It always comes down to the individual v. the community. I believe you will find that the most "together" individuals make for the best communities. When the balance of power tips away from the individual, the scoundrels come out of the woodwork and another Hell-on-Earth is well on the way.

How much socialism would you like? Isn't paying over 50% of your income in taxes enough? How poor would you like to be?

Plus, socialism comes with an incredible amount of baggage (massive corruption).

Like good ole Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money."

Like I always say, get more than two people together and all Hell breaks loose.

Actually (and although capitalism has its issues), it's an amazing productive system that creates the most opportunity for the most people. Plus, it's the only economic system there is. See if you can come up with a better one!

Buddhism is not a religion. Please don't compare it to religions. I mean, you can, but I, for one, resent it if you do. — god must be atheist

Sorry, but I cannot be responsible for your feelings.

I choose to think of religion as the intellectualization of spirituality, so Buddhism is certainly a religion. And it's actually a very nice religion, if you happen to be into that sort of thing. Very positive, upbeat, good people trying to do good things.

I think meditation IS the path, you are absolutely right about that. But what every Buddhist believes (if they actually follow The Buddha) is that human needs are the path to suffering. To eliminate suffering therefore you must eliminate the feeling of the needs --

Am I right in this assessment of Buddhist ideology at its most basic? — god must be atheist

I am certain no Buddhist scholar (as a matter of fact, being a Zen student, I have attempted to avoid the intellectualism as much as possible) but I believe what you are getting at is that the Buddha taught that desire is is the cause of suffering and the way to extinguish suffering is eliminate desire. There are mountains of books written about this with various subtle interpretations, but this is the basic idea.

If yes, then you reveal that meditation is a path, a service route to eliminate the feeling of needs. Meditation reveals to you the clarity of how to achieve a life without needs. — god must be atheist

Basically, but there's a lot more to it. What you receive through meditation is the ability to realize (very different than intellectual understanding). It is the realization to leads to wisdom, that is, seeing things for what they truly are instead of what your thinking tells you is true.

If no, you don't agree that the most basic tenet of Buddhism is that needs create suffering, then I'm really interested in what you think Buddhist ideology is at its most basic. — god must be atheist

Needs can be very different than desires. For example, the great desire to transcend is the desire for life itself. It is only when you really accept (understand, or better, realize) death can you begin to live.

Remember, meditation is not an ideology, it's a path. A method. A tool. It is not what meditation does that I wish you can tell me. I wish you could tell me what you believe the basic ideology of Buddha's beliefs is, if different form "needs create suffering, and you must eliminate needs." — god must be atheist

One of the most important lessons that very few Buddhists (or Zen students) really learn (and I mean REALLY learn) is that all of the words are meaningless. It is only the practice of meditation that is important. The words are only meant to point the way to meditation.

I could give the best explanation the world has ever experienced and it would still be total non-sense. Having said that, let me say the following :) ....

Again, it is that desire (intellectualization) creates all suffering. All things come and go. When we attach to thought/feelings, the suffering ensues when the object of our desire no longer exists. It can be something good or bad, and produce all kinds of feelings (the most obvious and destructive being anger).

Cease the intellectualization and your attachments fall away (and with it goes your suffering). This is not to imply that you stop thinking because we obviously need to do this to live in the world. Uncluttered by all kinds of extraneous thoughts, the mind works MUCH better, seeing things much closer to the way they truly are. It's the real deal.

Synthesis, With all due respect further discussion is pointless. — counterpunch

The interesting thing about you is that you really believe that you'll be able to change somebody else's mind. This is why I called you a true believer. True believers think they know the truth and it is their job to inform the rest of the world.

Look, I understand what you are saying, but I choose to believe something else. That's all. Don't take it so hard. What could be worse than having the pressure of having the rest of humanity believe that you were the one who figured it out! :)

Relax, have a beer and regal in the idea that you are free!

I am assuming that is a rhetorical question? :)

You need to take a step back and see this in its entirety. You seem overly preoccupied with saving everybody while failing to appreciate the transient nature of all things knowable.

I think Buddhism allows different degrees of adherence to its own tenets, because it (the ideology) recognizes that full-blown compliance would lead to the unanimous annihilation of the individuals who practice Buddhism. — god must be atheist

Interesting theory but nothing could be further from the truth.

Everybody is on their own path.

I understand. I am just saying that Buddhism is not about anything in particular, instead, it's about seeing all things as clearly as possible.
— synthesis

My understanding of Buddhism is completely different. It prescribes a certain ideology, that must be the shaper of the conduct of a Buddhist's life. The ideology is clear, well defined, and restrictive. — god must be atheist

Buddhism is difficult to talk about for many different reasons. If you had room full of Buddhists, you might never hear a conversation where they agree on much. It's like everything intellectual, everybody has their own reality.

I am speaking to the essence of Buddhism (the non-intellectual).

I don't know this part, but my impression is that the ensuing behaviour based on the Buddhist ideology is not as restrictive as the ideology itself.

it's about seeing all things as clearly as possible.
— synthesis

This statement describes the teachings of all religions and ideologies, from their own perspective. No ideology or religion teaches "this is the set of our rules and this is what you must believe, but actually the one and only true religion is the one you only hear about and which is totally different from ours." — god must be atheist

Yes and no. The main difference is that the practice of meditation is the method taught to achieve clarity. Other religions (including the intellectual aspects of Buddhism) are creating an intellectual narrative. In Buddhism, the main purpose for this is to reveal to the follower that meditation is the path.

Other religions seem to concentrate much more on the narrative (although Christian mystics make for some of the most serious Zen students).

I understand. I am just saying that Buddhism is not about anything in particular, instead, it's about seeing all things as clearly as possible. What you do with that is up to each individual.

Materialism creates desire. — Gregory

All kinds of things create desire. The material aspects are perhaps the smallest part.

It is what it is.

Buddhism doesn't point out anything. It's purpose is to allow it's practitioners to transcend suffering through the cultivation of awareness...leading to wisdom, then to compassion.

Capitalism has also moved an incredible percentage of the global population out of poverty (plus, it's a lot better than feudalism or slavery). It's simply a matter of having the proper checks and balances in order to maximize the productive aspects and minimize the bad stuff, but that's another story.

That aside, the key to understanding anything is being able to see is clearly. And the key to seeing things with clarity is understanding yourself.

I guess society decides.

Corruption is nothing more than the human trait that everyone has to a certain degree. Greed, wanting more than you have or need. — Sir2u

Like most things, it's a matter of degree, but once you go over the invisible line, ugliness is never far behind.

Perhaps you might understand society better if first you understood yourself, no?

Maybe to you, but what exactly do you mean by that?

Really. How do you figure?

The purpose of sitting (or any formal) meditation practice is so you can do exactly what you suggest, put it into practice in your every day life, that is, meditate all the time. The meditative state allows the practitioner to have the greatest awareness/clarity.

99.9% of all the intellectual stuff that goes on in Buddhism (and particularly, Zen) has but one message...meditate, because this is where all realization takes place.

Try to think of a Buddhist like you would think of any of person.

Why would you believe that a Buddhist would have to be an activist?

I've thought about this a lot, and my conclusion is that truth is useful in a far more fundamental and long term sense - whereas the lie is short term, and implies costs when falsified. — counterpunch

Lying (which is pervasive and almost universally accepted in Western society) is interesting for all kinds of reasons, but none more interesting than the following...

When I was in my teens, I came across this idea (and I do not remember from where it came) but it seems to have panned-out....

Basically, the idea is that if you lie, 80% of those lies are recognized as such immediately. Another 15% will be found out shortly, and the remaining 5%, eventually. Therefore, one might conclude that lying produces poor returns.

In a society such as the one we happen to frequent, lying is ubiquitous, and it seems as if a great deal of people are profiting from such behavior. Just part of the adult-child thing going on. But is this really the case? Do you believe that any of these people are content, or are they just part of the miserable masses?

Anyone who has spent any time around actual Buddhists will find it absurd to the utmost to think that Buddhism and Communism or Marxism could somehow go hand in hand. Jesus, no. Except for some California Buddhist hippies, the other, the normal Buddhists, are elitist, capitalist, classist, authoritarian. — baker

Having been a serious Zen student for over thirty years and having studied classical and radical economics (at some depth) over the past 40 years, perhaps my perspective might help.

I would agree with the first part of your statement that Marxists and Buddhists would find little in common. Now this is assuming that these are folks that actually understand Marxism (few) and Buddhism (extremely few).

Where it gets interesting is whether we are considering Marx's critique of capitalism (which is solid) or the interpolation of his findings into the complete disaster that Communism became, and on the other side, whether we are talking about the religion of Buddhism, or the essence of Buddhism (the historical Buddha came up with the religion because he knew that all but the very, very few would "understand" the essence).

Your every day run of the mill religious Buddhist is generally a very nice person who tries to help others where they can. Marxists are miserable people who only see the contradictions in life (and there are plenty to be had). I've known a lot of both and it would be difficult to see much similarity between the two groups (and none between hard core Marxists and those who "get" Buddhism).

It's a peculiarity of philosophy, I suspect, accustomed to appeal to the dustiest tome, to fail to recognize that science moves forward as a body of knowledge from a flurry of hypotheses toward more certain knowledge over time - such that "absurd predictions" later disproven as we falsify possibilities to zero in on knowledge, is exactly what we should expect to see. — counterpunch

Although Science does move, I believe a more accurate GPS might demonstrate that the movement is lateral. It (Science) simply goes from one absurd position to the next. The difference is the former has fallen from grace whereas the later is now all the rage (a process that can go on forever).

The issue is that the truth of the matter cannot be known, so the educated come up with all their theories, hypotheses (and even "proofs") that serve society well until they have worn-out their welcome (as well as their ability to reproduce capital) and off to the dustbin they are consigned (just in time to be replaced with the newer, more improved version).

cp, I am not anti-science, I simply understand it's limitations. And I don't disagree with a great deal of what you are saying (except your sense of urgency). People have always believe that the sky was falling (and maybe it is this time) but it's never been the case, so if their might be a worse wager than betting against the FED over the past 30 years, yours' might be it.

The most interesting things are the ones that people could care less about...such as their own complicity in the overall corruption scheme.

As always, it's everybody else's fault (punctuated by the peak (systemic) irresponsibility...identity politics).

No! As I said earlier, we have to act in anticipation of the threat. Climate change will disrupt the economy - undermining our ability to address it. I can show that revolutions in energy production have preceded every great leap forward for human civilization. Yet rather than leap forward, the prevailing plan seems to be to back down - tax this, stop that, pay more, have less. It will not work. — counterpunch

The fatal flaw in all prognostication is the assumption you know what the critical issues (to be confronted) will be. If you look back into history, you will see that this rarely (if ever) happens, and when it does, it's by mere chance. What happened to the ice age predicted in the 70's or any of the other absurd predictions that have been made in the last 50 years?

This is why all the sages of the past, school the people to concentrate efforts on the present and let the future take care of itself.

I am science oriented, and in those terms - it follows from the second law of thermodynamics that we need more energy, not less. To maintain any ordered state requires the expenditure of energy. The world could develop that energy from magma - and; do you not see the advantage of attacking the problem from the supply side - it would not be necessary to stop this, tax that, pay more and have less - to address climate change. All the social, political and economic turmoil a 'limits to resources' green approach implies can be sidestepped; because in fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and the technology exists to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. We could be much wealthier in future - and free from guilt by design. — counterpunch

Like I've mentioned previously, energy is the least of our worries. There is unlimited energy available. It's just a matter of reducing the cost which is what capitalism does better than anything else.

And wealth is one thing, but man will never be guilt-free. When yo think about it, guilt might be the only thing there is more of in this world than energy!

I look around and see civilization about me, functional and illuminated - and I see something different. I see the intelligence and effort it took to build all this,and project that onto the future - and I see no good reason beings smart enough to build all this would not want to continue to prosper indefinitely. — counterpunch

cp, I do realize your methodology involves some serious projection, but consider the following...

If you are indeed science-oriented, then you understand that using the past to predict the future (other than long-term trends, perhaps) is a slippery slope indeed. Much of what will determine the future has yet to take place.

Most importantly, if you do what you can to take care of the present, somehow the future seems to take care of itself, no?

Exactly! The human intellect is a paradox without equal.

I don't believe we can know anything (literally).

3. Therefore there is something in reality that is outside of the objective world. — Aoife Jones

Perhaps you should consider the notion that you have been EVERYTHING else.

Human beings are afflicted with intellectual intelligence, and it's my contention that we have to be intellectually correct to reality to survive - at least insofar as is necessary to survive. Thinking in these terms, it seems more possible we might survive - for I would suggest it implies a rationale for application of technologies necessary to survival; a rationale that can be adopted, because it can be legitimately limited in its implications to that which is necessary to survival. — counterpunch

I believe affliction is an appropriate characterization of human intelligence. People think they know what they cannot know, so they go about things ass-backwardly. If people could only use their intelligence like the rudimentary tool it is, we would be a lot better-off.

Imagine believing that we can understand something of infinitesimal complexity when our system is little more advanced than any of our predecessors who mixed all kinds of notions and potions in their intellectual cauldron and called it "knowledge," as well.

I have taken it as self evident that we are an intelligent species. — counterpunch

Most people have. It's sort of like we are made in God's image. Talk about self-flattery.

Again, I get it that perhaps we are the "most intelligent species on this planet," but only if we use our own metrics. If you study Nature (and particularly observe other species), it becomes difficult to believe that we are better suited to our environment. Just watching ants alone is amazing. Those little critters got it figured out!

I've always kind of thought that one should get the simple stuff right before they move on to the more complex. Man has not done this well.

I'm able to ask, isn't it it's obvious we're intelligent? No? If you will ask stupid, incredibly difficult to answer questions - you will get an answer. Eventually. — counterpunch

Stupid? Compared to what? :)

Perhaps if you could gather up the most intelligent species out there, you might find that we don't stack up too high.

Not only that, but I would like to suggest that because of our intelligence, we don't even stack up very high with many (if not most) species in our own neighborhood.

I believe that you (and almost everybody else) waaaaaaaaaaaay over-rate intelligence. Give me adaptability (any day) over intelligence. After all, look at what we do with our ability to do things creatively. The average person out there believes that nirvana is a McMansion, a Ferrari, and plenty of fatty, salty, sugary food.

Aren't we the intelligent ones!

To conclude, childbirth is immoral but is beautiful art, some may prefer this lifestyle, but that should be a decision for the child to make primarily as it must live in unison with it's parents. — ghostlycutter

You should make a copy of this and read it when your eight year old tells you to go f*** yourself because they only got their way 99.9% of the time.

We are an intelligent species, and I'm quite proud of what has been wrought from the bare earth by what seems to me, extraordinary intelligence and effort. — counterpunch

Compared to what? Of all the intelligent beings that may occupy The Universe, let's just say that we're probably not near the top of the class. Our intelligence doesn't have a great deal to show for itself other than various forms of gadgetry (IMO)

I get your point, but it goes to the occurrence of intellectual intelligence and the ability to form forward facing strategies for survival. Man is by nature - outsmarting nature, because in lieu of claws, sharp teeth and the ability to run very fast, he lives by his wits. Intelligence is his niche. All this is wrought from the earth by intelligence. — counterpunch

Sounds like you're a homer (a term given to a person who has an overly-optimistic appreciation of their home sports team). For another sports (baseball) reference, it's man v. Nature, and its the top of the ninth inning. It's not looking good for the visitors (man), as Nature has a million run lead, and Sandy Koufax on the mound for Nature (and happens to be pitching a perfect game).

The final three batters to face Koufax are first, Joe the Politician, who doesn't even know which end of the bat to hold, Betty the CEO, who finally broke the glass ceiling but has no skills other than stabbing men in the back, and finally, Yvonne, the neo-Marxist liberal who is so busy complaining that it is doubtful whether she'll even make it to plate.

Several million years from now, if you made of list of the contributors to life on this planet, I believe we might be listed somewhere between the cockroaches (give them their due for longevity) and the ants (kudos for persistence). Or perhaps not quite so high on the list.

I don't think the systems of the world are anywhere near perfect at all. In your thread about medical expertise, I simply was suggesting that England would be in a mess if we lost the NHS and the welfare state. — Jack Cummins

The English NHS is already a mess. Maybe you would be a lot better off.

I take the position that it is impossible to know these things but based on our limited knowledge and spartan mental capacity, I'd go short homo sapiens.
— synthesis

So you're saying that you don't know if a sustainable future is possible, but probably not because people are stupid? I don't need to point out the irony there, do I? — counterpunch

I wouldn't characterize people as being stupid, just ignorant (with a plethora of psychological issues [as our nascent intelligence has obvious factory defects]). Considering our potential, we appear to be serious underachievers.

If you approach each moment as brand new, averting the trap of being caught in the snare of past thoughts, you are given the chance to live fully and continuously without regard to this, that, and the other thing, particularly attempting to save the species (a very noble endeavor, I might add).
— synthesis

I see myself as having inherited huge gifts from previous generations - it is my obligation to use such that I pass greater gifts onto subsequent generations. I live in the moment that is the current link in that great chain, and seek to make it a strong link. I don't think I dwell in the past or future overmuch, so I'm slightly puzzled as to why you offer this advice. But thank you for saying it's a noble endeavour.

If you look at man's history, one cannot assume that progress will not have its hiccups.
— counterpunch

I prefer to be among the other organisms that ply the planet attempting to live my life as close to being in concert with Nature as possible, so whether we last another twenty minutes or several million years is of no matter to me. I'll take each moment as they come and do the best I can.
— synthesis

I love nature, but do not romanticize it. Evolution is a brutal and prodigiously wasteful process, so being in concert with nature would make you genocidal. There's a great deal to learn from studying our evolutionary history, but the occurrence of intellectual intelligence marks a qualitative boundary that breaks any naturalistic fallacy type implication; that because it's natural we "ought" do this or that. For example, earlier you said that 25 species a day go extinct - but does not imply that we will, or ought not be concerned - because we can act upon knowledge to avoid catastrophe, and I believe it is, at least scientifically and technologically possible. — counterpunch

I believe the greatest flaw in man's intelligence is the idea that he can outsmart Nature. Observe some of the species that have been around significantly longer than have we and I believe you will find they are incredibly well-adapted to the way things are (not to the way they would like them to be).

Correct. Yes, I am a Zen student.

It sometimes seems that people in our time act as if we are fortunate to be able to understand so fully, but it is hard to know what knowledge is yet to be uncovered. — Jack Cummins

Part of buying into the system is feeling as you do, like the system is mostly correct (with a little fine-tuning needed going forward). Otherwise, people would be quite insecure believing that the floor upon which they stand is nothing but thin air.

Although it is not nothing, you are correct that it cannot be known.