Sovereignty vs Revolution vs Humanitarian

About: Foreign help in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

In the Yi King this character represents revolution in the metaphor of molting & making leather from stretching out animal skin.

How do we achieve the humanitarian (being human in the highest sense) while balancing sovereignty & the yearnings of peoples to be free & determine their own destiny?

Comments

C says

She mentions the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations as a body to spread the charter - , mostly to give an non Western neutrality to the endeavor. I'm not too fond of the UN since they are mostly talk & anti US; this being currently a bookmark for further study

C says

C 2011-03-21 14:07:02 15085

Which is naturally also on Facebook - comments welcome.

What do you folks think?

C says

A good place to start contemplating this subject is Karen Armstrong makes her TED Prize wish: the Charter for Compassion .

or her TED blog where the questions asked are:

Religion seems to cause racism, extremism — why not get rid of it?

What’s the point of a God that doesn’t intervene?

Why not discard religion and just teach the Golden Rule?

... & on FACEBOOK

Seth says

source: C or Karen Armstrong asks these questions:

Religion seems to cause racism, extremism — why not get rid of it?

Well that does appear to the end effect in many cases. But one does need to balance the good it does with the dad it does. How can we minimize the racism and extremism that is created as a byproduct of traditional religion? Are these extremes necessarily connected to religious doctrine? If so, then i would agree ... might be better to avoid those religious doctrines which foster those intolerances. For example, get rid of all religious doctrines which preach things like: "My religion is the only true religion", or "My God is better than your God" etc.

What’s the point of a God that doesn’t intervene?

Well my god always intervenes ... because she is all there is

Why not discard religion and just teach the Golden Rule?

I'm not so very sure that the Golden Rule covers every ethical rubic, nor that it's interpertation is all that universally applied.

C says

Yep, there is nothing in the charter which prevents men of bad will from doing evil. Seth, I don't know whether or not you watched her Ted talk video. For me it had some compelling points. I encountered her talk just after I created the this item although I had known about the charter since 10878. I wrote them early in the process to include the Golden Rule, but they kept it in their conversation but not the charter; perhaps because it is not as lucid in their minds. I liked how she used other from the "do unto others" almost in the sense of God. Enlarging the conversation about it though can help, IMHO. It's cheaper than bombs & more ethical than killing.

C says

C 2011-03-22 11:57:56 15085

seth 2011-03-22 10:34:58 15085

The pictures of a Spiritual world .... which are seen frequently in Elaine's art and other places like the gallery i saw go past recently, but unfortunately didn't save and can't find it in my history either, even though i dwelled on the pictures for a long time ... remind me of the glorious existence that some people experience. But i need no such glorious world to ward off some "eternal darkness". I need no such world to make "sense" of my life. Nor do i need "reincarnation" to deny the end of my life ... the meaning and beauty of a picture hanging on the wall is by no means diminished by the right hand edge of it's frame. I don't grock the connection you have made between the Golden Rule and a personal finite existence. What is it? Why is it that you find such things so very necessary whereas i do not?

I used art appreciation as an example of a refined hedonism. Just a denial of "not needing" or an ego-based intellectualisation which pulls your focus back to whatever refined hedonism you want to imagine doesn't negate a spiritual world nor make any more comfortable your own probable death in the next 33 to 43 years; perhaps sooner. You may indeed focus on NOW in such a zen way that your own death does not matter - in which case I salute you. My own satori is very transcendental & fleeting as a volcano eruption. A personality-made finite existence seems quite puny in the face of the vastness of the Universe. Perhaps this is all there is! I keep returning to idea that for anything at all of any kind, substance, idea etc. to exist is not only remarkable, but amazing. Not even the Big Bang works for me since there at some point had to be something to go bang... but that is all my story. When I think with my heart I am not alone nor confined to the physical senses & the Golden Rule works better than gravity.

BTW, such things as the Spiritual World & reincarnation are sufficient, but not necessary for the Golden Rule to be reasonable. My own grok, years ago, on the situation was based in the simplicity that the Ten Commandments & perhaps all laws could be subsumed to the Golden Rule & all wars recede in direct proportion to the number of people observing same; terrorists being the last to succumb.

C says

The fundamental question of Sovereignty vs Revolution vs Humanity is still unsolved.

C says

C 2011-03-22 07:27:12 15085

Why not discard religion and just teach the Golden Rule?

I'm not so very sure that the Golden Rule covers every ethical rubric, nor that it's interpretation is all that universally applied.

From Seth's comment above (spell checked):

IMHO, The Golden Rule makes only moderate sense without the spiritual & without reincarnation as principle realities. Without these only hedonism emerges tempered by survival paradigms which make it last longer before the eternal darkness. One might go for the more ethereal hedonisms of art & love & poetry, but still they remain as such. Add to that the less subtle ones such as power & money can provide & that is that - still the eternal blackness with birth & death the lines of demarcation; creeping on faster & faster with age. Why restrain one's appetite for pleasure & avoiding pain as do also the animals? Quibbling & haggling are just games to be played out to avoid that dark void or fickle destiny.
Given otherwise, then morality & ethics & love as substance builds future worlds & like gravity is inescapable as an organizing principle.

Hedonism via Wikipedia

Seth says

C 2011-03-22 11:59:04 15085

seth 2011-03-22 10:46:27 15085

just saw this go by ...

source: my favorite fb comedian

It isn't the pace of life that concerns me. It's the sudden stop at the end. #humor

...

The link doesn't work for me.

Probably because you would need to be Chris's friend ... facebook's garden wall fucks us again

. But if you want a daily dose of one-liner's i could recomend none better than Chris.

C says

seth 2011-03-22 10:46:27 15085

just saw this go by ...

source: my favorite fb comedian

...

The link doesn't work for me.

Mark de LA says

seth 2011-03-22 12:59:17 15085

C 2011-03-22 11:59:55 15085

The fundamental question of Sovereignty vs Revolution vs Humanity is still unsolved.

What is the "fundamental question of Sovereignty vs Revolution vs Humanity" ?

Why, Seth it is in the body of the item itself!

Seth says

C 2011-03-22 14:32:22 15085

seth 2011-03-22 13:19:52 15085

M 2011-03-22 13:04:32 15085

seth 2011-03-22 12:59:17 15085

C 2011-03-22 11:59:55 15085

The fundamental question of Sovereignty vs Revolution vs Humanity is still unsolved.

What is the "fundamental question of Sovereignty vs Revolution vs Humanity" ?

Why, Seth it is in the body of the item itself!

I guess i just don't grock how being human in the highest sense conflicts with (verses) the yearnings of peoples to be free & determine their own destiny, or to belong to be sovereign nations, or to revolt against those nations. So i am having troubles understanding your fundamental question. Could you, perhaps, ask the question differently?

Dude! wake up to the news. Obama & the UN has bombed the shit out of a sovereign country in the name of humanitarian ideals on behalf of a bunch of revolutionaries being brutally repelled by a dictator. (Not unlike the Bushes in Iraq). Now if someone had intervened during our Civil War on behalf of the Confederacy we wouldn't have liked the outcome. On the other hand we had a Revolutionary War at the beginning of America in which other countries Like France & the Netherlands & Spain intervened on behalf of the colonists. In the case of the United States things worked out. In Libya it is not so nice. In Egypt the military is in command. In Iraq it is working OK, but at a huge price.

etc..... There are more countries in the Middle East to go. Define the right balancing act if you can. Sometimes I wonder if you don't play dumb on purpose.

Well the context in which you had put this lead me to believe that you were asking a more useful question, and not just making a lead in to critizize POTUS ... damned if he does (see your prior remarks) damed it he doesn't (see your remarks above). Certainly you must know by now that i am not in the slightest interested in engaging you on that kind of political RWG anymore.

The more productive question, imho, in the context of being human in the highest sense and in the context of Karen Armstrong's remarks, might have been: when should we intervene in another person's life, infringing on their freedom and personal sovereignty? That is a personal question of ethics, and one that is informed by the Golden Rule. It is in fact a balancing act ... and i don't believe there is any generalized rule that would always apply ... but rather a case by case context sensitive thinking from the heart. I doubt that the art of such a complex personal ethic could be easily generalized to international politics.

C says

seth 2011-03-22 13:19:52 15085

M 2011-03-22 13:04:32 15085

seth 2011-03-22 12:59:17 15085

C 2011-03-22 11:59:55 15085

The fundamental question of Sovereignty vs Revolution vs Humanity is still unsolved.

What is the "fundamental question of Sovereignty vs Revolution vs Humanity" ?

Why, Seth it is in the body of the item itself!

etc..... There are more countries in the Middle East to go. Define the right balancing act if you can. Sometimes I wonder if you don't play dumb on purpose.

Mark de LA says

Nothing in the body of this item criticizes POTUS. In the context of the above comment of mine a fact is a fact regarding the bombing of Libya. The item is all about countries & Karen Armstrong has a process going to extend the Golden Rule (in her terms compassion) to larger & larger groups. The group or country & the individual are polars. It is apparent from the latest news that the question is indeed unresolved. Today's Yi King is hex #21 which in part deals with the "problem of evil" see P.2676. Do what you want with the info. My answer is first of all isolate & contain it. Then try to transform using shame & artful dialogue. If you isolate it amongst it's own kind for too long transformation is likely to be difficult.

Seth says
The text of Armstrong's Charter For Compassion appears here. For my purposes that reduces to ...

The Charter calls us always

to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves and
to dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and put another there, and
to honor the inviolable sanctity of every single human being.

Which commitment i have made according to my own words which strangely enough they do permit ...

...

and you can even see that on my facebook.

Seth says

... that said, i still don't see how the Charter or Karen Armstrong's words gives us any guidance to answering the question: when should we intervene in another person's life, infringing on their freedom and personal sovereignty? What happens when (1) conflicts with (3) ? And how does that scale to a government treating the people of another nation, thereby bypassing their government? Does honoring "the inviolable sanctity of every single human being" extend to governments always honoring the sovereignty of other national governments ... even when those other governments are breaking the Golden rule (1) against their own people (iow the current case in Libya) ?

Seth says

source: C above
a denial of "not needing" or an ego-based intellectualisation which pulls your focus back to whatever refined hedonism you want to imagine doesn't negate a spiritual world nor make any more comfortable your own probable death.

Yep, nothing negates your spiritual world, nor did i imply that anything did.

However, i did imply that I do not need a spiritual world to make the end of my life comfortable. I comfortably accept that i am a specific finite being. Some of the context of that may have come out in my A New Respect for The Specific.

All of my verbal thoughts and words, whether read or written, can be characterized as ego-based intellectualisation. It is all meta. Deeds alone get me out of that box.

I grock nothing wrong with feeling good about my life, my actions, and others effect upon me. I call it, love. What do you mean by "refined hedonism" ?

Mark de LA says

seth 2011-03-23 11:05:38 15085

That's the main question in both the title & the body of this item!

In general I like to believe that once you have a core principle that you can go ahead & implement it, i.e. get it out to live in the World. Essentially one develops more & more concrete things in the world which are congruent with the core principle: projects, charters, operating groups, ..... The Hunger Project was born somewhat that way; the HP itself, which predates facebook by decades, being consideably greater that the facebook page just mentioned. I will see if I can break it down a bit later.

Mark de LA says

seth 2011-03-23 11:32:30 15085

I am losing my interest in this tack - it is OT. You will notice that I originally said this:

C (above): ... IMHO, The Golden Rule makes only moderate sense without the spiritual & without reincarnation as principle realities.

... so if that it makes perfect sense to you without then so be it. If it doesn't with my principle realities so be it. We argue more on the topic some other place.

Mark de LA says

In the Wikipedia on Hedonism:

source: ...

Hedonism is a school of thought which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1] This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain (i.e. suffering) they produce. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).

... it really doesn't really define pleasure. I am assuming that most people associate sex, drugs & rock & roll, plus a little food as the basics. Refinement therefore might include subtle ones such as art & science where such provide components that give pleasure.

Thanks for asking.

Mark de LA says

In Karen's recent Qatar speech she expounds on the Love thy enemies commandment. She brings it home with the Greek Tragedy theme toward the end of the discourse.

* on Facebook as well.

I prefer that the Golden Rule be updated to Love as you desire to be Loved. Good references are John XIII, 34-35 and Luke VI, 35-36 & indeed all the parables of the New Testament which are illustrations of the Golden Rule as stated.

Seth says

M 2011-03-23 12:34:08 15085

In the Wikipedia on Hedonism:

source: ...

Thanks for asking.

Note that my question was asked in this paragraph ...

source: Seth above
I grock nothing wrong with feeling good about my life, my actions, and others effect upon me. I call it, love. What do you mean by "refined hedonism" ?

I don't think you definition of Hedonism which focuses on pleasure has much at all to do with my feeling good about my life, actions, and others effect upon me. My philosophy is to evolve my actions (plastic habits) such that they feel good to me ... that does not mean that my objective is to maximize my pleasure. But fact is how I feel when you do something is the only metric that i know that informs me of it's value. You may call that "conscience" if you want; i think that is the same thing. So that understood, why do you point to "refined hedonism" in response to my philosophy ?? What alternative do you ascribe to?

C says

Mark (above somewhere): ... We [can] argue more on the topic some other place.

... For a pure materialist, which I am not, I speculate that the only thing which would be of interest is pleasure & avoiding pain; being Darwinian evolution. Whatever story you tell yourself is OK with me.

I prefer not to garbage up this item with our regular polarity on the subject of the Spiritual World. At the 2011-03-22 07:34:18 comment I intrduced "etherial hedonism" not associating anything with you.

Sovereignty vs Revolution vs Humanitarian

About: Foreign help in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

Tags

Comments

It isn't the pace of life that concerns me. It's the sudden stop at the end. #humor

See Also