Majority Rules

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I think its appropriate to share this Michael Jackson song
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by bb23108

Oh, dear, must I?

Through mutually acknowledging that we are all in the same boat together globally, we can more readily cooperate for the common good of all. An example of being in the same boat together is the extreme weather that impacts all of us. Such weather patterns clearly do not take into account national boundaries! So too our cooperation relative to doing something about this must be global.

Yes, and it would be wonderful if this could be achieved by everyone sensibly deciding to get together and work for the common good.

It would, of course, depend heavily on whether or not humanity as a whole can agree on what constitutes the common good. How are we doing on that so far? How well, for example, is human-driven climate change playing in the red states of electoral America?

Even when all agree, they must be persuaded to get together and work for the common good without having to be forced to it. While great national or multinational efforts have occasionally resulted from dire necessity (the response of the Allies to the combined threat from Nazi Germany and Japan springs most readily to mind) it is usually the case that such efforts founder on the reefs of conflicting interest.

People who believe as you do often speak of a transformation that individuals, or society, must undergo in order to encompass the unity they envision. I think the hope for such a transformation is blind to the fact that we are essentially animals, and our behaviour as a species—individual striving and limited collective efforts notwithstanding—is precisely what we would expect of any animal species. Darwinian competition is strongest between conspecifics, because they occupy the same evolutionary niche and compete for the same resources. A social species cooperates against other species and the environment, but its individual members are always in competition with each other, even when they cooperate. And they will multiply and consume more and more resources until the latter are exhausted, then suffer a catastrophic population crash and perhaps become extinct. This is the common fate of successful species and humanity is following the classic pattern. I cannot see any reason why it should deviate from this.

The 'spiritual' belief that humans have a higher calling, that we can transcend nature and become godlike, is actually a belief in the power of rationality and progress—very left-brain, Enlightenment ideas. They represent the decadence of the Enlightenment, the Victorian era of Madame Blavatsky and the table-tilting spirit mediums whose deceptions were exposed to the world by Houdini. They are grounded in the very materialism their adherents hopes to transcend. I cannot make myself believe in such a contradiction.

A hundred years of tyranny may save the human race, at appalling cost to its individual members. I see no other viable solution, other than some technological breakthrough that will allow us to move beyond scarcity—but which will, as all technology does, bring horrors in its train that accompany whatever benefits we may derive from it. You can take the boy out of nature, but you can't take nature out of the boy.

reply to post by Itisnowagain
Good points. Yes, clearly the internet is the leading technology for the global majority to be connected and heard. This is an incredible means and opportunity for people to act together.


reply to post by Astyanax

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by bb23108

 

Oh, dear, must I?

LOL. I think you must - and it is apprectiated!

Originally posted by Astyanax
How well, for example, is human-driven climate change playing in the red states of electoral America?

*Sigh* Don't get me started on this - though there has been some progress, but unfortunately it seems to take incredible disasters (persistent drought in the Midwest, hurricane Katrina and Sandy, the BP oil spill, etc.) to get through to a lot of people. It greatly concerns and even disgusts me when I see the incredible waste going on in the USA - with people getting more and more obese, health costs skyrocketing mainly because people don't change their diets but would rather believe in the constant hype of the fast-food corporations, the belief that big Pharma will save them in the end, etc., etc., etc.! Sorry, I almost got started there...

Originally posted by Astyanax
Even when all agree, they must be persuaded to get together and work for the common good without having to be forced to it.

Absolutely! The majority must insist on this approach, always tolerant.

Originally posted by Astyanax
People who believe as you do often speak of a transformation that individuals, or society, must undergo in order to encompass the unity they envision.

Yes, and unfortunately many people only believe in this as an ideal or as a vision rather than actually seeing that we are truly connected, seeing this directly in ways that not only encompass the physical, but also transcend the material side of life.

So yes, it does take a real transformation of the individual to actually notice that we all arise in a unity that binds us together. When we see this in life and deeply feel our unity, the egoic approach of only looking out for one's own body-mind begins to shift and we inherently start taking the bigger picture into account - because we see we are not inherently separate from our world and all others.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I think the hope for such a transformation is blind to the fact that we are essentially animals, and our behaviour as a species—individual striving and limited collective efforts notwithstanding—is precisely what we would expect of any animal species.

Yes, it must go beyond hope - it has to become obvious that this unity (which is expressed both physically and beyond the material) in which we all arise, is actually the case. This can be noticed directly through simple tacit intelligent feeling-recognition of the actual "field" in which we all arise and are not separate from. If this is not obvious, it can still be noticed that we are one species that rely on one another, and also greatly impact each another, because of our connectedness even in the material world.

Originally posted by Astyanax
This is the common fate of successful species and humanity is following the classic pattern. I cannot see any reason why it should deviate from this.

Well you already gave the reason in your summary - we are on a path of insane destructiveness that will have tremendous negative impact on us as a species. The fact that we can see this coming is something other species were not consciously aware of, and we can use this to our advantage. In other words, we can actually see, and hopefully before it is too late, that this current individual ego-logic of every man for himself is not working.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I cannot make myself believe in such a contradiction.

Yes, belief is worthless, in fact is a kind of closed-mindedness that obstructs the noticing of what is actually the case. Only the truth, once fully considered and firm conclusions are reached, should inform us.

You do sound like you believe only in materialism though. I am not debating what you say about the physical world, that evolution is not the case, the merits of science and materialism, etc. - but to only assume this scientific-materialistic position is to close oneself from noticing anything else.

But I know you do not want to enter that consideration, so I will simply say that it is good to be completely open and allow reality to reveal what is true, however that manifests for each of us.

reply to post by bb23108

Yes, and unfortunately many people only believe in this as an ideal or as a vision rather than actually seeing that we are truly connected, seeing this directly in ways that not only encompass the physical, but also transcend the material side of life.

So yes, it does take a real transformation of the individual to actually notice that we all arise in a unity that binds us together. When we see this in life and deeply feel our unity, the egoic approach of only looking out for one's own body-mind begins to shift and we inherently start taking the bigger picture into account - because we see we are not inherently separate from our world and all others.

This is where we start to see problems in my opinion. Ideals are unattainable if they transcend the "material side of life". Nonetheless, striving for them does occur often, despite the fact that striving for the unreal can cause real harm to real things. Hitler attempted to attain his ideal, as did the Inquisition, as did Stalin, as did the crusades—all propelled by ideals which "transcended the material"—by attempting to posit their ideals as somehow necessary to strive for. This is a direct course to division and madness.

If we take the bigger picture into account, we must first eliminate striving for ideals that "transcend the material"— they are unreachable, they cause division, no one agrees on them, we destroy real things on the path to them. If we strive for "material ideals"—that is they are realistic ideals—we can then perhaps begin to agree on striving for something attainable, and eliminate the majority and minority by coming together and producing a whole in agreement.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by bb23108

 

This is where we start to see problems in my opinion. Ideals are unattainable if they transcend the "material side of life". Nonetheless, striving for them does occur often, despite the fact that striving for the unreal can cause real harm to real things.

Seeking to attain any ideal is futile as it is based in the same ego-logic that has created the horrendous difficulties we currently are in. Your extreme examples were certainly based on the model of ego-mania and the results were disastrous. Those ego-maniacs may have even thought their ideals transcended the material, but the root of their ideals were very much bound to the ego-principle that does not really see beyond the material world. And even if they did have some "other-worldly" vision, the separative ego-principle was still quite operative, as their results clearly indicate.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
If we take the bigger picture into account, we must first eliminate striving for ideals that "transcend the material"— they are unreachable, they cause division, no one agrees on them, we destroy real things on the path to them.

Again, any striving for an ideal is based on the principle of separation or egoity or "every man for himself" presumptions. It is not a matter of ideals at all - but of noticing what our actual reality is here. On the basis of this recognition, a different logic and action beyond the ego-principle of separation can emerge.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
If we strive for "material ideals"—that is they are realistic ideals—we can then perhaps begin to agree on striving for something attainable, and eliminate the majority and minority by coming together and producing a whole in agreement.

This may be very helpful in some limited way, but again, unless the core assumption of everyone being separate is responsibly released (even moment to moment), such striving for material or non-material ideals will inevitably come into conflict with other ego-based ideals. Such ideals, as good and moral as they may even appear, often tend to be just more unproven belief systems and do not provide a realistic basis for global change. And even if certain materialistic ideals are proven to be benign goals, they are still only a partial or limited solution because the root of the problem has not been addressed directly.

The individual must first see that the ego-principle is separative and untrue, and that we actually live in a non-separate world of relationships - with others, unified with the whole world environment. Until real responsibility for our own separative activity is taken by each of us, all ideals will just be (if not immediately, then eventually) in conflict with other egos' self-bound interests and ideals.

To only believe in materialism is just as naive, and can be at least as destructive, as assuming and believing in other non-material ideals. Most of mankind are materialists fundamentally - and look at our world today!

reply to post by bb23108


I agree with what you wrote. Except for this:

To only believe in materialism is just as naive, and can be at least as destructive, as assuming and believing in other non-material ideals. Most of mankind are materialists fundamentally - and look at our world today!

Materialsim is indeed incomplete and may be limited in its world view. But mankind is strictly idealist. When one strives for 'status', 'power', position, happiness, wealth, success, he is striving for ideals—idealism. Fundamentally, yes we are physicalist (better term than materialism in my opinion), but only because we physically exist, the disaster mankind creates is in promotion of his ideals.

Yes.

All one has to do is look at a picture of thousands of people standing in line to purchase the next "new and improved" I-Pod to realize that what the OP states is, indeed, fact.

Every giant corporation starts out as a "mom and pop" operation, it's we who fertilize and water it daily into becoming the uncontrollable "monster".

Until the human animal is able to push away its hubris, this sick-cycle carousel of empires rising and falling will continue.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
If we strive for "material ideals"—that is they are realistic ideals—we can then perhaps begin to agree on striving for something attainable, and eliminate the majority and minority by coming together and producing a whole in agreement.

Here you seem to be advocating the striving for "material ideals" but...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Materialsim is indeed incomplete and may be limited in its world view. But mankind is strictly idealist. When one strives for 'status', 'power', position, happiness, wealth, success, he is striving for ideals—idealism. Fundamentally, yes we are physicalist (better term than materialism in my opinion), but only because we physically exist, the disaster mankind creates is in promotion of his ideals.

... here you are speaking of even the disaster of man's "material ideals".

So what are you saying exactly about "material ideals"? Your two statements seem to contradict one another.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by bb23108

 

I agree with what you wrote. Except for this:

To only believe in materialism is just as naive, and can be at least as destructive, as assuming and believing in other non-material ideals. Most of mankind are materialists fundamentally - and look at our world today!

So does this also mean that you agree that the separative ego-principle is an "ideal" that is false and also potentially destructive whether it is dramatized by a "physicalist" or someone idealizing relative to transcendental matters?

Regardless of the terminology, someone who only believes in what they can directly experience with the physical body-mind should still question whether their position as the body-mind is actually true. As I have often asked you, can you completely know the room that you are sitting in now?

Given you have never answered me, I will take that as a "no" - and I have to agree because no one can describe what even the simplest room actually appears like in reality. We can only do so from one point of view (at a time) and no such description fully accounts for what the room actually looks like altogether in reality. And yet we base our entire view of what is real on our body-mind's experience! That to me is very naive and idealistic!

So it makes more sense to me to simply not assume the fixed point of view of the "physicalist" nor the belief systems of the idealist, but rather be utterly open with the whole body-mind complex to what reality actually is, and thereby allow reality to inform us directly rather than us just identifying with our ideas, ideals, thoughts, beliefs, concepts, desires, perceptions, conceptions, etc.

When so opened beyond all our idealism, does the ego actually exist or is it just an endless process of re-defining oneself as a separate knot of knowing somewhere in the body-mind? When this process is observed and released what is obvious? Our inherent unity with all arising. But of course this must be noticed for oneself.

reply to post by Astyanax

A hundred years of tyranny may save the human race, at appalling cost to its individual members. I see no other viable solution, other than some technological breakthrough that will allow us to move beyond scarcity—but which will, as all technology does, bring horrors in its train that accompany whatever benefits we may derive from it. You can take the boy out of nature, but you can't take nature out of the boy.

A hundred years of tyranny to save mankind from extinction. Bully or destroy humanity to save it from itself... This might be the only way in the end, but it makes me wonder - does the means justify this particular end? Survive our darkest hour - and be what?

I'm not sure we shouldn't go the way of the sabertooths and mastodons - better to burn out than to fade away

We've come so far - and at the same time not far enough soon enough. What we would have to endure to survive - is it worth it? It would change us. I obviously can't see the changes from here, but I can't imagine how we'll be better - we'll just be. It's pointless to argue with this, change is natural and I know it's nature's way

Survival is job one - so, we'll survive

Anyhow, not pretty either way

Nature is beautiful and cruel Astyanax, it's true - and we are natural. But we humans are also something else not so easily defined. We are weird

So, in spite of all this depressing obviousness - I have hope. A little delusion goes a long way - and who's to say that delusion isn't a useful survival tool? I keep wondering if maybe a shared understanding and acceptance of reality (once truly accepted) won't have us moving in unison like a flock of starlings. It will take more starlings than we have right now, but still...

It's only human to have hope. It's only human to pull our asses out of the fire just in the nick of time (at least that's how it works on TV). It's also so very human to wish, and as useless as wishing might be, I still wish for us all a goodly king

Tyranny it is then. Onward and upward...

:-)

Tyranny can only happen because mankind is scared of death and of future loss.
The Romans and all authority hate Christ because he came to spread the good news - life is eternal. No one can be bullied when they have no fear of death.
All authority would fail if no one was fearful of death or future loss.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

A hundred years of tyranny to save mankind from extinction... does the means justify this particular end?

I don't know, Spiramirabilis. In the final cosmic reckoning, no end justifies any means whatsoever, because all ends are equally futile. Religion teaches otherwise, of course, which is one reason why it is so dangerous—and, of course, why it is so popular.

When I typed the words you quoted, I had in mind Stalin's transformation of Russia. Although it was not he who began the work, it was he who finally dragged that country out of its long Dark Ages and made possible its survival as a modern nation. Doing so involved writing possibly the blackest single chapter indited by a single hand in all human history. Hitler's rhapsody of tyranny and slaughter was a flash in the pan by comparison, and a failure to boot. Stalin succeeded in his project.

What we would have to endure to survive - is it worth it?

Is it ever?

We have come, as you say, so far. You're American, I believe. America certainly has come far. It is undoubtedly a great country; its citizens are fortunate merely to have been born there rather than, well, just about anywhere else. But would America have been so great without the dispossession and eventual near-extermination of its indigenous population and their replacement by Europeans? Without the Atlantic slave trade, which supplied the motive power for much of the country's early economic growth? Without British sea power, which was paid for by an exploitative world empire and which helped enforce the Monroe Doctrine when America had not the capacity to do so for itself? Without the two horrific Great Wars of the twentieth century that shattered Europe and allowed America to be its inheritor?

I can't imagine how we'll be better - we'll just be.

Survival is job one - so, we'll survive.

I keep wondering if maybe a shared understanding and acceptance of reality (once truly accepted) won't have us moving in unison like a flock of starlings.

The prospect terrifies me. It would mean we had ceased to be human.

I'm not recommending tyranny. I'm not asserting, even, that humanity ought or deserves to survive. I am simply looking into the future, trying to see what form it has to take if it is to exist at all. I really cannot see modern technological civilisation surviving the coming upheaval other unless some kind of authoritarian enclave is made of it. This will surely cause it to decay and mutate, but perhaps some knowledge and capability will survive, to lay the foundations for a second technological civilisation at some future date. And maybe something will also survive, within that enclave, of the ideals of liberal society, of democracy and the rule of law—though its reality will be profoundly illiberal and based on the principle that might is right. Maybe the ideals, too, can enjoy expression in some future era, after the crisis and the new dark ages that follow it are finally over.

Outside the enclave, or without it, we will end up with a mediaeval world if we are lucky, and a world of savages and scavengers if we are not.

reply to post by Astyanax

The prospect terrifies me. It would mean we had ceased to be human.

I'm not loving the idea of a hive mind myself. I believe it takes all types to make a civilization - it's about balance. It's also about tension - as you mentioned earlier

When I use the imagery of starlings - I only meant that in the face of grave danger we might temporarily unite and work for a time with one goal in mind - and that would be to try and forestall what seems now to be inevitable

I don't wish for tyranny - but I see it as inevitable if mankind is going to survive. Like I said before - I think I'd rather we all perished than survive that

...And maybe something will also survive, within that enclave, of the ideals of liberal society, of democracy and the rule of law—though its reality will be profoundly illiberal and based on the principle that might is right. Maybe the ideals, too, can enjoy expression in some future era, after the crisis and the new dark ages that follow it are finally over.

If they don't survive - they'll rise again on their own. That's something anyway

Each of us has to face the idea of our own death one way or another, now or later. We each have our own way of dealing with the idea - but there's no way to escape it. Contemplating the end of all of us? Is it just me - or is the idea so surreal it seems impossible?

I know it is possible - and even though it probably won't be a part of my reality, that knowledge makes me feel unbearably sad

So, to the OP - we're going to need a majority ruling - and we're going to need it soon

I don't think we went too far off topic - and this is a very interesting thread

I agree that the total mass of people have the potential to control their destiny.

However, the idea of majority implies some degree of equality in the set of included members. The difference between the ruling class and the majority is so vast as to suggest a future speciation.

The ruling class gets laws congienial to its normal chosen taste of life.

Its children are raised in an environment of developement rather than training.

Since were are essentially the product of our minds and can live only according to the rules made for those who rule, being in the majority has no real relevance.

Its like who is taller in a gun fight. at best

That said, the majority has been wrong for many election cycles,( or we wouldn't be in this mess) so what does the majority have to do with anything anyway?

The majority only really rules in what details of conduct it will impose through social means.