Am I one of those people who "believe that they know and it's their job to spread the word?" You're the one who started this thread. You're the one spreading the word. You're the one who seems to know you are right. I have only responded to question some of the things you wrote. I gave very specific examples. I think I expressed my thoughts clearly. What's your beef? — T Clark

It's just my opinion. Being right (except in cases of morality) is purely conditional.

All the main modern schools of Buddhism in China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Vietnam believe and teach that all people in our world, all the people we see, all the people we talk to have thoughts, consciousness, memories, sensations, feelings and emotions ? — Johnny5454

I might be able to help you out. I've been a dedicated Soto (Japanese lineage) Zen student for over 30 years but do not consider myself an expert.

Many people become quite confused with Zen or Buddhism because there are two aspects to it. One is the religion (what some like to refer to as the intellectualization of the spiritual essence) and the other, which is the actual spiritual practice (meditation), a non-intellectual pursuit.

The difficulties arise when attempting to intellectualize something that is non-intellectual. What makes for a great master (teacher) is their seeming ability to do just this, but it is not what they are doing. Understanding the teaching is purely experiential so the best teachers simply provide their students with the correct motivation. It is the student who must do the work (meditation).

Your confusion is common because when described the way you pose your question, the practice seems very different than what it actually is. Although quite an enigma, it is also the same which keeps it from being corrupted more than it would be otherwise. Fortunately, nobody has been able to corrupt the non-intellectual which is why Zen (in particular) has such a strong appeal to purists.

I really enjoy chatting with different folks but not with people who believe that they know and it's their job to spread the word. That gets old really quickly (which is my main beef with people on the left). Ideology aside, leftists really believe they are right!

Perhaps you can help me out here. Why is it when a fair number of people on this forum disagree in a conversation, they assume that it must be the other person's fault? Can it not be that two people simply disagree?

But you did mention the role of parents, though I'm not sure that's any different. — EricL

I believe that most baby boomers would agree that their parents were the first parental generation to really spoil their kids en masse because to the post WWII economic boom in the U.S. Baby boomers being raised on corporate television, took the ball, sprinted down the field and spiked it in the end-zone as they become the worst parents imaginable.

People can do something a lot, but this still has no bearing on whether their skills at doing it will improve or not. — baker

Perhaps you are around the wrong kind of people.

It's impossible for us to live our lives without sometimes coming into conflict with other people doing the same thing. Yes, we should behave responsibly, fairly. Again, that doesn't have anything to do with rights. — T Clark

You have the right to free speech, but the responsibility to not shout FIRE in a crowded movie theater (if there is no fire).

You have the right to bear arms but the responsibility to not recklessly endanger others with said firearms.

You have the right (privilege?) to operate a motor vehicle but the responsibility to obey the traffic laws.

You have the right to vote but the responsibility to not vote twice.

You have the right to attend public school but the responsibility to not interfere with others' education.

With every right comes responsibilities.

Surgery is a special case because in addition to requiring medical knowledge, skill, and training, it requires opportunity to practice. For medicine in general an inexperienced graduate may be the better choice because they may be more likely to be up to date on the latest research, procedures, etc., whereas the experience old-timer might be more set in their ways. — praxis

Ideally, you want to somebody who is state-of-the-art AND experienced. As you are well aware, there is learning curve to all things. If this is not a big deal, you should seek out medical services at teaching hospitals where the interns and residents are up on all the latest information as well as being familiar with all the latest techniques. I am sure they would love to practice on you.

If people do not act responsibly, then there will be a breakdown in order.

As an example, there were many "peaceful" protesters that saw fit to destroy other people's person and property last summer. Many of these people were not only held to account, but they were encouraged by political leadership (of course, until they came for their property).

If you are exercising your rights, you must do it in a fashion where you are not infringing on others' rights. This is a fairly basic concept.

I wasn't going to respond to one more of your half-assed, claptrap, mean-spirited, "why, when I was a boy," social/political rants. I was hoping it would die out. Since it hasn't, I'll respond. — T Clark

How wonderful to have people like you who can set others straight.

With rights come responsibility. If you do not exercise responsibility, you are denying others their rights. Is this a difficult idea for you to understand?

Communism didn't fail because there was a lack of religion. It failed because of an over-abundance of government control that inhibited individuality and incentive and progress - where there are a select few that think their intellect is superior and better suited to figure it out for everyone. — Harry Hindu

But why was there an over-abundance of government control? What made Communists believe that they could design a system that could overcome the dysfunctionality that always manifests in group behavior?

Religion usurps the political, the ultimate authority being God, not the government. The American Founding Fathers well-understood this necessity. God is used as an ideal giver of moral guidance because if you allow government (people) to assume the same role, then you are depending on the frailty of man-made morality (motivated by our unlimited desires). Gather more than two ambitious human beings in the same room and you will find only the creativity of their rationalizations outdoing the deviousness of the plots and plans to enslave the rest.

Man thinks way too highly of his limited intellect. Although his cognitive shortcomings are obvious in all spheres, nowhere is it more glaringly obvious then in the political where lying, cheating, and stealing are on full display.

People should be begging for a higher power to knock man off his poorly constructed pedestal and rightly take his place back on the ground along with the rest of the species who seems to fair considerably better as they appear to not over-think it in the least.

What does it mean "to learn from experience"? — baker

Because real learning is doing.

Do you want to go to a cardiac surgeon that is just trying a new procedure for the first time or would you rather that s/he had performed the procedure many, many times?

What Zen did for me is correctly ordered things, that is, thinking became subservient to doing. As I became more adept at my meditation practice, I found this balance significantly shifted to the side of doing and I began to see the value of cognition as only a practical matter and not something that could answer any of my concerns. Only doing provides that kind of feedback.

I do wish you the best of luck and would give you hope in suggesting that you now have a proper platform from which to dive into the great abyss, something each of us should do on a regular basis. What awaits you out there is will be well worth your efforts.

Enjoy your journey!

Manifesting anarchism is sort of like playing out one's sexual fantasies, i.e., it's not going to end well. To me, it was always a philosophy of interacting, of truly understanding what you are up against. At 66, I still feel that way. As a matter of fact, it makes more sense to me now than it ever did. When you get down to heart of it, it's really about overthrowing your ego (as it creates all the boogeymen).

Anarchism can be incredibly destructive to individuals as is usually the last stop on the philosophy train (no more tracks). Faced with the realization that the only thing that makes sense can never work in practice is a bit much for many and forces folks to move on. For me, I became a Zen student and that filled-in all the blanks, dotted all the "i's," and crossed every "t."

I believe it would be quite helpful and give a great deal of perspective/context to anyone interested in politics to delve a bit into anarchism because it's almost impossible to refute its basic tenets...but it's much like religion and most -isms, looks good, smells good, but generally makes you nauseous when you finally eat some.

Considering that more than two human beings are involved, it's about the best you can hope for...

... in the end (and similar to nearly all communication), most are seeking affirmation vis a vis the slippery notion of existence.

As an Anarcho-Pacifist, because Pacifism is wildly unpopular within the Anarchist movement, and peace the peace movement has a general aversion to collaborating with people who formerly almost attempted to create their own ideological sect, effectively an Anarchist equivalent of Communization, so as to remain politically engaged, I could only convince the Anarchist movement to be more welcoming. This, however, is just simply impossible, as, in order to do so, I would ultimately have to convince the Black Panther Party to revise the variant of the diversity of tactics that they adopted. — thewonder

I also consider myself an anarchist (philosophical) but realized early-in that perhaps the worst groups of all were groups of anarchists. Talk about a paradoxical shit-show!

That isn't true. I see plenty of religious people doing immoral things. The reason is because Big Brother as a god's punishment or consequences for actions are not immediate or exaclty knowable. The punishment and consequences from Big Brother as government is more substantive and knowable. Politics evolved from religion as a more efficient means of controlling the population for authoritarians ruling. So-called democracies that have popped up in more recent times are still controlled by an elite ruling class that divides it citizens against each other using a new type of religion - political parties. — Harry Hindu

i get all that, but look at what takes place (institutionally) in the absence of a higher moral structure. Communism (as predicted by many) ended-up being a massive catastrophe for many reasons, but perhaps the most important was the fact that the Communists believe that their own intellect was better suited to "figure it out" than would be a religious moral basis.

You don't have to be religious or political to understand the need to have such guidance in place, just as you do not have to have your own children to understand that the parents need to be in authority.

Religion and Politics simply give man a chance...what he does with the opportunity is another matter altogether. Without these foundations, we know the outcome is assuredly poor.

IOW, the history of mankind. Duh. — baker

Thanks for making my point.

My angle here is that what you learn from experience is far greater than what you can learn otherwise, for two reasons. One is obvious, you learn best by doing. The other is off most people's radar, that is, almost all true learning is non-intellectual. In other words, the amount of information you are taking in is so much greater than what you can intellectually process, that there must be other (unknown) mechanisms that convert this information into wisdom. It is why cultivating awareness is so important.

For example, I am a physician who has been in practice for over forty years. The amount that I know is far greater than just the cumulative total of all of my intellectual experiences. If I have been able to become proficient as a care-giver, it is because I have achieved a deeper understanding of people that I could never explain, and I am sure this holds for other occupations, as well.

Many years ago, I had a patient on a very snowy afternoon where few ventured out so we had a chance to chat at length. He was a WWII veteran who fought at the Battle of the Bulge (he must have been in his late seventies/early eighties). The gentleman started to describe (in detail) what was going down (it was an epic bloodbath) and after a couple of minutes of me just staring at him in utter disbelief, he broke-down and cried right there in front of me. After he composed himself, he told me that he had never told anybody about this and had never cried about it, as well. It was an incredible experience, to say to the least.

Although I will never forget one moment of that conversation, it was not the information that literally changed me going forward. There were all kinds of things going on (besides what we think of as our intellect) that we have no clue about. What we do know is that people who have a great deal of experience are extremely valuable (this should be intuitive to anybody that has had any difficult issue to resolve).

Young people (being relatively new to the planet) have not had the opportunity to have many types of experiences and therefore discount this aspect of wisdom. As we all get older, get married, have children (or take on other responsibilities), the value of experiential learning becomes glaringly obvious.

With the transfer of so much power to younger folks, we have already seen the results and they are not so wonderful. How nice it would be to be able to walk down the street without having to hear multiple f-bombs going off well within the hearing distance of small children, or lack of civility by young people obsessed with themselves without any worries that they may be held in account.

Exactly. This is how I became an atheist, too. Only after really learning what religion/politics is (group-think), do you come to abhor them. — Harry Hindu

I became an atheist after considering that it was just completely insane that God told Abraham to kill his only son Isaac, he decided to go through with it, and what we are supposed to take away from this is a lesson about Abraham's devotion. — thewonder

My apologies for deviating from the political aspects of this interesting conversation but to look at religion in the above light misses the point. Similarly, the political simply provides a superstructure wherein the debate between conservation/progression can matriculate.

There is no reason to be a-religious any more than there is to be a-political. Religion is has been around as long as it has for good reason. The same goes for the political nature of social man.

The most important aspect of religion is that it can provide a moral beacon, as man, left to his own devices, will often choose the low road. And this is almost universally the case in groups. Real-time human intelligence needs needs buffering via a code that has been set-down. This way, when T (intellectual) SHTF, there is still a moral compass to be relied on.

And one must keep in mind that there is an entirely different aspect of religion, as many like to think of religion as simply the intellectualization of spirituality. The non-intellectual is the heart of the matter for the few willing to trod down this path.

Politics reveals the all the nastiness that social man can conger, with his lying, cheating, and stealing on full display. Despite these inconveniences, the purpose of modern politics (the debate itself) can not be under-estimated in its importance to facilitating prudent social policy, something better (in most cases) than allowing the lunatic fringe to have their way.

That you both for your piercing insights.

There is a reason why older folks were nearly universally afforded respect by younger people over the previous hundred generations (although none of us quite knew why we should be doing this as the world of the older people seemed rife with contradictions that could easily be remedied). It was something we were all taught at the same time we were learning how to walk and talk. The lesson was that fundamental...that real knowledge and wisdom are gained through direct experience.

Over the past two generations, young people have been empowered by parents too concerned with their own lives, by academia that completely gave up on instilling any moral guidance, and most importantly by the demise of any higher higher power that might serve as a ethical/moral beacon.

We now have young people who believe that actual learning comes on social media instead of through life experience. Although many of these younger folks are having their way, the crack party will not last forever and reality will return with a vengeance, and I suppose that (eventually) we will witness colonies of woke-folk growing old as did the Hippies, some who still have not seen fit to depart the 60's.

Experimenting in thought and lifestyle are wonderful processes for both individuals and society but only if responsibility attends. Out of control people who infringe/impinge on others rights can and should not be tolerated in any free society.

As COVID wanes and we return to a somewhat normal existence, hopefully the adult children of America will put their toys away and get back to work as we desperately need to fix this place.

When a better system is possible, people will use it. Why wouldn't they?
— synthesis

Because implementing a better system is a question of political power, among other things. According to you, the economic system should always have been the best possible one from the start, but that clearly isn't the case. — Echarmion

Look at how fast people adapt to new technology. When a better system becomes available, it will be adopted (albeit not with some struggle from legacy interests) but this takes place constantly (look at what happened to land-line telephone service/ATT).

Remember, the elite ALWAYS win, so it is in their interest (above everybody else's) to adopt more efficient/effective means. For example, if crypto's do become accepted globally (as a medium of exchange), who do you think is going to end up profiting the most?

Like him or not, the guy defied all odds and went from being a game show host to POTUS. If you don't understand what an incredible accomplishment that is (regardless of your opinion of him), then you need to re-evaluate some things.

That's what I thought.

Before you criticize other people, consider your own body of work.

Ah, Padawan, the first step in learning is to admit you don't know anything. — James Riley

I've already told you that it is impossible to know anything. You are the one who believes he knows.

As I have told you before, Trump is who he is, but you think he is a loser? Well, let's compare your resume to his. What have you accomplished in this life?

You need to move beyond putting other people down.

I suspect your next move will be something like "Well, if I lied, I'm sorry, now can we move on?" BS. There is an element of knowing involved here. Confess your sins, my son. It will be cathartic! Then we can move on. It's hard to earn credibility, easy to lose it, and even harder to get it back. When you are in a hole, first stop digging. — James Riley

It must be quite the burden being the only person in the world who, "gets it."

I will leave you to wallow in your genius while I shall try to make due in my world of not knowing anything at all.

Have a nice day!

We should be happy to live in age where material is abundant. The economic system is what it is. You make it the best you can and move forward (the way you do everything else).

Everybody understands what your complaining about but its like yelling at the moon for keeping you awake at night. Some things are what they are.
— synthesis

Yeah, sure, economic systems can never be changed (except when they are). — Echarmion

When a better system is possible, people will use it. Why wouldn't they?

The problem with the present system is mostly corruption and this is problem with all systems. The simpler and more transparent systems are, the less chances there are for corruption, so this is why many believe that simplification (decreasing size and complexity) is the way to go.

The larger organizations become, the more inefficient they become (although Amazon seems to be an outlier). Governments are particularly prone to this syndrome as accountability is minimal.

Although capitalism certainly has its issues, there are ways to deal with them so you can end up with as much fairness as is possible (checks and balances combined with a solid legal system). Outside of that, there will be those who achieve a great more than do others for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with the system.

People need to be given the opportunity to live whatever kind of life they choose, but they must take responsibility for those choices. In a healthy society, opportunity is plentiful so even if you fail, you can get back up on your horse and try again. If you immediately come to the aid of somebody that has not succeeded, there's a good chance you will be supporting such failure for their entire lives.

Asian income inequality in the US has many factors. The bottom line is that the average Asian American is behind the average non-Asian American. If your racial stereotype were accurate they'd be above the average. — praxis

Japanese, Chinese, Korean,and Indian Americans are all doing very, very well. Do you have statistics that suggest otherwise?

Would you like everybody to be in the top 10%?

I think socialism is alive and well in the United States. — James Riley

On this matter, my friend, we can agree.

There is WAY TOO MUCH socialism in the U.S. ... to the point where it has created grotesque economic distortions via massive systemic corruption, just like in every other socialist paradise.

The difference is that in the former, you earn your success, in the later you are given success regardless of what you do.
— synthesis

* citation needed — Echarmion

This isn't school.

Are you aware of another functioning economic system? Is feudalism still in operation? How about slavery?

Socialism is simply a transfer mechanism, and Communism is state capitalism, and communism, a pipe-dream.
— synthesis

Neofeudalism arguably exists. But regardless past economic systems did function. The fact that they're no longer operational doesn't change that. — Echarmion

Doesn't change what?

We should be happy to live in age where material is abundant. The economic system is what it is. You make it the best you can and move forward (the way you do everything else).

Everybody understands what your complaining about but its like yelling at the moon for keeping you awake at night. Some things are what they are.

But think of all the liars who succeed! You never know who you can trust when they've lost credibility. Like you. Did you misquote me, or not? I mean, how can I pretend to trash your silly arguments on the merits when, at any time, you might say I said something I did not say? Isn't that the hall mark of a society that isn't based on merit? — James Riley

Again, I am not really sure what you are talking about, but let's talk about lying.

Have you never lied? Are you somewhere above the rest of humanity?

Probably shouldn't rely on racial stereotypes. — praxis

It's inequality of effort. I live in a area with a lot of Asians and these people work harder than anybody I've ever known.

Why do you think these people are so successful? Luck?

I think efforts toward equality are simply trying to level a playing field that has been tilted to favor some and not others. But bringing it back to level requires a little tilt in the opposite direction from level. You can't fuck a man forever and then expect gratitude when you stop. You gots to pay a little. You say it wasn't your fault? Faults got nothing to do with it. It's a strict liability issue. — James Riley

The unintended consequences of of such thinking is that you may be under the knife one day when your surgeon doesn't quite make the correct decision and your procedure goes poorly, or, your airline pilot doesn't have it together enough to make it through the storm, or a millions other examples.

Consider how this policy has failed is many AA students have been admitted to very high academic standard schools (e.g., Ivy League schools) and failed horribly because they were not qualified whereas they would have done really well at other schools where the rest of us go.

What the left is trying to do now is get rid of the better schools (in LA they want to discontinue all advanced classes). This is crazy. People need to achieve their potential, whatever it is, and whomever they are...black, white, brown, yellow, purple or blue!

That's how equality always operates - you select one or more dimensions of relevance, such as qualification, income, etc. and then the "equal" outcome is the one where those - and only those - dimensions are expressed in the outcome.

Merit purports to do something similar, but merit tends to come with an existing list of which circumstances imply merit and which do not, and that list is politically and ideologically motivated (usually to favour existing elites). — Echarmion

Is that why the most successful groups in the U.S. are people of color...Asians. They are successful because they work their asses off.

The Left is constantly pushing their "inclusion" meme which I take as meaning that each GROUP needs to be represented according to their percentage in the population. Merit is of secondary importance.
— synthesis

What's the difference between "outcome by merit" and "equal outcome"? "Merit" is not the name of a physical law or constant. — Echarmion

The difference is that in the former, you earn your success, in the later you are given success regardless of what you do.

Capitalism is the only economic system there is.
— synthesis

Err, what? — Echarmion

Are you aware of another functioning economic system? Is feudalism still in operation? How about slavery?

Socialism is simply a transfer mechanism, and Communism is state capitalism, and communism, a pipe-dream.

Well ye I'm not saying get rid of religion. But we have the right to voice our arguments and feelings

Foxholes? I saw someone set someone else completely on fire once and I didn't think of God once. I called the police but if I get scared I never think of God — Gregory

You can say whatever you like...and should.

I guess the idea of the saying is that when we are scared enough, we hedge our bets! :)

Because it is like saying someone's else's father (maybe Jesus?) is super perfect and is your true father. It's rather intruding — Gregory

Something that makes you uncomfortable is making you think and grow. It's a good thing!

Man had to create God as a giver of that which man ultimately aspires.
— synthesis

Yes. People want to believe in a God "as they understand it" (NA, AA, ect) — Gregory

Religion works on many different levels, and...

...as it is said, "There are no atheists in the foxhole."

Believing God literally exists is creepy for a lot of us — Gregory

Why do you think that is?

As an aside, I have been a very serious Zen student for over thirty years and at one point took a couple of years off to dedicate myself to full-time Zen (meditation practice at a Zen Center).

Once in a while, teachers from the local colleges and high schools would bring their students to the Zen center to check it out. The looks on these kids faces were incredible to behold as they were completely freaked out by the whole thing.

I worked a lot in the garden and when the students got near, I would say, "hello," and they wouldn't know what to do. Some would kind of smile and other would just scurry away. What really threw them was everybody dressed in their black meditation robes in the zendo (meditation hall). I am sure most felt wonderful heading out of there!

People are just really unsure of what's going on when it comes to religion/spirituality. It's a good thing. :)