‘The Dalai Lama’s Observation On Hate’
Recently I was made aware of a quote by the Dalai Lama which I thought was quite interesting. It follows:
“We humans have existed in our present form for about a hundred thousand years. I believe that if during this time the human mind had been primarily controlled by anger and hatred, our overall population would have decreased. But today, despite all our wars, we find that the human population is greater than ever. This clearly indicates to me that love and compassion predominate in the world. And this is why unpleasant events are “news”; compassionate activities are so much a part of daily life that they are taken for granted and, therefore, largely ignored.”
Found in Everyday Mind, edited by Jean Smith, a Tricycle book
This is a very insightful view and perhaps one of the reasons I value the Dalai Lama so much. He does make an interesting point, however at the same time we really wonder if its 100% true. There has always been a majority of hate, however it was aimed at other peoples be it American vs Russia, China vs Japan, Japan vs Korea, etc etc. Many of the reasons these peoples didn’t manage to kill each other was because of the impracticality of the travel due to the distance between the nations, or even the sheer impracticality of the whole enterprise.
In my own opinion I think there is much more love and compassion, its just the hates alot louder.
So which is it: is this the case, or do we breed in order to destroy others?
What do you think?
‘The Worlds A Changin’
A while ago I visited the Royal Tyrell Museum with a couple of friends. While there I stumbled upon something that made me think and I felt it would be appropriate to share it with you here.
In relevance to the lifeboat or spaceship analogy I have spoken of in the past I came across a display explaining the different shapes of the continents of the past present and future. I took some pictures and they follow:
The first image, all of which you can click on to download the file, represents the earth a very long time ago about when star wars was set! The second image represents the present earth and hopefully looks familiar to most of you. The third image is the possible future earth quite a while in the future.
What I wanted to bring into question and bring to contemplation was our idea and concept of coutries and continents set in stone (pun intended).
When we go about our daily lives issues of the nature of the changing globe, due to its miniscule nature, may not be that important. However I think it is simply an interesting concept to place in mind.
What happens when a Canadian store is moved over the border into the states through an earthquake? Who owns it? Does it change the owners rights?
A common observation made by astronauts is that seeing the earth externally makes them forget about borders. Relevance could be made of this point. A mediator is used to ensure fairness between two parties. They are valuable because they are impartial, because they are separate from the situation.
I don’t mean to advance any point although I have started already. I just wanted to put these questions out there to think about.
What do you think?
“Official Car of the Olympics”
Recently I’ve been watching the Olympic games which are quite wonderful this year, excluding the smog, China’s doing a great job I feel. But one thing I’ve noticed is all the damn advertising by car companies claiming to be: “Official Vehicle of the Olympics” “Official Vehicle of the Canadian Olympic Team” and etc. I have seen at least three different car brands that all claim the same. I mean who are they tricking and what is their objective? I guess thats obvious… selling cars.
However this type of advertising irks me. Our society’s advertising tactics are getting progressively worse and worse. It’s all about branding loyalty through comprehensive marketing campaigns. Free market systems are great and all but the constant false bombardment of advertising makes it harder to be a member of society.
Constantly now when buying a product it is necessary to do your own research beyond the commercials. More often then not you find that the commercials have been intentionally misleading. We have come to the age where advertising is only used to generate interest rather then showcase a product.
I can summarize the main things that irk me with advertising in two points:
1) Misleading terminology (Cancel Anytime, Eco-Friendly Chevrolet Navahoe etc.. )
2) Pages of contracts flashed across the screen (I once noticed a joke a day text service which took me at least four commercials to read all the fine print at the end; there was about a page of it. If you signed up you were locked into a charge of 2 dollars a day with a minimum month cancellation fee; thats 60 dollars minimum with sign up)
We’re being taught to trust nothing. Which I guess is a good thing for a philosopher, but in general I feel the trend in advertising is moving onto taking advantage of peoples trust.
What do you think?
To assume positive is to side with, dare I say, MADNESS!!!!
The other day my mind encountered a mental road bump that was of interest to me.
I have always believed that when you need to assume assume the positive, however I was in a situation in which there was no negative or positive to assume instead only neutral based assumptions.
The question that came to mind is: how in the hell am I supposed to decide what to assume? It’s like Shrodinger’s Cat; I feel if I don’t assume I ignore evidence, if I do assume I as well ignore evidence, and if I assume both I contradict myself.
Let me explain the ridiculous situation that brought this about (be prepared to laugh at me as it is madness that such a small thing would create such inner turbulence). My friend was sitting on a leather couch, and from his general direction came a farting noise….. oh god, what has philosophy done to me?
Anyhow… the farting noise came from his general direction. In the situation I felt it was safe to assume two things; one he farted, or two he slid across the couch causing a farting like noise instigated by the evil leather perhaps due from the spirits of the dead cow residing within it screaming for justice…. or friction (whichever is more believable).
Both of these I believe are not negative actions. After all in the case of one its just a fart (although I will readily acknowledge that a fart could be done out of evil intent… you know who you are!!!!), and in the case of number two its just an awkward noise caused by friction. However I found that if I assumed one over the other I was being crazy as I had simply no reason to, yet when I assumed nothing I was disregarding all information given to me, and if I assumed both I was blatantly contradicting myself.
My three thought processes were as follows:
This may be to much thought to put into this situation specifically, but if we are to look at the bigger issue of neutral based assumptions I think the issue is of importance. I mean sometimes we just don’t know, and we need a road map to help us get through the course. I apply a positive assumption policy to get me through certain situations but I find that inapplicable here.
Let’s do a simple mind experiment. There are two identical boxes excluding contents. One sits in a dark room, the other rests in a man’s hands. You see the man walk into the dark room with the box in tow. You then hear a miniscule noise that leads you to believe he either bumped into the other box or put down the box he holds. You then witness him leave the room with a box.
Did he switch boxes? Or did he walk into the room and bump into the box and then leave? Both are neutral, which is true? Is it even safe to assume? If we don’t assume are we not ignoring empirical information?
The best conclusion that I can come to is to simply ignore it. Don’t make a judgement call and wait. Ignore the evidence at hand until it is more evident. This is as far as I have come.
What do you think?
Democracy as an Oligarchy continued.
In light of your responses I think its important to take into consideration the psychological issues humans generally have; our need to “know”, and the need to feel secure with our ideas. Thereafter framing this within the concept of spheres of influence.
I don’t think we will ever achieve a true democracy, unless strict re-workings of how we participate in our democratic system is made, however I do not mean to say the Oligarchy as we have it now is a poor thing.
After all those that are free thinkers are put into the position in which they can generate their own spheres of influence. An important decision that each individual should make is ‘do they want to create their own sphere of influence or follow anothers’.
This is not a simple good or bad question, after all I am contained within other’s spheres of influences such as the current Dalai Lama’s but am external, I believe, from most others. I think they can be useful, inspirational even.
The question is do you believe these spheres are justifiable; is it not necessarily a bad thing to be within ones sphere? And as well what are the limitations that you would consider justifiable of these spheres (ie the reasonable limitations of their inspirations)?
What do you think?
Democracy as an Oligarchy
Returning from my short absence I introduce an idea I’ve been thinking about quite frequently recently.
Democracy as an oligarchy.
For all my readers that are not familiar with the term oligarchy allow me to explain. Oligarchy is a form of government in which the power rests in the hands of a small elite segment of society. In such a system all the decisions in the country would be made by a group of individuals, perhaps intellects, whom ‘know’ what is best for the nation.
Why would our democratic system in actuality be a functioning oligarchic nation? After all we do vote for who we put in power and in such a manner we implement our choice, seemingly aside from the elites and/or intellectuals of society. My argument is not aimed at the corruption of the government, but rather a lack of responsibility of the people in the country.
Free thinkers are key to my argument. Fundamentally, I believe, free thinkers are necessary for a democratic system to function. This is based on the belief that in order for a democratic system to represent you, you have to be present to be represented, this presence found in stating your own beliefs determined through free thinking.
In actuality perhaps one in ten people would be considered a free thinker. This is as most people gain information from the media and then act in accordance with the medias proposed image.
This isn’t that ridiculous is it? Ask people what they think, and then ask them why they think it? More often then not the second question will be responded to frankly (such as ‘I saw it in the news’ ‘read it in the paper’ etc).
In such a manner it seems as though the average person sits in the opinion set of another ‘The news said this…’ ‘My friend said this….’ Fundamentally if we track down most of these ideas I’d speculate that most of their origins originate from a select set of views propagated by a select group of people.
The free thinkers create the ideas, yet the average person just adopts them, in order for a democracy to function theoretically wouldn’t it be key that all individuals are free thinkers? If not they simply act in two with the ideals of others.
I will clarify this idea shortly. Until then what do you think?
Selfishness Continued Selfishly
Due to the amount of comments on my last post, I felt it would be useful to continue the discussion of this topic with some basic questions.
Most of you follow the train of thought of arguer one. I have a few questions regarding your notions.
Is one selfish when they eat an orange they purchase?
Would they be selfish if they eat an orange they were given?
Is it selfish for them to eat an orange they’re being instructed to?
Or how about a more extreme example. Imagine you are the last living being on earth, but have been blessed with a lifetime supply of food. If you don’t eat it, it will simply go to waste. Are you selfish when you eat this food?
What if in the same situation it is your task to repopulate the earth through some pseudo cloning method. Lets say it was a task given to you by the Earth Government before they died, and all their hopes and ideals were left with you for the new earth. If you don’t eat surely you’ll die, and with you their last hopes. Is eating then selfish?
My point is that if in any of these you aren’t being selfish I believe it is because an external person is not in the picture. This would thereby mean that there needs to be an external person in the picture for someone to be considered selfish, more than likely due to the requisite of lacking consideration for other wants.
What do you think?
Selfishness
Due to a special request today I’m writing on the issue of selfishness that will reflect a discussion I had with a friend the other day.
To start first, what is selfishness? My friend and I defined it differently during our time of discussion and it seems as if the actual definition is somewhere in between, which in a sense makes the argument you are about to experience seemingly more muddled. Being selfish than is “lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure”.
There are two issues that arise from this definition.
‘Arguer One’ believes that as we always act out of self interest we are in essence always selfish. This is because when every you break something down to its root reason for doing it, it begins with a “I want…”. Its easy to see this. For example, when you are nice to someone you are nice to them for a reason, that reason being maybe you want them to be nice, or maybe you just want to be nice, or maybe it is an elaborate spiteful ploy. Regardless which way it is you still are nice because “I want to be nice in light of my reason x.”
His argument would flow as such:
‘Arguer Two’ believes that although we act out of self-interest we can act out of self interest of others, and in light of this have the ability to not be selfish. It is true that when one acts they act because they want. Be it the want to survive, the want to be nice, or the want to get candy it all starts with “I want”. However although we do have root selfish motivations, if we adopt a want such as being nice it in turn forces us to take into account the wants of others. This happens because in order to be nice, we need to observe that which the other would take as nice or what is nice and act in accordance with this. Thereby making the want “I want to be nice to X, which requires me to take into consideration X’s wants.”
His argument would flow as such:
In a nutshell: Arguer One believes that being selfish is unavoidable due to root wants, whereas Arguer Two believes that being selfish is avoidable due to root wants leading to the consideration of external wants.
What do you think?
Observation On Sexual Responsibility
As I was reading online, I clicked on a link that I probably shouldn’t have and this what popped up: “Jordin Sparks makes a virginity vow”. Jordan Sparks is an American Idol winner, as I found out, who wants to wait till marriage to make the sexual leap. With my own personal opinions of this aside, it made me realize something.
Ya know what I think this society lacks? A “I’m not going to be a (excuse my french) slut vow” or in its more politically correct form “I’m going to be sexually responsible vow.”
Right now it seems as if the media is only interested in portraying these two extremes, it would be refreshing to see some stars adopt the middle path of sexual control. But perhaps I am placing to much emphasis on what is being portrayed and what in actuality exists. Although I do believe the media influences people and as such it would be more than useful to have a mature portrayal.
In light of this I’d like to go on the record to say I’d find sexual responsibility more interesting then sexual abstinence or sexual craziness. So come on media, entice me!!!
?
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Sounds good doesn’t it? Good enough to believe perhaps. Unfortunately its far from being true. There are many example that exist showcasing the fallacy of this supposed truth. For example the present Dalai Lama, and previous Dalai Lamas, King Asoka, and Im sure there are many other figures that are not of a buddhist orientation that I don’t know of.
This, however is despite my point. What is it with people and adopting clever lines as their philosophy? “Oh you shouldn’t do that because ‘To each his own’”, “You know what they say ‘birds of a feather flock together’” and etc.
Where is the justification? Where is the argument? Where is the reason?
Idea in pill form seems to be the most common trend of society. People carry around quotes without understanding them and brandish them like sound justifications. Usually these quotes are crazy!!! But that’s OK because what they are is witty, and people like witty!
Don’t get me wrong being witty is important, but don’t throw out the baby with that bath water people. Oh look an expression, although I believe this is a justified one…. assuming you like babies (makes you wonder how many people actually threw out the baby ‘Oh it’s clean now, bye bye.’).
Anyhow my point with this oh so close to a rant is that one should think about what they’re saying. Realize that your words imply certain things, and although wittiness is important if thats all your ideas are based on take a step back and think about it.
?
