereotyped alternatives of thinking. »Better dead than red,« »an alienated industrial civilization or individualistic preindustrial society,« »to rearm or to be helpless,« are examples of such alternatives. There are always other and new possibilities which become apparent only when one has liberated oneself from the deathly grip of clichés, and when one permits the voice of humanity, and reason, to be heard. The principle of »the lesser evil« is the principle of despair. Most of the time it only lengthens the period until the greater evil wins out. To risk doing what is right and human, and have faith in the power of the voice of humanity and truth, is more realistic than the so-called realism of opportunism.
I believe that man must get rid of illusions that enslave and paralyze him; that he must become aware of the reality inside and outside of him in order to create a world which needs no illusions. Freedom and independence can be achieved only when the chains of illusion are broken.
I believe that today there is only one main concern: the question of war and peace. Man is likely to destroy all life on earth, or to destroy all civilized life and the values among those that remain, and to build a barbaric, totalitarian organization which will rule what is left of mankind.
To wake up to this danger, to look through the double talk on all sides which is used to prevent men from seeing the abyss toward which they are moving is the one obligation, the one moral and intellectual command which man must respect today. If he does not, we all will be doomed.
If we should all perish in the nuclear holocaust, it will not be because man was not capable of becoming human, or that he was inherently evil; it would be because the consensus of stupidity has prevented him from seeing reality and acting upon the truth.
I believe in the perfectibility of man, but I doubt whether he will achieve this goal, unless he awakens soon.
-----------------------\\//-----------------------
- COMMENTS FROM OTHER INTEGRALISTS -
"This became a credo of mine: attempt the impossible in order to improve your work."
Bette Davis - California - USA - Unknown Date -
" Integralism represent the ultimate reality. All belief system and individuals have different degrees of rationality. None are denied by an integralist, but all are recognized as being ranked by how much of the objective world they have deciphered and anticipated with their value system "
Sharon Atienza - Manila - Philippines - 2003 -
" There is just one power in the planet: An Integral Ideology; there is just one duty: Know how to use it "
Juan Ruiz (Rui Xun)- Islamabad - Pakistan - 2004 -
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
- More from the eyes of the eastern thinkers - Watsuji Tetsurô - Part 2 - Ethics -
|
Posted:Oct 10, 2008 9:36 pm
Last Updated:Oct 17, 2008 7:30 pm 11903 Views
|
Watsuji's objection to individualistic ethics, which he associated with virtually all Western thinkers to some degree, is that it loses touch with the vast network of interconnections that serves to make us human. We are individuals inescapably immersed in the space/time world, together with others. Individual persons, if conceived of in isolation from their various social contexts, do not and cannot exist except as abstractions. Our way of being in the world is an expression of countless people and countless actions performed in a particular ‘climate,’ which together have shaped us as we are. Indeed a human being is a unified structure of past, present, and future; each of us is an intersection of past and future, in the present ‘now.’ There is no possibility of the isolation of the ego, and yet many write as though there were. They are able to make a case of it, in part because they ignore the spatiality of ningen (human being), focusing on ningen's temporarily. Watsuji believed that it was far more difficult to consider a human being as strictly an individual, when thought of as a being in space. Spatially, we move in a common field, and that field is cultural in that it is criss-crossed by roads and paths, and even by forms of communication such as messenger services, postal routes, newspapers, fliers, broadcasts over great distances, all in addition to everyday polite conversation. Watsuji makes a point of the legend of the isolated and hopelessly marooned Robinson Crusoe, for even Robinson Crusoe continued to be culturally connected, continuing to speak an inherited language, and improvising housing, food, and clothing based on past social experiences, and continuing to hope for rescue at the hands of unknown others. Watsuji rejects all such ‘desert island’ constructions as mere abstractions. Thomas Hobbes imagined a state of nature in which we are radically discrete individuals, at a time before significant social interconnections have been established. Watsuji counters that we are inescapably born into social relationships, beginning with one's mother, and one's caregivers. Our very beginnings are etched by the relational interconnections which keep us alive, educate us, and initiate us into the proper ways of social interaction.
At the center of Watsuji's study of Japanese ethics is his analysis of the human person, in Japanese, ningen. In his Rinrigaku, he affirms that ethics is, in the final analysis, the study of human persons. Offering an etymological analysis, as he does so often, he displays the important complexity in the meaning of ningen. Ningen is composed of two characters, nin, meaning ‘person’ or ‘human being,’ and gen, meaning ‘space’ or ‘between.’ He cautions that it is imperative to recognize that a human being is not just an individual, but is also a member of many social groupings. We are individuals, and yet we are not just individuals, for we are also social beings; and we are social beings, but we are not just social beings, for we are also individuals. Many who interpret Watsuji forget the importance which he gave to this balanced and dual-nature of a human being. They read the words, but then go on to argue that he really gives priority to the collectivist or social aspect of what it means to be a human being. That such an imbalance often occurs in Japanese society may be the reason for this conclusion. Yet it does not fit Watsuji's theoretical position, which is that we are, at one and the same time, both individual and social. In A Study of the History of the Japanese Spirit (1935) Watsuji cautions that “…the communion between man and man does not mean their becoming merely one. It is only through the fact that men are unique individuals that a cooperation between ‘man and man’ can be realized” (Watsuji 1935, 112). The tension between one's individual and one's social nature must not be slackened, or else the one is likely to overwhelm the other. He makes this point even clearer in discussing the creation of renga poetry, in the same volume. Renga poems are not created by a single individual but by a group of poets, with each individual verse linked to the next, and each verse the creation of a single individual, and yet each must cohere with the ‘poetic sphere’ as a whole. Watsuji concludes, “if there are self-centered persons in the company, a certain ‘distortion’ will be felt and group spirit itself will not be produced. When there are people, who, lacking individuality, are influenced only by others' suggestions, a certain ‘lack of power’ will be felt, and a creative enthusiasm will not appear. It is by means of attaining to Nothingness while each remains individual to the last, or in other words, by means of movements based on the great Void by persons each of whom has attained his own fulfillment, that the company will be complete and interest for creativity will be roused” (Watsuji 1935, 113). Individuality is not, and must not be lost, else the balance is destroyed, and creativity will not effectively arise. What is required is that we become selfless, no longer self-centered, and open to the communal sense of the whole group or society. It is a sense of individuality that is aware of social, public interconnections.
One expresses one's individuality by negating the social group or by rebelling against various social expectations or requirements. To be an individual demands that one negate the supremacy of the group. On the other hand, to envision oneself as a member of a group is to negate one's individuality. But is this an instance of poor logic? One can remain an individual and as such join as many groups as one wishes. Or one can think of oneself as an individual and yet as a parent, a worker, an artist, a theatre goer, and so forth. Watsuji understood this, but his argument is that it is possible to think in such ways only if one has already granted logical priority to the individual qua individual. Whatever group one belongs to, one belongs to it as an individual, and this individuality is not quenchable, except through death, or inauthenticity. Nevertheless, Watsuji's conception of what he calls the ‘negation of negation’ has a quite different, and perhaps deeper emphasis. To extricate ourselves from one or another socio-cultural inheritance, perhaps the acceptance of the Shinto faith, one has to rebel against this socio-cultural form by affirming one's individuality in such a way as to negate its overt influence on oneself. This is to negate an aspect of one's history by affirming one's individuality. But the second negation occurs when one become a truly ethical human being, and one negates one's individual separateness by abandoning one's individual independence from others. What we have now is a forgetting of the self, as Dôgen urged (“to study the way is to study the self, to study the self is to forget the self, to forget the self is to become enlightened by all things” , which yields a ‘selfless’ morality. To be truly human is not the asserting of one's individuality, but an annihilation of self-centeredness such that one is now identified with others in a nondualistic merging of self and others. Benevolence or compassion results from this selfless identification. This is our authentic ‘home ground,’ and it rekindles our awareness of our true and original nature. This home ground he calls ‘nothingness,’ about which more will be said below.
Watsuji's analysis of gen is of equal interest. He makes much of the notion of ‘betweenness,’ or ‘relatedness.’ He traces gen (ken) back to its earlier form, aida or aidagara, which refers to the space or place in which people are located, and in which the various crossroads of relational interconnection are established. Watsuji's now famous former student, Yuasa Yasuo, observes that “this betweenness consists of the various human relationships of our life-world. To put it simply, it is the network which provides humanity with a social meaning, for example, one's being an inhabitant of this or that town or a member of a certain business firm. To live as a person means…to exist in such betweenness”. As individuals, we are private beings, but as social beings we are public beings. We enter the world already within a network of relationships and obligations. Each of us is a nexus of pathways and roads, and our betweenness is already etched by the natural and cultural climate that we inherit and live our lives within. The Japanese live their lives within this relational network. It is imperative, therefore, that one know how to navigate these relational waters successfully, appropriately, and with relative ease and assurance. The study of these relational navigational patterns – between the individual and the family, self and society, as well as one's relationship to the environment – is the study of ethics.
Watsuji usually writes of ningen sonzai, and sonzai (existence) is composed of two characters, (which means to preserve, to sustain over time), and zai (to stay in place, and in this case, to persevere in one's relationships). Ningen sonzai, then, refers to human nature as individual yet social, private as well as public, with our coming together in relationship occurring in the betweenness between us, which relationships we preserve and nourish to the fullest. Ethics has to do with the ways in which we, as human beings, respect, preserve, and persevere in the vast complexity of interconnections which etch themselves upon us as individuals, thereby forming our natures as social selves, and providing the necessary foundation for the creation of cooperative and workable societies.
The Japanese word for ethics is rinri, which is composed of two characters, rin and ri. Rin means ‘fellows,’ ‘company,’ and specifically refers to a system of relations guiding human association. Ri means ‘reason,’ or ‘principle,’ the rational ordering of human relationships. These principles are what make it possible for human beings to live in a cooperative community. Watsuji refers to the ancient Confucian patterns of human interaction as between parent and , lord and vassal, husband and wife, young and old, and friend and friend. Presumably, one also acquires a sense of the appropriate and ethical in all other relationships as one grows to maturity in society. If enacted properly these relationships, which occur in the betweenness between us, serve as the oil which lubricates interaction with others in such a way as to minimize abrasive occurrences, and to maximize smooth and positive relationships. One can think of the betweenness between each of us as a basho, an empty space, in which we can either reach out to the other in order to create a relationship of positive value, or to shrink back, or to lash out, making a bad situation worse. The space is pure potential, and what we do with it depends on the degree to which we can encounter the other in a fruitful and appropriate manner in that betweenness. Nevertheless, every encounter is already etched with the cultural traditions of genuine encounter; ideally positive expectation, good will, open-heartedness, cheerfulness, sincerity, fellow-feeling, and availability. Ethics “consists of the laws of social existence” writes Watsuji.
-------------------------------------------------
Watsuji Tetsurô (1889-1960) was one of a small group of philosophers in Japan during the twentieth century who brought Japanese philosophy to the world. He wrote important works on both Eastern and Western philosophy and philosophers, from ancient Greek, to Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Heidegger, and from primitive Buddhism and ancient Japanese culture, to Dôgen (whose now famous writings Watsuji single-handedly rediscovered), aesthetics, and Japanese ethics. His works on Japanese ethics are still regarded as the definitive studies.
Influenced by Heidegger, Watsuji's Climate and Culture is both an appreciation of, and a critique of Heidegger. In particular, Watsuji argues that Heidegger under-emphasizes spatiality, and over-emphasizes temporality. Watsuji contends that had Heidegger equally emphasized spatiality, it would have tied him more firmly to the human world where we interact, both fruitfully and negatively. We are inextricably social, connected in so many ways, and ethics is the study of these social connections and positive ways of interacting.
Human beings have a dual-nature, as individuals, and as member of various social groupings. We face each other in the betweenness between us, where we can either maintain a safe distance, or enter into intimate relationships of worth. Fundamental to positive, intimate relationships is trust, and trustworthiness.
-------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
About Success - New Thesis -
|
Posted:Oct 10, 2008 9:34 pm
Last Updated:Oct 20, 2010 3:31 am 11371 Views
|
I remember some years ago living in USA , as researcher and pure scientist the nature of research was only behavioral and pure chemical and how those chemicals and behavior are modified. Usually if we imitate , then we succeed.
But after being in Asia again as when I was , gain a new perspective, also working more free in full time strategies and more variables and constants.
Eventually for that success which usually we separate into personal and professional we want to achieve, we give them different nature, we made them dependable in different variables when at the end are not so unrelated, as the responsibility for the consequence of the actions will be who determine many of the paths to that state of satisfaction which will push us into wanting more satisfaction.
Usually the one that push us into be less satisfied fields is not related here, frustration is usually the result of a procedure when we expect too much and we effort too little, plus some variables or constant we did not think were going to be against our thoughts , by themselves or Murphy force, just messed with our objectives.
So we continue in the path to success, and working in China I started a premise, " success is based on being right " , and being right, not as the opposite of being wrong, but as governing dynamics Nash's theory, is about the surrounding effort to create win-win scenarios. Being right is about a full study of 3C we do before act or start a new venture, let's call it " the business plan " of this new goal. Then we start with Pre-causes , Causes and Consequences, basically reasons why we do it and what will be beneficial for our lives, the procedures to follow, and what will be the consequence of each one, and how we will be responsible if each choice is made. Then how we make the choice, what is the base of being right, as Mr.Nash tried in the game theory, is a chain of strategies on players and the objective is win, but, who will win ?
According to my thesis, and is when all things come together, for someone being right, 3 parts of his/her life has to win; Self, as Personal gain; Experience, as Professional Gain; Ties or Motive Oriented Relations, as the people influenced by your life that will eventually gain positive emotions or satisfaction by correlation with you.
So the triangle of being right and make the right choice depends on 3 elements winning, and how you are responsible for the consequences of those choices.
I still do not believe in luck or coincidences, there are not such, there are chances, but I also changed a bit what I believe about chances. I use to believe there is only once big chance in life, and we all circle our life, our strategy about find that one, the right job, or big contract, the right one and I used to believe they all come together, the person of your life, comes at the same time, the job of your life comes, not means that person works there or is related to the work, but is related in time-space to it. But lately, I expanded, as there are 3 parts of your life to win with your choices, then has to be 3 chances also to make it right.
Then the 3 of 3 was born. Is time of Christmas and usually the pine is drawn as 3 triangles together, and is what I thought about this new success theory. You start in the base, as foundation is the most important for everything. But what is the base, we need to believe, but more than faith, believe we can do, so is confidence.
But also we need to have the power, the courage the desire to achieve, and that is Will.
But we also need to realize all the Pre-Causes, that is loyos, knowledge in the pure concept.
So we have the first 3 of the three. WILL, CONFIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE. And we did the Pre-Cause path to be right.
The comes the 3D. That are part of the Choice or Cause.
Determination as consequence of will and confidence, and with Determination you will make some many are afraid to make, and that second D, will be Decision. If you do not make it, you will never know what will happen. And usually when that decision is made, some people before used to call it habit, to the act of keeping the same actions or decisions , but the best term is Discipline, as there are factors and constants that will appear with it. So we have the second triangle of that three, DETERMINATION, DECISION, DISCIPLINE.
And we will go to the start, when consequences come, the first thing to appear is awareness, even if the CHoice was right or not, then is the time to divert it and make some changes and you with REALIZATION, do this. But also , to make it right, and influence the third group on your decision, you need RESPECT (for yourself and them), and we already talked about the last part of the 3, what will make the whole right scheme, is RESPONSIBILITY.
Acceptation of consequences, and the responsibility on them, is what defines what is right and get benefits for those consequences, and your career and the centers of your affection. The Triad then appears again (Even better than in the legend of Zelda - which i used to play every day when i was like 15) and states that it is right any action which benefits Personally - Professionally and Emotionally a being.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
