OtayPanky's Comments (1077)

“Blogger: Does Bloom express something primordial and inextinguishable between men and women, so that intimacy without these roles presents difficulties we can't extirpate? I suppose we will have to observe 21st century male-female relationships to find out.

===

Let's flip a few words before we do anything else:

"Does war between nations express something primordial and inextinguishable between humans, so that politics without these roles presents difficulties we can't extirpate? I suppose we will have to observe 21st century history to find out."

Sounds like a trivial question now, doesn't it - unless you're one of those who think we're bringing in the Age of Aquarius right about now.”

“Life coaching at its finest.”

“A number of us are trying to have a meta-discussion about the way that positive thinking gurus affect our society - how they both reflect and encourage a certain sort of craziness.

So let me re-state the basic thesis here, one that Barbara Ehrenreich and Chris Hedges, among others, are also stating:

Any society that is trying to make things better by having "wisdom teachers" charging $200, $300 per hour or more for "coaching", or thousands of dollars for seminars - is profoundly off base.

Even if the words they speak are true, the coupling of those words with CAPITALISM GONE WILD ruins them.

Many thoughtful Christians (I am not one) have made the exact same criticism of the evangelical church - and the Roman church, too.

We all have a job to do right now: the job of resetting the compass so it points straight and true once again. Just like we need to judge and reject the excesses of Wall St, we need to judge and reject the rampant commercialization of the wisdom message of the ages.”

“Globed fruit it ain't.”

“We have to face facts here.

To quote (from memory) the eminent P.G. Wodehouse: some babies look like gargoyles, with faces that could stop a clock.

For such spawn, airbrushing is in order - and perhaps even plastic surgery.

It's never to early to fix what a capricious God hath wrought.”

“It's the political equivalent of Ali's rope-a-dope. Just let the other guy wail away until his arms drop...than BAM...BAM...BAM.”

“Rev. Galindo: ...there is talk of him having some sort of daughter.

===

Probably the wrong sort.”

“Rev. Galindo: And yes, we are serious. We are not some sarcastic, tongue in cheek religion that's totally made up like the Shatnertology or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Scientology. We find our strength and belief in the world of movies with Ed Wood as our guide.

===

Scientology is as serious as a heart attack.

===

Rev. Galindo: We find our strength and belief in the world of movies with Ed Wood as our guide.

===

May the farce be with you.”

“Social Construct writes: I'm convinced that the author is making an erroneous assumption that, like some economic theory, people are going to behave in a rational and reasoned manner.

===

I don't know if you saw the congressional hearing where former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan was grilled by Henry Waxman (a great negative thinker) and others. But this is exactly what he admitted.

He had been one of the ultimate positive thinkers, believing in the principle of free and unregulated markets - believing that people would act in their own rational self-interest and thus curb the excesses of capitalism. He was non-plussed - even DUMBFOUNDED - to find out it simply isn't so. His whole world view was not on tilt.

Realistic thinking - the kind advocated by the sages of the ages who never charged a dime for their wisdom - includes recognition of our capacity for both greatness and idiocy - for goodness and evil - for light and dark.

Unless we have a healthy respect for the power of human egotism (yours, mine and ours) to screw things up, we're going to end up in a sweat lodge with James Arthur Ray - or mindlessly involved in some other toxic foolishness.

This is one reason why the sharing of wisdom as a "for profit" business is a huge mistake, with vast and unpredictable karmic consequences, not just for individuals, but for entire societies.”

“The profit motive is a real part of the problem here.

When it comes to the dispensation of WISDOM (and that is what we are really discussing), we're speaking about an essentially SPIRITUAL phenomenon. And I would propose - and the great teachers of spiritual wisdom throughout history would agree - that once you try to make the imparting of spiritual wisdom a PRODUCT, that it is ruined.

Of course, no society in history has succeeded in making everything a product more than ours. So let's step back and reflect: Is this the best way to transmit wisdom? Or does it lead to hucksterism, and the splitting of society into the haves versus the have nots?

Is a new paradigm possible? Of course it is. But we have to become convinced first that the old "pay to play" paradigm is not good enough, and needs to be left behind.”

“Exactly.

This whole thinking approach correlates with ancient wisdom, whether from Ecclesiastes, the Tao Te Ching, the words of the Buddha, etc.

Clearly positive thinking has its uses. Just as clearly, so does negative thinking.

But negative thinking isn't really marketable. You can't sell out a seminar, or give expensive coaching lessons, by promising to teach people how to think negatively.

Difficult times provide a real opportunity to step back, and REFLECT. And what many of us are saying - including Barbara Ehrenreich - is that we need to step back and reflect on how hyperbolic and disconnected from reality the postive thinking gurus, coaches and teachers have become in our society.”

“Right. I'm not saying Vajrana Buddhism is good or bad...only that it is a religious system with definite beliefs, just like any other.”

“You just nailed it.

SPECIOUS thinking - of any kind - is a blight, and will cost us dearly, sooner or later. We had at least 8 years of that during the BushCo years, both at home and abroad.

The paradigm of positive thinking breaks down, when it is MISAPPLIED. When applied properly, it's a good tool in the cognitive toolbox - but certainly no better than negative thinking, properly applied.”

“hu.man: The only way to find the positive focus is to move away from this position and realize that the responsibility is borne by all of us and we can only collectively arrive at a workable solution that doesn't lay blame.

===

First, many of us had nothing to do with the crisis. We lived frugally. We didn't run up our debt. We played by the rules. But when some didn't, encouraged by obscenely rich bankers and mortgages, the rest of us all experienced the effects.

It is ESSENTIAL to find the culprits in our culture of CAPITALISM GONE WILD. If we dont do that, there will be no change, and the wild boom and bust cycles will continue. For example, there are lobbyists and corporate interests responsible for repeal of the Glass-Steagal act, which (formerly) prohibited commercial banks from getting involved with speculation.

Win-win solutions only work when everyone wants them to. But our socio-economic structure is Darwinian (unlike that of some other advanced societies). Goldman Sachs and AIG win...and win big...only if there is a counter-party who loses.

Capitalism as a system is based on the profit motive, which - in humans - easily turns into the GREED motive. Unwillingness to see this potential downside and/or take remediative steps with harsh penalties included, just allows the pocket-pickers to keep on picking away.

Just think positively is NOT a good prescription for making policy.”

“Exactly so.”

“Arithrianos: Buddha was 100% opposed to belief.

===

Not true at all.

The term BELIEF does not just mean belief in an anthropomorphic diety figure.

The Buddha taught that certain ideas were true, and others false. Those were his beliefs. Talk to a modern Tibetan Buddhist master long enough, and you'll hear a boatload of beleifs - including (for example) the belief in LLAMAISM.

What the Buddha did say is that we should not accept someone else's ideas as truth just because they say so. We need to determine for ourselves which ideas are worth believing - or not.”

“If Gorbachev hadn't been in charge, would the Soviet Union have imploded? Sooner or later.

If Reagan hadn't been in charge, would the Soviet Union have imploded? Sooner or later.

But it's really hard to overestimate the role that these leaders had in the unfolding of history. It was really the fortuitous meeting of circumstances and personalities.”

“MiHi: Now, ask me what I'd like to do AT god?

===

Do you mean "TO God"...or are you contemplating some abomination I can't get a handle on?”

“No, that's the Catholics' deal.

But what they both have in common is an insistence on telling everyone else how to think.”

“Etrusci: What makes an atheist "militant" exactly?

===

It's like being a militant vegetarian.

You don't just think a burger is wrong for you.

You're udderly convinced it's wrong for everybody.”

“Seeing as I am the Goddess, I'm interested in hearing your answers.”

“Actually, militant athiests argue that our sensing of the divine is just due to some glitch in the wiring that causes us to have hallucinations. From their perspectives it's all just biology and chemistry. They have the same sort of perspective on near death experiences.

On the other side, people of faith think that the athiests are spiritually blind to unseen realities.

That's why this perennial argument is irresolvable. Each side asserts that the other is simply delusional.”

“I'm not sure, but higher than Hitchens.

But to be fair, they've got a 20 century head start.”

“Here's what actually happened.

George Wallace won almost all the states in the deep south, pulling 13% of the vote. Had he not been running, those votes would have gone to Nixon - because the South abandoned the dems after the civil rights legislation of JFK/LBJ.

Even without the Southern states, Nixon won the electoral vote by a huge margin. Take a look for yourself:

http://uspoliticsguide.com/US-Politics-Directory/Historical-Presidential-Election-Results/1968-Presidential-Election-Results.php”

“Some folks believe. Some don't. Some are agnostic. And some are just apathetic.

There's no accounting for taste.

One human constant seems to be generalizing about others: All athiests are blah-blah-blah. All Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc) are yadda-yadda.

What's the payoff for that sort of rhetoric, whether it comes from the Pope or Christopher Hitchens?”