Why are we told and taught and trained to hate the Yin?

Taught to hate the Yin within by repression and judgment.
To hate the Yin around us by seeing it as lesser, while exploiting it.

For a common example, a young boy who is light-skinned (white) is told (implicitly, perhaps explicitly… dominator culture is hypocritical and likes to disguise its toxic nature) to hate the ‘lesser’ female, and to avoid being anything similar to that.
To be a ‘girl, fag, sissy, wimp’ (or other terrible slurs) is considered the lowest level, even possibly evil or to be possessed.

We are even taught to hate childhood, in a way. Because being a baby is being immature and stupid.
We are taught to hate ‘minorities’ because they are supposedly (at least partially) ‘primitive and animal’.

Hate is fear, and fear is judging all in order to put oneself on the elite pinnacle of humanity.
But this judgment is against parts of ourselves, no matter who we are, and this causes self-hatred.

Trying to be strong can be good, but labeling half of creation as lesser or evil cannot help but lead to suffering and tragedy.
In our ‘badass culture’, we try to become a monster, in order to avoid being a victim.

The nature of opposites, ranging from good and evil, masculine and feminine, dark side and light may be useful. It does come, however, with central issues of duality. Opposites or continuum may be an underlying structure. It is hard to know if this refers to 'out there' reality or human understanding.

Hmm… I think I know what you are saying. But if you can expand on that a little, then I can be sure. Thanks for your reply! :smile:

There is the entire philosophy of duality and its lesser forms, metaphysically and psychologically. From a philosophy point of view the most important area for expansion may involve the dichotomy of psychology and metaphysics? It can be asked about these labelled categories and inherent conflict of opposites which may be conflict underlying this dichotomy and naming of opposites. And, with opposites, it may give rise to a question of binary opposition or a continuum?

Ok thanks, that helps me understand. :up:

Yin and Yang could probably be called a metaphysical concept, one that originated in Asia of course.
I’d call it more of a continuum, because each Yin and Yang contain the seed of the other within it.
Perhaps the West in general better understands binary logic of yes/no and good/evil.

Even the beloved Star Wars and its ‘balance of the Force’ is not accurate regarding the ‘dark side’ lol.
It’s just a movie series, but it kind of perpetuates the misunderstanding, I think.
Yin is definitely not ‘evil’ or power-hungry as shown there.

I guess this is on the level of mass psychology, or the underlying philosophy of a civilization.
Perhaps this involves the psychology of propaganda in a way because it seems like it would take a great intentional effort to convince everyone that they should act, identify, and think in a rather narrow and particular way.

Or so I tend to think in my cynical moments, but I may be imagining things.

Interesting! Apollonian and Dionysian are a classic pair.

Towards which one would you say that our culture is leaning towards or imbalanced toward?
I’d have to ponder it more, but I’d say that up until the mid 1960s our culture was overly Apollonian.

Then after a culture clash, the Dionysian was co-opted, and its archetypal power subverted to serve the status quo-money machine.

Taught to hate the Yin within by repression and judgment.To hate the Yin around us by seeing it as lesser, while exploiting it.

For a common example, a young boy who is light-skinned (white) is told (implicitly, perhaps explicitly… dominator culture is hypocritical and likes to disguise its toxic nature) to hate the ‘lesser’ female, and to avoid being anything similar to that — 0 thru 9

Derrida’s deconstruction is an attempt to unravel the logic of dialectical opposition:

What_interested me then, that I am attempting to pursue along other lines now, was, at the same time as a "general economy," a kind of general strategy of deconstruction. The latter is to avoid both simply neutralizing the binary oppositions of metaphysics and simply residing within the closed field of these oppositions, thereby confirming it. Therefore we must proceed using a double gesture, according to a unity that is both systematic and in and of itself divided, a double writing, that is, a writing that is in and of itself multiple, what I called, in "La double seance," a double science. On the one hand, we must traverse a phase of overturning. To do justice to this necessity is to recognize that in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand. To deconstruct the opposition, first of all, is to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment.

That being said-and on the other hand-to remain in this phase is still to operate on the terrain of and from within the deconstructed system. By means of this double, and precisely stratified, dislodged and dislodging, writing, we must also mark the interval between inversion, which brings low what was high, and the irruptive emergence of a new "concept," a concept that can no longer be, and never could be, included in the previous regime… Neither/nor, that is, simultaneously either or…

Opening to Beyond Good and Evil is ... Legendary:

"Suppose truth is a woman, what then? Wouldn't we have good reason to suspect that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, had a poor understanding of women, that the dreadful seriousness and the awkward pushiness with which they so far have habitually approached truth were clumsy and inappropriate ways to win over a woman? It's clear that truth did not allow herself to be won over. And every form of dogmatism nowadays is standing there dismayed and disheartened - if it's still standing at all! — Vaskane

Thanks for your post. :up:

Regarding our possible cultural underestimation of the dark quiet feminine Yin, I’d say this quote describes our love of (addiction to?) certainty and fact.
Fact as something solid and almost immutable.
Assemble a group of related ‘facts’ and you have truth! (A least a truth.)

Even on a purely physical level, seeking absolute truth can go astray as shown by the mysterious Quantum theory.
With regards to a moving target like the human mind and culture, the results can range from deceptive to disastrous.

But… perhaps if one has a very practical attitude toward beliefs and other assemblages of ‘facts’ (do they work? do they help?) and has a non-attachment to them, then there are less potential problems.
At least, it seems so to me.

‘Dogma’ wasn’t always the criticism is is now; Nietzsche the iconoclast helped his readers see the pitfalls of unexamined belief, whether religious, philosophical, or otherwise.
Although my impression of Nietzsche is that he sometimes fell under the sway of the ‘overly Yang’, with his Will To Power, for example.
But please correct me if that’s an incomplete or incorrect view of his influential work. :smile:

Thanks for your reply. :smile:
I think I understand most of Derrida’s quote, and see a relationship to my quote.

But if you could expand on that a little (dumb it down a shade? :blush: ), it might sink into my mind even better.

Thanks for your reply. :smile:
I think I understand most of Derrida’s quote, and see a relationship to my quote.

But if you could expand on that a little (dumb it down a shade? :blush: ), it might sink into my mind even better. — 0 thru 9

So Derrida is saying that binary oppositions (male/female, white/black, hetero/homosexual) inevitably privilege one term over the other. Deconstruction overturns the hierarchy but doesn’t stop there. It then shows how each term of the binary depends on and overlaps with the other, so that they no longer can be said to simply oppose each other but to belong to each other.

So Derrida is saying that binary oppositions (male/female, white/black, hetero/homosexual) inevitably privilege one term over the other. Deconstruction overturns the hierarchy but doesn’t stop there. It then shows how each term of the binary depends on and overlaps with the other, so that they no longer can be said to simply oppose each other but to belong to each other. — Joshs

Ahh! I see. Excellent, thanks. :up:
By the way, where (what book) was that Derrida quote from?

Ahh! I see. Excellent, thanks. :up:
By the way, where (what book) was that Derrida quote from? — 0 thru 9

It was from ‘Positions’, where Derrida responds to interviewers’ questions, the easiest way to read him.

Nietzsche championed the feminine -- contrary to the popular belief that he was a Misogynist. Which I can disprove also if needed. People just don't read Nietzsche enough to understand when he differentiates between mans ideal of "women" which he merely refers to as woman, which often causes a fallacy of equivocation in the reader to think he's talking about a woman, and not mans ideal of women. There are three places where he clarifies subtly, which I can go over in more detail if you'd like. It will be a long write up. That details most of his aphorisms on Women/Woman and Woman. — Vaskane

Thanks for your in-depth reply. Much appreciated! :up:

I would take it a step further (so to speak) than Nietzsche, if I may add to his thoughts.
I’d say that men’s ideals of women are part of a cultural blueprint for identity and activity that constrains and controls men as much as it does women, though women undeniably are abused.

The clever part is convincing men that they can be ‘in charge’ and ‘manly’ by playing this crooked game.
In a crooked game, everyone loses… even the cheaters.
By following civilizational norms that ‘Man is Man, Woman is Woman, and never the twain shall meet’ each is cut off from half of their potential.

One example of this is the way men are programmed to be unaware, dismissive, or repressive of their feelings.
This makes them better tools for the army, industry, or other roles that require a machine or semi-robot, until actual robots or computers can replace them.

We have to ask ourselves ‘what are the rules of identity?’
Who made and enforces them? And who benefits from this situation?
It may be impossible to determine where and when this game started since it’s been going on for millennia.
Odds are that it is not the ordinary average human, their families and communities that are priority.

It was from ‘Positions’, where Derrida responds to interviewers’ questions, the easiest way to read him. — Joshs

Thanks very much! :up:
Oh wait… you mean that quote was already dumbed down? :sweat:

Thanks very much! :up:
Oh wait… you mean that quote was already dumbed down? :sweat: — 0 thru 9

Believe it or not.

It's been suggested that the games of "Men" IE religion, war, business, career etc etc, were created in order for a boy to mature into a man and fulfill a service to his society that was needed. — Vaskane

Now ‘soldiers’ can kill by launching rockets while sitting behind computers. Very brave and manly.

Maybe because of the damage to civilians and infrastructure, nations will soon fight wars in a televised battle of soldiers in an arena.
100 soldiers vs 100 of the enemy. Winner take all. Sponsored by Kill-Flex Rifles and by Pepsi.

But even so, terrorists would still do it the same way as now.

Is not to bother reading his work. :D

Jabberwocky is better

What we seem to forget about "terrorists," is that many cases they represent the underrepresented, they are Davids fighting Goliaths. How else does one fight back against a massive host that can crush you into dust in the matter of moments should all that small resistance gather in one place? — Vaskane

If one wants to illuminate the room, light a candle.
If one wants to illuminate and warm a bitterly cold wasteland world, light your soul on fire.

(Prosaic meaning lol: self-defense is a sad fact of life, but violence is at best a temporary solution.
It is a drug with many nasty side effects, even when it is considered ‘righteous’.

What would result from many people truly knowing their own mind and power?)

Thanks. :up:

There are terrorists all around, at least potential ones, clouded with rage, pain, and confusion.
To them (or should I say ‘to us’ because almost all of us are on the edge) everything is toxic or tainted.

They and we are walking bombs, ready to detonate from the brewing chemicals inside.
A lucky few can find an alchemy to neutralize the corrosive acids before they dissolve us alive.
Our ancestors have eaten bitter grapes and our teeth are set on edge, biting anything they can.

Is our civilization critically imbalanced? How could applying Yin-Yang concepts help?
(or… ancient philosophy to the rescue?!?) — 0 thru 9

I think we are on a vast pendulum swing from right wing or fear oriented societies to left wing or desire oriented societies. It's also clear that although the value-added portion of desire side orientation has already been accomplished, that we have gone well past balance and clearly the inertia is going to take us further into desire-side failure before the metronome uses up the swing energy to oscillate back towards balance.

The good news is this swing is of course less wide than the previous wing to the fear side. But it's sad for those of us aware of wisdom, of real balance, will suffer more, precisely because we realize when balance was passed and we are left feeling like, 'Wait, those waters were warmer! Go back! Oh shit you fools don't realize it and are actually still fanning the same now stupid flames. Waaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttttttt!'

To define the terms of the questions… — 0 thru 9

Oh sh(oo)(i)t, I thought I was already on my groove and you have not even setup the post yet. Damn! I still get points, damnit!

Civilization: our current world civilizations as a general whole. This is somewhat conceptual, owing to the fact that there a many separate cultures, countries, peoples, languages, etc. But here we are talking about the general, popular, industrial civilization which could be said to currently exist as a whole. (To me, “western civilization” no longer seems to be the most accurate term. But use that term if you would prefer.) — 0 thru 9

Like it or not the West had the onus and the drive last wave. Desire always leads the way. Idealism is the path to the future and desire side thinking (motivation) is what takes the helm.

Yes there are sub cultural ruts and eddies (women in Iran were Western dressers with no hijab and 50s conservative clothing and hair styles back the 1970s (compare that to now)). But the WORLD at large was following and ruled by the desire curve. Even now the second or third wave of it from the West is slowly converting Islamic backslide forward again. Yet they remain the most persistent old world male or fear oriented culture(s) on the planet. You have to get deep-fried country within any nation to see that kind of shift. Leadership is all much more on the desire train.

Imbalance(d): unstable, unsteady, unpredictable, and (perhaps most relevant for humans) unsustainable. Unsustainable (in relation to human relationships to the Earth) indicates that resources are being used or destroyed quicker than being replenished. There are perhaps many degrees of sustainability, a spectrum from the sustainable to the unsustainable. The question here is how close we are to being completely unsustainable. Thus precipitating a dramatic change of direction, to avoid the giant iceberg dead ahead (so to speak). — 0 thru 9

I mean you say these words 'unsustainable'. I don't buy it. It's built in that healing can happen and then its also built in that time scales out quite insanely. With each iteration/oscillation of history's major arcs (worldwide expanding soon to interplanetary) the next wave is smaller We are zeroing in on wisdom, balance. It almost seems inevitable. Like barring a world ending event the increasing frequency of the metronome swings will bring us to a perfect(ish) balance in a timeframe that is short order by universal lifetime standards. It is the Fermi Paradox writ small. Other civilizations do not exist precisely because the moral agency curve on those that survive transcends this dimensionality and they need not disturb growing cultures (or perhaps they labor to ensure our growth in an unexperienced way (which makes sense as to why good remains good and is objective and stable).

Yin-Yang: from Wikipedia:
Reveal

Additional thoughts:

As part of the original philosophy, the natural balance and harmony of Yin and Yang can be altered by circumstance or by human actions. — 0 thru 9

So this is just code for me for one word 'Change'. I mean it's kind of boring, if you follow. I envisioned if I were offered Godship and allowed to make 1 rule for reality it would be this one: "Let there be continual change in every way!" That's because with this rule in place you get flux. You get choice.

Very generally, the ancient writings (as I understand) began with a poetic rendering of the cosmic forces at play: sun, moon, and Earth. Fire and water. The seasons. Later, a wealth of literature developed concerning the medical and personal applications of the traditional wisdom, such as TCM and feng shui. — 0 thru 9

The old world thinkers HAD to attach meaning to substance. They slowly realized that meaning does not need substance. But by then the people had already made the icons. Too much work to remake them into ... ideas. This is reminiscent of the Islam and Christian icon-haters that demanded that no image of or representing God could be crafted and to do so was a sacrilege. This affirmation of limits is critical to meaning itself. In not doing by intent, some aspect of infinity is accepted and thus conquered. The certainty is deemed unnecessary if its not possible. You see how that works on so many levels?

This thread takes all of this into consideration. But the focus of the questions are a middle-ground between the cosmic and the personal: society / civilization. And how and why a society can be balanced or imbalanced. Sustainable or unsustainable. — 0 thru 9

Death is a thing. But death is only really relaxing sensation/arousal enough to 'rejoin' all. It's actually kind of a goal in some ways. Get it? So who wins, the society whose individuals live longest or the one that dies the quickest? Tricky questions!

Here’s an article about misconceptions about Yin and Yang. And offers the corrections such as: Yin and Yang are not “good vs evil” (with poor sad beautiful Yin to be unfairly burdened with being called “evil”. Also, sorry Darth Vader... “The power of the overly-Yang” is probably more correct. It’s just not as catchy as “the Dark Side of the Force”). Yin and Yang are not in conflict, nor are they absolute. They are relative to each other. — 0 thru 9

I see a lot of male side consideration being order-related, fear-related because men represent order itself as a gender in general. But this is multi-level deception. Order is not the good and so fear and men are as good as they are evil in agency, in choice. Being order-leaning is dark only, NOT GOOD, because balance is wise.

It is more generally (in the past) conflated that chaos is evil. But this is also deception and a delusion. Chaos is just as good as it is evil. Being chaos-leaning though is dark only, NOT GOOD, because balance is wise.

So, both standard conflations are practical bets, but wrong in their final assessment.

And importantly, they are primarily philosophical concepts and symbols. Any mystical or religious use is a personal choice and/or optional. It’s doubtful that anyone would relegate the concept of Yin-Yang to woo-woo voodoo section of the library. Since, as is commonly known, the worldwide digital network is based on binary theory. Which was based largely on ancient Yin and Yang diagrams. — 0 thru 9

I would deny any relationship between the binary concept and ying/yang. There is too much depth and meaning amid yin/yang. Binary is literally that 0/1. If you are speaking true binary as a concept its JUST 0/1 and only within reality do we always detect the neutral state as well, some 1/3 intersections. This shows the duality and the trinary nature of reality. But binary is not sufficient on its own to capture that system and yin/yang is although it mostly does not choose to.

To which I’d add that although Yin and Yang were first developed in ancient China, they are not limited to that time and place. Study of original meanings and texts are helpful of course. But for us here today, it seems necessary and critical to translate, interpret, imagine and re-imagine these concepts for our circumstances. — 0 thru 9

Agreed as mentioned before, sustainability is always reachable. Matter, energy, and emotion are never created nor destroyed, but, ... change! So, free will. It all flows.

Answer the poll and give your feedback for a chance to win valuable prizes! — 0 thru 9

'Tell im what ees won Jane!'

There is gradual impoverishment of the masses and an an overpopulated elite establishment -- too much money, too much education, too much desire for power, etc. and nowhere near enough slots into which all the low level, mid level, and high level elite can fit. The Upshot? On the one hand, upheaval among the fucked over as they attempt to cope with ever diminishing returns for ever greater effort. On the other hand the elite fuckers resort to vicious tactics to grab power. It's a game of musical chairs in which the number of chairs is fixed and the number of chair seekers is enlarged every round. Competition quickly loses any polite formalities.

Donald Trump Silvio Berlusconi, and Boris Johnson are three disgusting examples of the rash extremes chair contenders are willing to resort to.

See End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration By Peter Turchin. Just published today so haven't had time to steal his ideas. — BC

I agree that this is the shortsighted dynamic.

The issue is that real wisdom, balance found amid struggle, is misunderstood. It always has been and always will be.

But the thing is, and it's pressing now, we have to change to a wiser model, by any means necessary, or we are likely doomed. When I say doomed, nothing is final. That to is part of wisdom. But there is a sweet spot in any situation where the pivot to wisdom and balance is still possible, if improbable, at a lower activation energy. It really is a hear me now or believe me later throw-down.

There are so many inherently unwise states present in today's humanity. What I mean by inherently is that the status quo accepts as wise tenets that are fundamentally unwise. I do not want to derail, so I will say only there are glaring examples and the actions of 'leaders' here points out who we tend to empower to make these horrid immoral errors. That means the system is broken, not just those leaders.

My gadfly challenge to humanity is this: Change to wisdom as a base or decline into near insignificance. As is the nature of reality, wisdom is universally reviled as a set of impossible ideals. Sadly, Pragmatism is the worst enemy of all moral agents in this sense. (It is not. Idealism is just as bad, but pragmatic failures are improperly trusted and more in control) This dynamic means that broadcasters of real wisdom are all too likely to be sidelined as sophists. I hate that term by the way. Sophistry should be exalted as an art of wisdom. The art of deception as wisdom is the definition of Pragmatism and Idealism, both, taken alone. We should all aim for a sophocracy, a rule of the wise. But first, we have to declare a credo about what wisdom is.

I originally posted a HUGE post reply to this thread. I cant find it now. I have no idea what happened. I am not debating laziness or re-posting it.

Lol! Posting again located my first post. I do not know why I could not see it before when I searched like three times, though.

Also, sorry for the misquote of the OP. I fixed it.

@Chet Hawkins :up:

Thanks! I feel similar anger and frustration about being stuck on the Titanic with billionaires who don’t care if we hit an iceberg, because they have a personal helicopter to fly them to safety.

Addiction to power is the worst addiction, because everyone suffers for it.

I think we are on a vast pendulum swing from right wing or fear oriented societies to left wing or desire oriented societies. It's also clear that although the value-added portion of desire side orientation has already been accomplished, that we have gone well past balance and clearly the inertia is going to take us further into desire-side failure before the metronome uses up the swing energy to oscillate back towards balance. — Chet Hawkins

Could you please expand on this somewhat?
If I’m understanding correctly, I’m not sure that I completely agree with this particular point, though I agree overall.

I don’t think the situation as a whole has reached a balance point anytime recently, not even for a moment while swinging in the other direction.
I agree that ‘desire’ is the carrot stick to keep the machine running, and the whip is never far behind (from hitting our behinds lol).
And the faded promise for capitalism is that ‘everyone can be successful!’
(Cryptocurrency is the latest attempt to let everyone try to game the system, and is immensely seductive because there is a lack of cash flow is like living in a dry desert).

But I think we are prisoners of a system whose rules make it mandatory to consume the Earth for power and profit, not just human need.
It is a game, pure and simple… a tragic game with all losers (as in war, a key feature of the game).
Even the winners are tragic selfish scared losers, only with bigger bank accounts.

The masters of war have been ‘in control’ for centuries and millennia, and there’s nowhere left on Earth to escape them as might have been possible in simpler times.

We can identify with ‘winners’ and believe their lies, and go along with their plans, and be their prison guards and beat up those ‘beneath us’.
Or we can abandon this toxic dream, even if we have nothing to replace it with at the moment.

Nietzsche said that God is dead, and on a mythological scale, he was accurate.

Now Progress (that which tried to fill the endless void) is on life-support.

My gadfly challenge to humanity is this: Change to wisdom as a base or decline into near insignificance. As is the nature of reality, wisdom is universally reviled as a set of impossible ideals. — Chet Hawkins

Well, Mr. Gadfly, what is the wisdom to which we should switch over? The dictionary says...

"Wisdom: the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment."

but this doesn't get us any closer to what exactly we should do. I agree that we ought to change. I have a list of changes we could / should make. Lots of people have these lists, and many of the items are excellent recommendations. "The List" isn't the problem. The problem is motivation -- the compulsion individuals must feel that leads them to act, to change (for the better or for the worse, depending).

My guess is that individuals attempt change their behavior when their material circumstances present enough motivation to change. A farmer gives up his land when persistent drought and heat ruins the farm. Parents migrate long distances when there are no longer opportunities for themselves or their children to survive. People make serious efforts to lose weight when the doctor tells them "diet or die".

I live a much less stressful, happier, simpler life now than I did 20 years ago. Wisdom didn't motivate the change: circumstances that were beyond my control forced new circumstances into my life.

If wisdom has an effect, it comes in when we have to decide what to do next, usually under difficult circumstances. ("Life is what we do while we make other plans.") I don't happen to know what to tell someone who has a family, a mortgage, student loans, and car payments what they should do if their means of earning a living is pulled out from under them. Simplify? Get rid of the cars? Sell the house? Put everyone in the house to work? Go live in a tent? Get a new career? Shoot yourself? What?

My options as a single man were/are not the same as a man who has a family. What is wisdom for me might be folly for them.

I'm 77. I don't know how a 27 year old should respond to the challenges he or she is facing in the years ahead.

Thanks! I feel similar anger and frustration about being stuck on the Titanic with billionaires who don’t care if we hit an iceberg, because they have a personal helicopter to fly them to safety.

Addiction to power is the worst addiction, because everyone suffers for it. — 0 thru 9

The thing is, when the proverbial poo hits the fan, all their workers will realize it and many will step aside from helping them at that time. Some of them are smarter and pay for loyalty, overpay so they are 'appreciated', but even they will be surprised at the backlash in crisis mode.

Still, until the system collapses, and it will limp along almost forever in some cases (just ask Rome), the decadence and top heavy immorality will keep rising and the pressure below will keep building. It's sadly kind of another law of nature.

The real problem is now that people think this is prosperity. It will take much monger before the stubborn realize the pain they are in on a daily basis despite oxycontin, porn, cheap whiskey, and other 'easy' addictions.

I think we are on a vast pendulum swing from right wing or fear oriented societies to left wing or desire oriented societies. It's also clear that although the value-added portion of desire side orientation has already been accomplished, that we have gone well past balance and clearly the inertia is going to take us further into desire-side failure before the metronome uses up the swing energy to oscillate back towards balance.
— Chet Hawkins

Could you please expand on this somewhat?
If I’m understanding correctly, I’m not sure that I completely agree with this particular point, though I agree overall.

I don’t think the situation as a whole has reached a balance point anytime recently, not even for a moment while swinging in the other direction.
I agree that ‘desire’ is the carrot stick to keep the machine running, and the whip is never far behind (from hitting our behinds lol). — 0 thru 9

So, this explanation would take so much more. But hey, you asked and that is the thread topic, so ...

So, what has been described as the Patriarchy or traditional society, etc was indeed a fear-oriented mostly Pragmatic society, or set of cultures. It is in the nature of the world, or the pool of available societies that most express fear mostly. Anger and desire are less openly expressed.

The reason why anger is left behind is simple. Fear is the orderly building force. It causes all identity in the universe. Group together, form a group, become something. Build it. Fear is the integration force. It is also a more male participated thing.

Anger is balance, neither male nor female actually. Tribal scenarios are NOT civilizations. They are more anger and balance based and they get left behind. Big man or egalitarian groups do not give in easily to the building needs of fear. They do not in orderly fashion form militaries. They have true warriors, not soldiers, and they will destroy soldiers one on one. But they will lose against the grouped, orderly, planned based formations of a fear society. Thus is civilization built and one thing above all is denigrated, anger. Random violence and un-random violence both stop a lot of would be 'rulers'. But it is in the nature of things that anger fights too many battles and wears itself out. Fear has more stuff stored up from planning, more time to rest, better at observation, better at finding weak points. Fear is conniving and cowardly. It does not come to fight without overwhelming odds. Anger is courageous. It will fight just to fight. So, early anger loses to fear and anger is denigrated.

After the fear society forms and all, repeat all societies are fear societies. Formation of a society is only ever based in fear and only ever departing from anger. That is how it happens in the natural state. This is the nominal case of such a transition. There are other cases but they are weird, after the fact, and beyond the scope of this post.

Anyway, societies then, once formed go through phases. The identity they formed when they are created will last depending upon its wisdom and power. Both have great inertia but power has much less than wisdom. Thus in Earth's history we have civilizations with great power that nonetheless disintegrate and fail. Wisdom alone, and greater and greater wisdom with each iteration, has real staying power dur to its multi-virtue more genuine balance.

But the reason societies fail is not fear and not anger. It is desire.

Desire is chaos. It is freedom. They are roughly equivalent terms. It does not matter if people want to disagree. It is a law of nature. Like Milton I can wait. Let truth and falsehood grapple, truth is strong. Desire is effectively the force of disintegration, just like fear is the force of integration.

Do not get me wrong. Fear, anger, and desire are all the only three emotions, primal, and they make up everything in the universe. There are no exceptions. And each of these emotions is both moral and immoral showing the infinite power of free will, of choice. So, I am NOT denigrating desire here. But desire is what it is and to mischaracterize it would also be immoral.

Amid human societies once they are formed and built they cause great 'prosperity'. The survival needs of fear are met and fear itself begins to also be denigrated. Just as fear is more a male instantiation, desire is more of a female instantiation. Do not bother me with trivial examples of this statistical fact not being accurate. It is beyond basely accurate and there are so very very many reasons. Amid humanity, one of the simplest reasons is that women must become pregnant. This is the basis for much of their instantiation. Their more restricted and orderly biology causes a backlash of freedom in their manner. Likewise males have the freedom and must therefore balance that with an order attitude. That is one core reason and another is that to prevent inbreeding, the order of the own group, its restrictiveness, must be denied by the privilege of the protected breeder capable group, women. This freedom-aimed, mysterious stranger from over the hill loving manner is programmed into women. It has worked for millions of years to prevent inbreeding. It has to be there.

But that is all the time I will 'waste' on that issue here. Suffice it to say that societies return to idealism from pragmatism and balance and that tipping of the scale is the beginning of the end for them. It seems almost inevitable (it is not) that all societies follow this pattern. My book is first and foremost about realizing that the pattern exists so that we can slow its wild oscillations and stay more centered on balance and wisdom.

Anyway, all desire side efforts, freedom-seeking in any way, often is abused. It is not even realized as abuse. Most of freedom's defenders will proudly die for their foolish freedoms. And I do not mean the support for wise practices like free speech and such. I mean they will die precisely for the freedom to do and do repeatedly immorally addictive and destructive things to themselves and others. Capitalism is an obvious example. Democracy is another, but that is a topic for another thread.

SO, you have to at first admire all the wonderful explosion (chaos and desire are explosive) of wealth and distractions from the real task (gaining wisdom) that happens when a fear society builds itself up. But they started by priding themselves on the denigration of anger, remember. This trend continues. Now the perversity of immoral desire turns that society on itself, from within. Many failed societies, all of them that just collapsed where that collapse was not based on dwindling resources, followed this easy to understand pattern. Desire and 'becoming' within the society, against all balance, against objective moral truth, begins to take over. 'You can be anything you want to be.' is the clarion call of desire, of immoral desire. It is a direct denial of objective morality. Desire to be moral must be bound properly by fear and anger, but both become denigrated, usually.

'The heart wants what the heart wants!' is mostly a dark immoral excuse. It is not a wise statement and it never will be.

And the faded promise for capitalism is that ‘everyone can be successful!’
(Cryptocurrency is the latest attempt to let everyone try to game the system, and is immensely seductive because there is a lack of cash flow is like living in a dry desert). — 0 thru 9

This is nothing more than what my model predicts. New and 'interesting' and more and more convoluted highs of addictive desire. This is the path of immoral desire-side destruction, obvious to the wise. Here I will arm you with a red flag to see it. And you will probably hate it. It is sad to most desire side thinkers. They rail against it. But 'giddiness' is it. If you see giddiness, you see imbalanced probably immoral desire occurring. Even the church-based giddy high of worship is deeply suspect as addictive behavior. Balance is the healthy state. Within balance fear and anger properly calm giddiness. So, you have been warned. Take the advice or do not, but now, you will at least see it and wonder. It will show you what I mean.

So, why is desire so possibly bad? Remember that I do not intend to denigrate it. It is because the feeling desire offers its user is more compelling than the corresponding fear and anger are. Further, it is because people do not realize that desire (and giddiness) should be suspicious on their own. Earlier societies knew this, back when they were too orderly, too fear based, or too anger based. But the direction of all societies proceeds along that path normally from anger, to fear, to desire, and then back again. Keep in mind that the standard 4 part aphorism of hard/easy times and weak/strong men, is, like most aphorisms, a lie. That is because evil and good are not a real proper part of that model. Just like yin/yang as a model the model itself is wrong. That helps no one. In fact it causes more evil. Belief in a wrong model is one of the worst things we can do against wisdom and the good.

Desire is the emotion of the future. Adding to it feels progressive. It is not. That is to say, it is not unless it is balanced with fear and anger, properly. Fear always feels so restrictive and imprisoning. That is some of its nature, yes. But fear is misunderstood. It is all thought, all reason. When it is agreed that these things are fear, and really mostly just fear, fear's value is better understood. That is why I redefined fear to its true definition. 'Fear is a excitable state that arises as a result of matching patterns from one's past'. All awareness, all preparation, and even all joy (from the angry conquering of fear) is fear based. Fear is the emotion of the past. So to most people fear seems old, it seems boring, and it tends to also excite them as they fear fear itself. This is what leads to its denigration, immorally.

A fear side man like most will try to fit in in society and build something. That male will want to impress the best females. That is 'normal'. Normal just means there are far more of these males than the other types. Order builds on itself. But look at what happens naturally! The chaos side females will, amid their order bought freedom, revolt and push back the 'rules'. Some men will also. They will resist pairings with their own society's males in favor of the mysterious stranger over the hill (to prevent inbreeding). This temps the orderly males to use more order to restrain the females. And the cycle goes on and on.

But eventually, freedom has its way with everyone. Disintegration becomes 'fun'. People take it as licensed behavior to pursue every addiction with reckless desire as their 'right'. All bonds within the society are seen as poisonous restrictions of an unnecessary (fear denigrated) order. Every single connection point is assaulted with the boundless expression of desire, pure self-indulgence as the only holy virtue. The balance of wisdom was tossed aside well before the restrictions of order were. That was the losses of anger and fear respectively. This is a law of nature, not just my observations.

When one emotion is running the show it confuses people. They see all the emotions. But they do not realize that anger and fear now serve desire improperly. The anger you see is violence born of tantrums from puerile children not getting their way, including adults obviously. The unwise all seem like children to the wise. Neytiri in Avatar tells Jake 'You are like a child ...' Her mother Mo'at, the wise woman, tells him she seeks to seek if his people's insanity can be cured. That is tribal wisdom, balance, anger. It is closer to real wisdom, balance, that any civilization's can be. I am not saying to go backwards. Civilization must become more intentional. We must become wiser. Again, that is the purpose of my book, and so many others, crying out for more wisdom in this horrid but hopeful reality.

But I think we are prisoners of a system whose rules make it mandatory to consume the Earth for power and profit, not just human need. — 0 thru 9

All blame is accepted. It is my fault. It is your fault. There is no such thing as a prisoner, excepting one that accepts themselves as such. That is wisdom.

To say 'prisoner' about yourself means you have accepted it on some level and I advise you that such a statement and admission is dangerous. It is the part of you that wants to blame others and not yourself. But the truth is finally 'You are them!', and 'They are you!' So, you are to blame no matter what and all imprisonment is self-accepted.

It is a game, pure and simple… a tragic game with all losers (as in war, a key feature of the game). — 0 thru 9

No, do not denigrate war.

War is a synonym for change. War is morally acceptable. I lose a lot of people there and I am fine with that. Wisdom is universally denigrated.

Growth comes from suffering only. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering upon the unwise to give them opportunities to grow. If you walk through a field on a sunny day without a care in your heart, you are making cosmic war on the creatures that live in that field. Your obliviousness to this truth is all that makes you careless. Peace is the greatest delusion there is. War is fine. Loss is fine. These are not immoral in and of themselves. They are consequences. Consequentialism is a lie. Morality is all deontological. Intent is what matters. The direction and strength of choice is what matters.

Even the winners are tragic selfish scared losers, only with bigger bank accounts. — 0 thru 9

Indeed. The winners lost their humility in most cases. That is an unwise takeaway. The winners that will not discuss what was done wrongly are always the worst kind of fiends. Machiavellian consequentialists are a Pragmatic terror upon this world. Resist the immoral lies of Consequentialism, and renew vows instead to deontological free will.

The masters of war have been ‘in control’ for centuries and millennia, and there’s nowhere left on Earth to escape them as might have been possible in simpler times. — 0 thru 9

Change/war/suffering is inescapable. Only a desire side immoral idiot believes that pleasure is the path to success or anything good. Suffering is required to stay wise as well as to become wise. The wise seek out greater and greater means of challenging themselves to suffer more exquisitely than others. They could not be wise otherwise.

You cannot escape change/war. Peace is a delusional immoral aim. To maintain proper balance war is required morally. You may prefer to call this struggle or effort, and that is fine. War is the real name. I do not shy from naming something what it really is. I accept war and prefer it. I do not mean unnecessary violence which many people would foolishly demand is the real definition of war.

Do you want something to survive? Declare war on it. It's the best thing you can do to cause the survival of what you declare war on. Figure that one out.

We can identify with ‘winners’ and believe their lies, and go along with their plans, and be their prison guards and beat up those ‘beneath us’.
Or we can abandon this toxic dream, even if we have nothing to replace it with at the moment — 0 thru 9

I agree. But this state is always toxic. It is not perfection. So do not hate it. Do not call it toxic, even. No one is toxic to the wise. No state is toxic to the wise. Everything has the infinity of choice amid its state. Free will is the only thing in existence.

Thanks for your many in-depth replies. They were read and appreciated.

However…

But unfortunately, when you write things like you did in the second half of your post…
I don’t feel like responding. But I will because I feel compelled to explain since I started this thread, and feel a little responsibility about it. Otherwise, I’d might just go my way without much comment.

This for example:

No, do not denigrate war.

War is a synonym for change. War is morally acceptable. I lose a lot of people there and I am fine with that. Wisdom is universally denigrated.

Growth comes from suffering only. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering upon the unwise to give them opportunities to grow. If you walk through a field on a sunny day without a care in your heart, you are making cosmic war on the creatures that live in that field. Your obliviousness to this truth is all that makes you careless. Peace is the greatest delusion there is. War is fine. Loss is fine. These are not immoral in and of themselves. They are consequences. Consequentialism is a lie. Morality is all deontological. Intent is what matters. The direction and strength of choice is what matters. — Chet Hawkins

You cannot escape change/war. Peace is a delusional immoral aim. To maintain proper balance war is required morally. You may prefer to call this struggle or effort, and that is fine. War is the real name. I do not shy from naming something what it really is. I accept war and prefer it. I do not mean unnecessary violence which many people would foolishly demand is the real definition of war. — Chet Hawkins

When I read this, I feel disappointed and somewhat queasy. You have some provocative ideas that I found challenging and difficult, and I enjoyed those. The quoted comments from you crosses some kind of line for me though. And they taint everything else you’ve written, in some way.

Sorry if this sounds offensive… But to be extremely honest or blunt, those comments seem (to me) dangerous, delusional and preachy. It seem to assume that you have an absolute vantage point or a ‘God’s eye view’. To such an extent that I would be greatly surprised if anyone in this forum would agree with them in any way. If you lived in Gaza or Ukraine, I might think you really understood the consequences of your statements.

(To repeat: your many other comments were cool, even if I didn’t agree or even understand them completely).

To be fair, I’ll read your response to this, and take it into consideration. But you seem like you’ve made up your mind about many things, so I’m not expecting a retraction. Like you, I’ve been pondering these issues for many years, so I am probably ‘set in my ways’ about certain things as well.

In a nutshell, your quoted statements really go directly against the purpose of this thread, maybe unintentionally. One may say in response that I’m being a woke snowflake who can’t handle another view, or can’t handle unvarnished ‘wisdom’. But that is not really the case.

If I don’t respond further, good luck to you in all ways. :pray: :flower:

Suffering is required to stay wise as well as to become wise. The wise seek out greater and greater means of challenging themselves to suffer more exquisitely than others. They could not be wise otherwise. — Chet Hawkins

Perhaps it's the subversion of the ego then that brings about clarity. If not just by mental will but also by physical action on the self.

The real problem is now that people think this is prosperity. It will take much monger before the stubborn realize the pain they are in on a daily basis despite oxycontin, porn, cheap whiskey, and other 'easy' addictions. — Chet Hawkins

Perhaps the lesson to be learned then is to see the signs and pity those that fall for them. Their actions require us, gifted with greater awareness, to suffer for them as they themselves do not know to do so for themselves. Our inaction deserves recognition as the mental parasite it is. As does our personal hypocrisy which, if it cannot be extinguished, should be beaten back.