Patriarchal Planet

[Paladin]

Sorry about that, some Dramamine maybe?

I actually think it clarifies what we are up against.
Coberst seems to attack the problem from an educational standpoint, which has its merits, but I am beginning to think there will be conflict as long as there is evolving consciousness.

 

[Dream]

I do not excuse the women in this, either. In my country and in my time, women can obtain a higher education, pursue a career, and demand their rights. They can leave abusive relationships. They can make their own way. Some just choose not to, and while one can blame "the media" or "religion" or whatever you wish, the responsibility to take charge of one's own life rests with the self, so long as the law supports it.

Overall, men naturally oppress women, so it is the work of religion, society, or some other forward looking provision that makes life better for future generations. Women are born into a given family, and they are given a set of rules and allotments, education. Often personal advancement is not possible, however for those who can make such advancement it is because their ancestors did something unnatural to make it possible, something extraordinary. A man might not even notice the inequality, since it doesn't appear to affect him directly; though actually it drags all of humanity down. A male is not as easily oppressed, can leave the nest more easily, is not expected to carry the same responsibilities, and so often has more time for personal fulfillment and/or education. I think women are forced to be more forward thinking, because more-often-than-men they get stuck with fewer choices or 'The leftovers'. I think it makes them more socially progressive, always hoping for a better life for both their sons and daughters. Women become a sort of natural cultural conscience. Men can also be socially forward thinking, however it is easier for us to overlook the need for it. A man is more likely to be independent, place more value on sons than daughters, even see social inequality as beneficial. We just don't have as many rules or obstructions.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao, I was not being dismissive of advancements in equality in the first world. I was, however, pointing out that these advancements in equality have once again been largely within exclusionary boundaries- we treat "our own" as equals- and not with a global vision.

That is, our own women and minorities may have greater equality than they did 50 years ago, but in the meantime, we are exploiting third world women and minorities more than we did 50 years ago.

We didn't move toward greater global equality, we just shifted who we're exploiting. Why? Because we still want cheap junk and lots of it. Until we change what we demand from our environment and our sense of entitlement, we're going to continue to exploit women, children, and minorities because it is economically expedient to do so. They are just not the women, children, and minorities that live next door to us, so we are able to feel much better about ourselves and ignore the exploitation.

It's the NIMBY approach to equality, just as we also see it with sustainability. I can look around and superficially declare my nation to have a good deal of equality and sustainability, but if I look at the networks of how the goods, labor, and such are flowing across national boundaries, it is clear that my culture is as unequal and unsustainable as it ever was. I'm being honest about our "growth" and "progress" in the first world. We have attained a superficial ideology of equal rights that gives lip service to human worth while simultaneously exploiting people all over the world to bring wealth and goods to our doorsteps.

The misery of third world women and children isn't just religious- it is based on this exploitation of them for first world desires. We capitalize off their misery and limited opportunity, and we dismiss it as "progress" and "giving them jobs" and whatever else.

Forgive me for relying on the statistics and not feel-good pats on the back for the first world's ideology of "freedom." But when the gap between rich and poor is steadily increasing both within and between nations, and when women and children are being sold into slavery, are working under horrible conditions to make our $7.99 T-shirts at Wal-Mart, and are facing cancers and other conditions due to our export of environmental waste... I am failing to see how that is "equal rights" and of any benefit to women.

I'm a practical sort. I'm more interested in what actually happens to people than the ideas we have about it.

And I was not intending to slate you for the omission to emphasise the huge struggles and recognise the progress as progress. Its just the way it came out.

I think if we progress a little with this we would find we hold virtually identical views on the economic realities you highlight. Your posts here so far have absolute clarity and I cannot dispute the rendering of your thinking. So given your clarity, and practicality, how do we solve the economic question whilst keeping the big religions? I cannot see a way to make personal greed 'undesirable' when religions, (including political religions), perpetuate the caste system in which the current economic disparity thrives. Almost all of us are wage slaves whether stretched between compliance and starvation or between and employer and the bank. When we get to the bottom of the ladder and find brutalised people we can look and see that they are the most poorly educated people and are often religiously marginalised. The aspects of religion I address here are those that help to perpetuate that system. They do not really show their ugly face in our western secular paradise, and our news is criminally sanitised, but globally they are being rigorously policed. Religions do people management rather well to serve their business interests. When that fails armies are called in. Within the cadre of control there is always a religious influence. Some of these little masonic style groups are now very powerful and have honed their expertise to where they are manipulating more than one major religion. Or are duplicitous with other cadres in globe-spanning alliances. But they all make sure you do not think that any other thing is possible except a money based system dependent on scarcity, on keeping the majority poor. If you give everybody economic equality then the cadres are no longer alphas. Yet we in the west are having our progress threatened, and to me there most certainly has been real progress, on several fronts. From the rise in Fundamentalist and evangelical 'rackets' to the dismal fall in educational standards I see warning signs. All these things Obama preached before he was elected we need them and more implemented globally. We need free quality healthcare, that includes the calories to live healthily and a safe home for every living person. The right to a free education to whatever academic level the individual wants. We need something like the American declaration of independence but for humanity. And to this time really make it work. It wont work with alpha authority having any say, so it needs removed first.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Sorry about that, some Dramamine maybe?

I actually think it clarifies what we are up against.
Coberst seems to attack the problem from an educational standpoint, which has its merits, but I am beginning to think there will be conflict as long as there is evolving consciousness.

Agreed....but can we manage or channel it productively?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Agreed....but can we manage or channel it productively?

And.... after reading that article I want to read the book. The narcissism stuff at the end got me thinking tho and Im so glad its ok to have it if its in balance,recognised or accounted for ! After all I wouldn't want to give up my intelligence and good looks altogether

 

[Paladin]

Agreed....but can we manage or channel it productively?

I'd like to say yes, but perhaps cultivate might be the most appropriate strategy. Of course for this we might have to find and agree on methodologies, modalities that would facilitate growth.

One of the problems with using any kind of hierarchical, or holoarchial method or model is that people see it as a better than less than proposition which offends their sensibilities. In other words I wouldn't like for faithfulservant, for example, to think her beliefs and values were being thought of as "less than"

Levels below 2nd tier are always "nested" within and can be used when deemed appropriate, for example a soldier slips into the red level in the course of his duty on the battlefied. This is the right time for that.
Therefore we speak of hierarchy in a progressive sense not in a narcissistic sense.
At least that is the ideal.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I'd like to say yes, but perhaps cultivate might be the most appropriate strategy. Of course for this we might have to find and agree on methodologies, modalities that would facilitate growth.

One of the problems with using any kind of hierarchical, or holoarchial method or model is that people see it as a better than less than proposition which offends their sensibilities. In other words I wouldn't like for faithfulservant, for example, to think her beliefs and values were being thought of as "less than"

Levels below 2nd tier are always "nested" within and can be used when deemed appropriate, for example a soldier slips into the red level in the course of his duty on the battlefied. This is the right time for that.
Therefore we speak of hierarchy in a progressive sense not in a narcissistic sense.
At least that is the ideal.

There is still a suspicion in me about the whole thing, I would need to read the book before I could feel confident on commenting. There is something about it that does not sit comfortably, like Dawkin's "Brights". That said I do believe you are not considering reality if you do not understand the principals of memes.

 

[path_of_one]

And I was not intending to slate you for the omission to emphasise the huge struggles and recognise the progress as progress. Its just the way it came out.

That's OK, but figured I'd elaborate. I'm afraid I may have initially been too "short-hand" and left too much of the complete thought in my head. It's not your fault you're not a mind reader.

I think if we progress a little with this we would find we hold virtually identical views on the economic realities you highlight. Your posts here so far have absolute clarity and I cannot dispute the rendering of your thinking. So given your clarity, and practicality, how do we solve the economic question whilst keeping the big religions?

I think we've talked past each other for a while. I'm not for keeping the "big religions." I am just not for doing away with spiritual life and religion altogether.

I'd like to see humanity as a whole move beyond labels and divisionary lines of all sorts- move beyond religious labels, political ones, social ones. My pipe dream is a world where people just meet and see others for who they are, not some box we check on the census or the national boundary in which we were born.

That said, I don't think the answer is in ending human spirituality or even the communal aspect of this spirituality that is religion. It's just in stopping our collective obsession with dividing everyone into groups and then hating or mistreating each other based on it.

Personally, I can see far more similarities between myself and a mystic of any religion than I can between myself and people within my own religious background. I can see more similarities between myself and others of my personality type than I can between myself and other "Americans." I find the labels useless except that we currently need them to communicate in a world that deems them important.

I think what I rail against in your line of thinking is your drive, if I understand you correctly, to think that people have to give up any sort of spiritual life and belief in the supramundane. I believe that we can already see evidence historically that contrary to this, some of the people who have most moved beyond the negative parts of the human condition have been spiritual people. The problem, from my point of view, is not that people are religious, but that they are generally not spiritual enough. All the atheists I've known that have been very ethical, compassionate beings have been spiritual people with unifying experiences. They just don't interpret them the way I do.

I'm basically for getting past the differences in our interpretations and stopping with the notion that we all need to have the same ideas, and move into a space in which we focus on the same goal of alleviating suffering and being compassionate in our awareness, thoughts, feelings, and actions. Otherwise it seems we just set ourselves up for the age-old problem: my way is better than your way, and everyone should agree with my ideas.

Almost all of us are wage slaves whether stretched between compliance and starvation or between and employer and the bank. When we get to the bottom of the ladder and find brutalised people we can look and see that they are the most poorly educated people and are often religiously marginalised. The aspects of religion I address here are those that help to perpetuate that system. They do not really show their ugly face in our western secular paradise, and our news is criminally sanitised, but globally they are being rigorously policed. Religions do people management rather well to serve their business interests. When that fails armies are called in. Within the cadre of control there is always a religious influence. Some of these little masonic style groups are now very powerful and have honed their expertise to where they are manipulating more than one major religion. Or are duplicitous with other cadres in globe-spanning alliances. But they all make sure you do not think that any other thing is possible except a money based system dependent on scarcity, on keeping the majority poor. If you give everybody economic equality then the cadres are no longer alphas. Yet we in the west are having our progress threatened, and to me there most certainly has been real progress, on several fronts. From the rise in Fundamentalist and evangelical 'rackets' to the dismal fall in educational standards I see warning signs. All these things Obama preached before he was elected we need them and more implemented globally.

Well, yeah. That's what I was saying earlier. The problem is not a human belief in God or the supernatural or whatever. The problem is not spirituality or communal spirituality, which is to say religion.

The problem is how religion is used for power. And until we rid ourselves of the underlying compliance with the power structure and systems that maintain it, we will perpetuate it no matter what ideology we hold, be it religious (having to do with transcendence and the supramundane) or secular (ordinary life). We can get rid of religion, and a new ideology will spring up to replace it and maintain the power structure.

At this point, voting with ideology does virtually nothing. We have to be willing to sacrifice convenience and desire and vote with our cash, committing ourselves to not supporting those that harm others. People give only a teeny amount of their wealth to churches. They give the bulk to the corporations and the government. Follow the money- that's where the power is. Religions are, at worst, a pawn in the game. At best, they rebel against the game... at least until someone figures out how to then make the new religion a pawn again. I can provide a reference or two if you want to read about it.

We need free quality healthcare, that includes the calories to live healthily and a safe home for every living person. The right to a free education to whatever academic level the individual wants. We need something like the American declaration of independence but for humanity. And to this time really make it work. It wont work with alpha authority having any say, so it needs removed first.

I agree. But how is the million dollar question. How can anarchy work with a global economy, specialized division of labor, and population of 6 billion plus people? So far, it can't. And therein lies the dilemma.

 

[shawn]

We have to be willing to sacrifice convenience and desire and vote with our cash

While I agree with the essence of your point, a major underpinning here is that it is not our cash.
These are the notes of bondage and debt servitude.
This cash is owned by a small group of others, and now while I believe we are all One, those in this group do not share this sentiment and very much like an us and them barrier to exist.
We are not them and they are not us, so this creates a parasitical situation which should be symbiotic, but it is not, nor has it ever been.
If it does not change, we all may not have much of a future.
Got to look past the branches of the problems (the symptoms) and look to the roots (causes).

 

[Tao_Equus]

I think we've talked past each other for a while. I'm not for keeping the "big religions." I am just not for doing away with spiritual life and religion altogether.

Neither am I for doing away with a sense of the spiritual, but religion itself I am.

I'd like to see humanity as a whole move beyond labels and divisionary lines of all sorts- move beyond religious labels, political ones, social ones.

Utopia will never exist, but I think as near as damn it can! But for that I think we need to stop being so much like social mammals and be a bit more like ants (but not 'as' ants).

My pipe dream is a world where people just meet and see others for who they are, not some box we check on the census or the national boundary in which we were born.{/quote] This is something that is making real headway. Remember you have a half-African President now.

That said, I don't think the answer is in ending human spirituality or even the communal aspect of this spirituality that is religion. It's just in stopping our collective obsession with dividing everyone into groups and then hating or mistreating each other based on it.

I see it as money based economics being too entwined with politics and religion, which are twins, in such a tangled mess it is impossible to extract one from the other. Its a big messy knot. It will take a better brain than my pickled walnut to untangle it.

Personally, I can see far more similarities between myself and a mystic of any religion than I can between myself and people within my own religious background. I can see more similarities between myself and others of my personality type than I can between myself and other "Americans." I find the labels useless except that we currently need them to communicate in a world that deems them important.

There are so many layers to any relationship and some are highly intuitive dont you think? We are diversity within similarity, a chaotic system that can be described with poetry and dance and paint as often and as well as in words of theory. Because, as youl will know these theories are art. Like everything in the universe it looks the same......until you look closer. Then it looks the same again...then it doesnt....

I think what I rail against in your line of thinking is your drive, if I understand you correctly, to think that people have to give up any sort of spiritual life and belief in the supramundane. I believe that we can already see evidence historically that contrary to this, some of the people who have most moved beyond the negative parts of the human condition have been spiritual people.

I think this is not only a red herring of a belief but is demonstrably so. Christopher Hitchens tackles it pretty well in his book "God Is Not Great" (which should have carried the subtitle "this is not a great book, in fact its mediocre and lacklustre") He is not like me at all in his conclusions... I am more extreme, but even he can break that argument down on at least two fronts.

All the atheists I've known that have been very ethical, compassionate beings have been spiritual people with unifying experiences. They just don't interpret them the way I do.

Your very own assertion that religion is superfluous?

... and everyone should agree with my ideas.

Add a bit here, chop a bit there and most will!!

I agree. But how is the million dollar question. How can anarchy work with a global economy, specialized division of labor, and population of 6 billion plus people? So far, it can't. And therein lies the dilemma.

We need to remove economy altogether and remove all trace of power from supernatural or ideological collectives. A big ask indeed!!