Freedom & Modern Systems of Control

[blig-blug]

what seemed like a quite personal response from you

It wasn't meant to be about you as a person, but about what it seemed (to me) you believe. It's reasonable to ask to someone that supports the murder of those he perceives as threats why he thinks he's not a threat and thus shouldn't be murdered. However as you don't believe that, then it's not a reasonable question.

I bet we would understand quicker if I had used 35 words only!

Haha true. We should do a thread with even a lower limit. Maybe 10? "In this world most people think threats must be killed".

 

[fink]

Yes, that is concise. We all make our own minds up about what constitutes a threat worthy of violence. I stated mine as attacking or threatening to attack my children.

Everybody else's excuse for killing each other is entirely up to them.

 

[blig-blug]

Yes, that is concise. We all make our own minds up about what constitutes a threat worthy of violence. I stated mine as attacking or threatening to attack my children.

Everybody else's excuse for killing each other is entirely up to them.

And I would say there is a difference between being willing to kill in a certain situation, and being willing for others to proactively kill and be killed on your behalf to prevent some hypothetical scenario. Many people are quick to say that "we" (meaning anyone but them) "should eliminate X". As Void said (and as it has been said in different ways along this thread), it's better to focus on what we (as a person) can do rather on what some we-but-excluding-me-from-anything-difficult should do. I think we agree on this.

 

[LuxObscura]

I've noticed that a lot of this discussion seems to be under the scope of freedom as an absolute. Perhaps it's a spectrum, one of many, to find balance on. And perhaps talking about this on a global scale at this point in time is like trying to talk about the the cosmos in terms of atoms: each person is dynamically dynamic, and the interactions therein are as well.

Maybe not only that but there are also different types of freedom.
And those freedoms could have a different meaning and importance for every single individual.

Freedom of speech, freedom to dress to a degree the way one likes, freedom of education, ...
While in some countries the freedom to choose a haircut would make more sense compared to other countries where one would lough about it because its opposite would be absurd.
And while for those who do not have these freedoms, even a small one would mean the world.

 

[The Traveler]

This is why Shaolin monks are romantically depicted being truly peaceful humans who understand how to kick the crap out of you.

There is nice footage where proven beyond doubt, Shoalin monks well known name for martial arts, in practice fail to win over other martial art forms.

Ideas living in our minds, might not reflect reality.

 

[LuxObscura]

This is why Shaolin monks are romantically depicted being truly peaceful humans who understand how to kick the crap out of you.

There is nice footage where proven beyond doubt, Shoalin monks well known name for martial arts, in practice fail to win over other martial art forms.

Ideas living in our minds, might not reflect reality.

Some ideas turn into reality successfully, others don’t.
But every human-made practice, whether it succeeds or fails, originates in someone’s mind.
No exception: boxing, Muay Thai, MMA, whatever.

Shaolin monks might not be the best fighters in a competitive sense,
but maybe that was never their ultimate goal.
Martial arts for them could have been a means to cultivate discipline and mastery over body and mind.
If that’s the case, then it served its purpose.

Even if their style loses to modern martial arts in direct combat,
they can still outperform most ordinary people, both physically and mentally.

 

[northape]

Shaolin monks are more like yogis, in my opinion. Their practice is supposed to be based on Buddhadharma.
The ancients understood that your body is part of the equation and that you can develop it for spiritual evolution.
With lifelong practice and real know-how, one can reach a high level of realization. I feel like that was their goal.

 

[fink]

There is nice footage where proven beyond doubt, Shoalin monks well known name for martial arts, in practice fail to win over other martial art forms.

Ideas living in our minds, might not reflect reality.

The point wasn't about being the best fighter in the world though. It was that the wise people practice peace whilst recognising the need to not be helpless

 

[northape]

The point wasn't about being the best fighter in the world though. It was that the wise people practice peace whilst recognising the need to not be helpless

You are right from a mundane everyday perspective, but ultimately wisdom goes even farther - it's about putting others above yourself.
You would most likely give your life for your child. Imagine feeling the same way toward everyone. Wisdom and love are one and the same.

 

[Skr9]

Okay, what is love? Provide a legit definition.

 

[Varallo]

Okay, what is love? Provide a legit definition.

Hi @Skr9 I’d like to make a suggestion to you. I notice this in more of your contributions, but ik pick this one as an example. I think that if you put a bit more time and energy into your reply, they could be more useful and really help the discussion move forward. A short remark like ‘provide a legit definition?’ is a bit lazy and it would add much more value if you expanded it into something where you share, your idea overall, or how do you define it? And then maybe leave an open question. That way the conversation can grow, instead of being cut short.

Anyway just wanted to share that with you.

 

[northape]

Okay, what is love? Provide a legit definition.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Hi @Skr9 I’d like to make a suggestion to you. I notice this in more of your contributions, but ik pick this one as an example. I think that if you put a bit more time and energy into your reply, they could be more useful and really help the discussion move forward. A short remark like ‘provide a legit definition?’ is a bit lazy and it would add much more value if you expanded it into something where you share, your idea overall, or how do you define it? And then maybe leave an open question. That way the conversation can grow, instead of being cut short.

Anyway just wanted to share that with you.

You didn't like that Socratic slant?

Okay, what is love? Provide a legit definition.

In either the blue or brown book (or both) from Wittegnstein, he ostensively shows how we learn different things in different ways, some of those ways are ostensive. All that to say, we may be able to show what love it rather than say what love is.

To highlight more and volley back at ya, explain red to me.

One love

 

[blig-blug]

The English word "love" (and its equivalent in many other languages like Spanish) is not fine-grained enough, and that leads to confusion. I like the ancient Greek classification better: Greek words for love - Wikipedia
So, which of these are we talking about? I think @northape was pointing to agape.

 

[northape]

The English word "love" (and its equivalent in many other languages like Spanish) is not fine-grained enough, and that leads to confusion. I like the ancient Greek classification better: Greek words for love - Wikipedia
So, which of these are we talking about? I think @northape was pointing to agape.

Agape it is. Bodhichitta sounds good, too

 

[fink]

You are right from a mundane everyday perspective, but ultimately wisdom goes even farther - it's about putting others above yourself.
You would most likely give your life for your child. Imagine feeling the same way toward everyone. Wisdom and love are one and the same.

I cannot agree completely. Yes to that ethos, definitely.

No to feeling that way towards everyone. When the meth head charges towards my family with a machete, it's definitely not wisdom to put them above myself.

From the safety of my living room I could feel compassion for their plight. With wisdom I could work out how to freely give my time and energy to help them.

When it is life or death 'in the wild'... nope.

It brings me back to a question from a few pages back.

How do you force everyone to adopt a peaceful way of living without first killing everyone who refuses?

 

[northape]

How do you force everyone to adopt a peaceful way of living without first killing everyone who refuses?

We can't force anything. That certainly will never work long-term and is far from wise. All you can do is work with your own mind.
Imagining how it would feel to love everyone is a practice in itself. We need to see such a possibility, even if it's completely fictional.
When it comes to mundane life, do what feels right. It looks like you're too much in survival mode. One can struggle with the world or feel compassion for it.
I think this decision is up to the individual. If you're fine with giving up your life for another, a lot of these problems lose their actuality and power.
However, we all live to the best of our abilities. Talking is nice, but only a real-life situation can test our resolve and maturity.
I'd aspire to have higher morals and to make a self-sacrifice. It is better to be true to yourself than to end up in an animal-like state.

 

[Voidmatrix]

In the context of freedom it seems "forcing" such a thing would be hypocrital and antithetical to the goal.

One love

 

[fink]

Forcing is a term that can be switched for convince, or teach, or whatever makes one feel morally satisfied. One thing is for sure, until every last human is onboard with whatever ethos is being pushed, you'll have to somehow defend that ethos against violence.

Turning the other cheek towards incoming violence I wont ever agree with. Especially if it is to defend the weaker humans behind me.

I say we are morally obligated to use any means, including violence, to stop violence being inflicted on those who cannot defend themself.

Nature does not abhor violence for survival.

But this is my subjective view.

The objective view is that all of humanity wants to live in peace. The most powerful and wealthy humans want it too. So much so that they are prepared to allow millions of us to kill each other rather than disrupt their peace.

And it all starts with one single rogue lifeform deciding on violence.

Many of the world's civilian population in this great time owe the peaceful lives they are allowed to choose entirely to the horrendous violence their country is capable of.

We cannot say we are great people for being peaceful. We can say we are lucky we get the choice to be.

 

[blig-blug]

Do you see a difference between proactive violence and defensive violence? Once again, you speak about "forcing" (proactive) and follow it by arguments on self-defense.