I’ve been staring out of my window this evening, the full moon illuminating the scene through the trees, the longer I sit, still, the more is revealed. Nature is quiet and in harmony. It’s a peaceful night. I can’t imagine that there is war in the world, that there is hatred, greed, anger! I can’t imagine that people are crying, dying, arguing, losing themselves deeper and deeper, day by day. It’s a very sad world out there. My heart is very heavy.
The passage below was Confucius’ vision. A taste of things to come?
Surely we all share this vision. Surely we can stop arguing about who is right and who is wrong and what is black and why is white opposite? My questions is this; What can we do to bring this vision into reality? How can peace on earth and goodwill to all men be created?
There are those who see no advantage for themselves, and they are not likely to be contributing to a Forum I’m afraid. It is nice to see that there can be an affinity between people of different religious background, even if we are not going to be effectively instrumental in changing things.
I think we can do something though, if we maintain the ‘perfect order’ mentioned here in our own homes and neighbourhoods. If we become a movement though, we must reckon with someone moving in and taking over, or with some destructive influence.
By killing everybody but me.
Seriously though, if there’s no room for stuff like arguing, or anger in your Utopia you are basically asking for an overhaul of human nature, aren’t you? I think deep down, the reason why we can’t all stop fighting and get along is that we don’t actually want to. Everybody, even the most caring, humble person there is, can think of some belief system, some ideology, some practice, that they think ought to be stamped out of existence. And someone thinks that about you too.
Put it this way. Aren’t you, liquidangel, thinking that Utopia would be so much easier to obtain if it weren’t for people like that*?
I think Uccisore is right that we don’t want peaceful cooperation. Somehow we sense its impossibility. There doesn’t appear any sense in it. Even communes created for this purpose fail because the cute blonde rejects Tom for John or some similar reason.
Look at what the greatest amount of money for our “entertainment” is spent on. Does it reflect the ideals of utopia or the satisfactions of violence? We spend money on what we want. It is what we want.
Now you can reply: “but we just don’t understand what we’re doing and losing in the process.”
Come to think of it, Jesus did say “forgive them for they know not what they do.”
As long as that question is seen as having two possible answers, no. It might be possible in a world with a population of 3-7 people, but no more. Living in virtue is utopia, but the word is meaningless without non-virtue, no? Trancendence can only happen in our own tree…, but it’s a lovely thought and one we should ask more often.
It must precisely be because of this affinity that we can change things. This affinity runs deeper than you or I are aware of but it is there and there must be a reason for it because there is a reason for everything. It must be a starting point. Yes, taking responsibility and harmonising within our own circles is key, and organising a movement would merely be creating another religion. We don’t need another religion. We simply have to contemplate what it really means to harmonise with one another. That requires work, introspection, transformation, which even if we are devout, some of us are unwilling to take on.
Uccisore,
Yes, transformation is required, unfortunately most are unwilling to consider the question because even though they are unhappy, they are happy being unhappy. They look to what can be gained externally to fulfill them. They are sef-centred. Yes, there are those who think that their their own happiness needs to be at the expense of others’. If so and so would just see it my way…well, then we are back to who’s right and who’s wrong. It seems we cannot agree - so instead of forcing the other to see our point of view, what if, instead of butt heads over the problem, we went around the problem - water, it always flows around it’s obstacle reaching it’s destination - lowest ground. Humility is not exclusive, it’s inclusive. You, you know martial art! A warrior would know intuitively how to dissipate conflict. There is a fundamental principal that runs through all things. A warrior would know this and hence he would apply the knowldedge of this principal in all things.
Having lovely thoughts of peace is simply not enough for me. Thoughts carry weight, they are creative, we are what we think about certainly, just as whatever food we put into our bodies reflects our state of health, our lives are a manifestation of our thoughts, but without action thinking about it simply isn’t enough! Merely having the thought is going to the edge and retreating again. The problem as I see it is that we spend our lives thinking and not much else. We spend them in search of externals - when I buy this car I’ll be happy or as soon as I have that job that I can earn this amount of money so that I can have some quiet time to myself or when my children are grown, I’ll focus on my spiritual life…
Life is happening and is not waiting for us to post the next enlightening post on this forum, it is not waiting for us to to catch up and realise that our lives are the way that we create them. This world is the way we have created it. Whether we believe in God as the creator or not, you will have to agree, that this world is our world and it is a reflection of ourselves. This is it, life is happening and how we choose to live it in this moment is important. My heart’s desire for a peaceful utopian world does carry a great responsibility, it’s not that I’m asking anyone else to do it, clearly they are not so inclined, it’s not that I’m demanding a group effort, that is as unlikely to happen as it is for me to win the lottery, especially since I never play…
I don’t particularly care to tell anyone how to live, there are enough great thinkers/teachers who have already done that. I guess, my question asks for an individual paradigm shift - a dynamic shift in how we view ourselves, how we view the world and our participation in it. It’s all too complicated to give it any real consideration - it is better that we get back to arguing about who is right and who is wrong…
The world cannot be meaningless without virtue, virtue is a characteristic of the essence of who you are, so is outside of the realm of duality.
It depends on the importance of the conflict. With debate, as with actual combat, there are conflicts that you can dissipate, and conflicts that have to be engaged. Rightly or wrongly, there are issues in the world that people see as too important to simply 'agree to disagree'. What's more, there are issues in which inaction [i]is[/i] a stance. Those issues are probably the hardest to ignore. Give me an example of a problem the world butts heads about, and how it could be flowed around instead.
It takes simple understanding of the other’s position. That is more than agreeing to disagree. That is making the effort to step outside of ourselves, to become selfless for a moment, in order to understand the other’s point of view. And then working together to come to a harmonius outcome. I don’t know, I’m an idealist. Here is a story by Stephen Covey, the author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.
"I remember a mini-paradigm shift I experienced one Sunday morning on a subway in New York. People were sitting quietly - some reading newspapers, some lost on thought, some resting with their eyes closed. It was a clam, peaceful scene. Then suddenly, a man and his children entered the subway car. The children were so loud and rambunctious that instantly the whole climate changed. The man sat down next to me and closed his eyes, apparently oblivious to the situation. The children were yelling back and forth, throwing things, even grabbing people’s newspaper. It was difficult not to feel irritated. I could not believe that he could be so insensitive as to let his children run wild like that and do nothing about it, taking no responsibility at all. It was easy to see that everyone else on the subway felt irritated too. So fianlly, with what I felt was unususal patience and restraint, I turned to him and said, “Sir, your children are really disturbing a lot of people. I wonder if you couldn’t control them a little more?” The man lifted his gaze as if to come to a consciousness of the situation for the first time and said softely, “Oh, you’re right. I guess I should do something aobut it. We just came from the hospital where their mother died about an hour ago. I don’t know what to think, and guess they don’t know how to handle it either.”
Can you imagine what I felt at that moment? My paradigm shifted. Suddenly I saw things differently, and because I saw differently, thought differently, and felt differently, I behaved differently. My irritation vanished. I didn’t have to worry about controlling my attitude or my behaviour, my heart was filled with the man’s pain. Feelings of sympathy and compassin flowed freely. “Your wife just died? Oh, I’m so sorry! Can you tell me about it? What can I do to help?” Everything changed in an instant."
I agree completely. In fact this is one of the reasons why Christianity devolved into the Christendom that you now see. People began worrying about what others were doing instead of the rightful concern for their own inner emotional states. Of course conflicts had to result.
It sounds easy but in practice is incredibly difficult because even if a person begins to recognize its value, our conditioning returns us to our old ways at the slightest provocation.
I’ve read that in ancient times “acting” was an exercise in just this attempt to put oneself into the position of another…
On one day, for example, someone may take the role of the butcher for example and try to experience his life not changing or glamorizing anything but simply to experience the reality of this life that is foreign to the actor. It was a learning experience to allow one to put themselves in the position of another.
Of course in these times acting has changed from the experience of this life of another into the sale of an artificial image that people find preferable to spend their money on and to glorify.
One exercise done now is to intentionally put yourself next to another you dislike and to intentionally try to stay present to the experience of your negativity. It’s an exercise in “presence” and can be very revealing for oneself.
It’s not just Chritianity that suffers these problems. It’s all religions as far as I have seen, that’s not to say that there are no religious people who are focussed on their own spiritual life. There are! There is a natural progression for people who have found their way to want everyone to share their findings and when we don’t see people acting in integrity, walking their talk, we want to ‘show’ them, but that is part of the process of self discovery part of the journey. Unfortunately, for most of our world it ends there as most of us cannot get past this very real need for everyone to be thinking and behaving as we do. It’s a struggle, but it’s not impossible.
No, it’s not as easy at it sounds, but that is the paradox. It is actually very easy. All depends on our sincerity to do it. If we really really want to, we can - that is the greatness of our spirit. It can accomplish anything, it can encompass everything, all things - it can accept everyone, exactly as they are - of course, understanding another means understanding ourselves. Hard? Depends on how much you want it!
Yes, a good way to observe and understand ourselves. Then change the way we view the other. When we can do that it is alchemy. Again, it comes down to what we want doesn’t it?
You make it too easy. When you talk about understanding 'the other's position, you imagine the Christian understanding the Jew, the parent understanding the child, the American understanding the Frenchman. In order to see the [i]real[/i] problem, examine [i]yourself[/i]. Be selfless and understanding of the point of view of the terrorist, the white-supremicist, and the pedophile. Try to move beyong agreeing to disagree, and embrace them for what they are with loving arms...
If you can't, as I can't, then you see the problem as I do. Again, if you think the world sucks, then necessarily you think something [i]about it [/i]sucks, and I don't just mean the weather. If you want the world substantially improved, the odds are, there's at least one ideology or viewpoint you'd need stamped out of existence to get your way. In turn, there is someone out there that wants to see [i]your[/i] viewpoints stamped out of existence, however flawless and inclusive you take yourself to be. That's reality. All of everything you see right now and call unfortunate is just the result of all these different groups working towards their own ideas of Utopia.
What's the point in proposing a model for the betterment of humanity, if it can't include any human beings?
Yes, I agree, Uccisore. Easier said than done. The subjective experiences alone should tell us people have this propensity to disagree on many points. That is the reality we must deal with. No offense, Liquidangel. Even Rawls would admit that his utopia of fair and just society would remain just a model—if we’ve ever come “distantly” close enough to applying this model to real societies, then good enough.
I think that there is something missing here. The fact that I can ‘look’ at the world through another’s eyes does not mean that I have to accept what I see. Among viewpoints there are those that are benign and some that are completely malignant and everything in between. Even though I may understand, I do not have to embrace bigotry, racism, or exploitation of those weaker. That the world is made up of of all extremes doesn’t negate the desire to see humanity learn to act out of selflessness and genuine compassion.
There are some world views that are misanthropic and deserve to be vanquished. This is nothing difficult to understand, nor is genuine self love incapable of rejecting that which is evil.
Yes, and I’m sure many terrorirsts out there say this very thing to themselves every night before they go to sleep. Don’t think I’m disagreeing with you, because I’m not at all. It’s just that the right attitude, the attitude you express above, will lead to conflict as often as it leads to peace, which is why diversity isn’t compatible with Utopian goals in the end. Rather, we sacrifice the chance for Utopia when we decide we want a world were people are truly free to follow their own destiny.
To tie this into religion, I’m sure it’s all very similar to the reasons why God chose to allow free will and evil to exist.
The trouble is that regardless of how much we want it, there are other parts of ourselves that do not want it. How to bring order to this inner chaos? How to begin to witness to ourselves so that we can begin to know ourselves?
Sincerity is a very important word. Do we know the difference between the truth and the lies in ourselves to be able to be sincere? Are we even able, as we are, to be an impartial witness to ourselves in order to know?
Socrates admitted he knew nothing and look where it got him.
I agree that the eventual ability to be sincere with ourselves is essential if we are called to develop inwardly with real self knowledge as the foundation of our growth. I also believe though that we underestimate how far we are from the ability for this quality of sincerity. What a mess we’re in.
Hmmm, I see the difficulty Uccisore. There are so many wrongs that seem to need to be righted, yet because of all these externals (to ourselves) the solution seems too complicated even to conceptualise. I didn’t actually appreciate how tough this discussion would prove to be and yes, I make it sound so easy when in reality it is much harder to action. Still, for me I see the answer as being much more personal and having said that I myself am not an example of perfect compassion, I merely hold a vision and try to do my best to achieve it in my own life as Bob has suggested to begin with. This is where the discussion from an intellectual perspective must end, because this is indeed a spiritual issue, not a political one. There will be no organisation that can achieve Confucius’ utopia as there will always be human opinion and there will always be differences in opinion due to our differing objective realities. Utopia is a personal responsibility.
Peace is not a concept. It is a kind of frequency that can only take place within our hearts. The function of the mind is to think, it cannot grasp what peace actually is, just as the mind cannot truly grasp what love is - mind can only discuss its attributes, it cannot decipher the puzzle without the heart experiencing it and transmitting that knowledge to the mind. I know, I must sound quite odd, I don’t really care what I sound like, I know what I am – stay with me…unless we personally make the leap to understand that everything that we witness outside of ourselves is a reflection of what is inside of us and I include all atrocities committed, all so-called evils – everything good and bad exists within us – and this is where we have the power to change the world – we transform ourselves - unless we make this connection, we cannot talk about such things. Results are immediate in as much we are sincere, but they are also gradual. This world is an organic entity and when we change, our external environment also changes. You choose, do you want to be influenced by your external environment or do you want to influence your external environment? Up to you!
You (Uccisore) speak of a world where people are truly free, in sacrifice of a utopian world. I have to question the validity of that statement. How exactly are we free?
to applying this model to real societies, then good enough.