Yes, there are. Why is there so much of this in the world?
Do you know some other world to compare it to?
Some people say we could end world hunger tommarrow.
I say its not that easy, and those people are idealists. Realistically, such issues as hunger and poverty could take a very long time to resolve, and thats assuming the people in a postion to help are also willing to do so.
I'll let on why I'm asking this. I'm interested in something called Integral Political Theory. One of the claims of this theory is that conservatives/right-wingers tend to understand suffering primarily in terms of individual, personal responsibility, whereas liberals/left-wingers tend to view suffering in a more systemic way, looking at influencing factors such as nature, culture, society, modes of commerce, etc.
It seems that the few answers that have been given here today generally bear that out...
"Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something that needs our love" ~ Rainer Maria Rilke
Slogan/motto:
It is a good time to be a jester when the world is a joke.
Reputation:
September 28th, 2006, 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balder
I'll let on why I'm asking this. I'm interested in something called Integral Political Theory. One of the claims of this theory is that conservatives/right-wingers tend to understand suffering primarily in terms of individual, personal responsibility, whereas liberals/left-wingers tend to view suffering in a more systemic way, looking at influencing factors such as nature, culture, society, modes of commerce, etc.
It seems that the few answers that have been given here today generally bear that out...
The description of the specific focus of the two extremes sounds about right.
What got you interested in this Balder?
The most important thing anyone can learn from 1st century greco-roman mystery cults is that complex religious systems can arise and develop without an historical founder.
I'm interested in Integral Theory in general. (I did my MA in Integral Psychology.) I'm dissatisfied with the current state of politics, not finding enough integrity or truth on either the traditional right or the left, but also feeling that both sides point at least to a number of important truths. So, when I heard about a developing Integral political theory, my interest was aroused.
The idea about the basic fault-line between left and right made sense to me, but I wanted to test it out. The reason they are irreconcilable, in my view, is because they both represent "half" of the picture, and trying to make a half the whole will always lead to problems.....
"Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something that needs our love" ~ Rainer Maria Rilke
I'll let on why I'm asking this. I'm interested in something called Integral Political Theory. One of the claims of this theory is that conservatives/right-wingers tend to understand suffering primarily in terms of individual, personal responsibility, whereas liberals/left-wingers tend to view suffering in a more systemic way, looking at influencing factors such as nature, culture, society, modes of commerce, etc.
It seems that the few answers that have been given here today generally bear that out...
I think I agree with both sides, but since are talking worldwide suffering, I'm kinda leaning to the left.
Slogan/motto:
It is a good time to be a jester when the world is a joke.
Reputation:
September 28th, 2006, 10:03 AM
I can't help but feel that the fault-line between the two is not only artificial, but it's deliberate.
The most important thing anyone can learn from 1st century greco-roman mystery cults is that complex religious systems can arise and develop without an historical founder.
Yeah, I would guess many people can see some truths on both sides, but lean one way or the other. It's that old question of nature or nurture. I don't think the answer is one or the other, but both.
B.
"Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something that needs our love" ~ Rainer Maria Rilke
I can't help but feel that the fault-line between the two is not only artificial, but it's deliberate.
Indeed. Both sides would like the other side to be all things they see as wrong with society. I doubt that many people completely match the mold of the side they claim to be.
Slogan/motto:
It is a good time to be a jester when the world is a joke.
Reputation:
September 28th, 2006, 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balder
Why do you think it would be intentional? To perpetuate the status quo?
Yes, for the most part. I think the American public has been rendered useless in the past few generations by "them" or the "establishment" however you'd like to define those terms. I think a good way of perpetuating the illusion that we the people have some sort of control is to create a competition out of shuffling around the faces and names in the political realm. They polarize us and we think we have a say.
The most important thing anyone can learn from 1st century greco-roman mystery cults is that complex religious systems can arise and develop without an historical founder.
Okay, beyond the explanations I've already summarized, some have now stated that it is not really the "fault" of individuals -- it is natural, the collective human condition, or even the collective condition of life.
Any others?
Or we can be more specific: Why do people suffer from starvation, deprivation, and poverty? (To give an example of suffering that is not purely internal/emotional).
One of the answers given in the Vedas is that people want sex - and are not prepared to look after the children, and this is the source of many a woe on the planet - our out of control urge for sex - which is a culturally instilled desire, all in all our culture has made us creatures of sense gratification, not coherent thinking people. (paraphrased) the end result misery and war of all kinds.
Linear Mode
