I've got some questions for Buddhists, that you just don't ask.
Please understand that I'm not trying to be disrespectful, and I'm not claiming more understanding than I have. These just are real sticking points for me, and it would help enormously if somebody could lay this out for me.
My biggest question revolves around individuality. If the self is an illusion, then what's the point of any of it? If I'm not really real, whatever "I" am, then it seems to me that absolutely nothing matters. It seems to negate everything, because then, everything could be an illusion. I mean, the four noble truths could be just as much an illusion as anything else. So, it would be just as wise to not bother, right?
My next question is similar: couldn't Buddhism just be a trick to pacify the impoverished peoples of Asia? Now, I've got to tread lightly, because I really don't mean this disrespectfully, but Buddhism seems to have taken hold in some of the poorest, most overpopulated places on earth. So, telling a bunch of poor people that their suffering is actually an illusion, and that their desires cause suffering? That really seems like it could be a trick to keep people in line. A system of control, wherein you get the herd to maintain itself.
Another question is about Time: Isn't time real? Well, time or something quite like it. I mean, I guess I'm too much of a materialist to understand this, but history, fossils, museums, etc: there is a massive amount of external evidence to show that there is an objective past, so how can time be a construct in the mind? Because, if there is a past, there must be a future, as well, otherwise the present couldn't exist. What I mean is this: If I am writing this now, and i read it again tomorrow, doesn't that mean that there is a past, recorded here, and because i can read it tomorrow, that present makes it my future?
Related to that: isn't my reality your reality? What I mean is: if I am here, and you can see me, and you are here, and i can see you, aren't we equally real? So, if we can accept the reality of each other, then, what about third parties? If you and I both see a baseball, even if we count the stitching differently, and even if we notice different scuffmarks, but can show each other those stitching and scuffs, doesn't that make the baseball objectively real, and as real as you or I, even though it can display no consciousness of its own? I just don't understand how, then, it can be a higher truth to deny that baseball is as real as my consciousness, when it's not just my consciousness that recognizes it, but both of ours. Again, I'm a materialist, and maybe that makes me stupid, but I'd love it if somebody could really get it through my thick skull.
Then, watch this film.
You know, over the years, I've known people to join what I consider "cults". Girls who go off to follow a guru, boys who start stockpiling guns, people who give up lives that are mostly happy with only a few intense bouts of sadness, for a perpetual glazed over trance, and people who just don't like themselves very much giving up even those small things that make them worthwhile.
It strikes me that there's a lot more cult activity than you might think. It gets disguised as religion and psychology. I'm not picking on any one group, but the next time somebody tells you to stop thinking, just remember this little film.
The more you know....
]]>I use the phrase sloppily, as a kind of joke. I'll say things like 'I'm working for the devil", and mention the "dark overlords" at places i've worked. But I don't seriously believe that Satan worshippers run the world. That would be really crazy. Well, I think McCain meant it the same way I do, but, evidently, some folks take it seriously. I guess they've never heard of Freemasons,or their symbols, huh?
]]>Oh, and speaking of "Home"; anybody else notice that the fires up by Malibu were at least half contained, if not completely by yesterday, while the fires on the southern end of San Diego aren't contained at all? It could be because Malibu is White, while the areas burning in San Diego are less white, or it could be because Malibu is Rich, which San Diego is less so, but I don't think so. At least not directly. The reason why Malibu is richer and whiter than San Diego is the same reason why they could fight those fires more easily: it's better property. It's built better, there's been more care taken to the landscaping, and more services are in place. It cannot be ignored that San Diego county has no Fire Department, instead relying upon city firefighters, exclusively. That's a function of a county governance that's thinking smaller and poorer than the neighbors elsewhere. If you're allergic to taxes, regardless how much you have in the bank, you're also under-developing your immunity to disaster. So, while Race and Class still matter to the equation, it's pushed a little further back, while politics comes a bit further forward.. Also, it should be noted that, so far, Schwarzenegger is doing a bang up job. Yeah, I might disagree with him on a few things, but actor or not, "governator" or not, he's doing a better job than I think Pete Wilson could've done. Probably even better than Jerry Brown, or that other actor, too. More's the pity that he is what he is, but all credit where it's due. Finally, while my loathing of what California has become tempts me to liken it to a modern Gomorrah, and think the fires are INRI (nature renewed by fire, made whole) it's not the wrath of an Angry God. It's an opportunity to become more human. We'll see if Southern California can do it. I sincerely hope that those who still have them reach out, and truly help those who no longer have homes, or other necessities.
]]>I'm friends with a fair number of people. Some are very conservative, some are very liberal. Some are quite religious in one direction, others are quite religious in another, and some aren't religious at all. So, I feel that asking for some degree of tolerance is reasonable.
In the past day, however, I've had two "liberal" friends condemn me, neither one realizing that they were. One was broadly proclaiming that if you weren't ready to vote for Obama, then, you must be a racist. The other was declaring that because of the waste on a few contracts, the entire Pentagon should be shut down, and all military sub-contractors should "be thrown in jail for being accessories to murder". Meanwhile, one of my more conservative friends condemned me by saying that "it's treason" to question the wisdom of the "unseen hand". I thought he was joking. Turns out, he wasn't. To Him, the free market is an article of faith, and if you disagree with his notion, you are "anti-american". Meanwhile, I've got a christian friend "praying for me" because I don't go to her church, and a Islamic friend asking me "why Americans want to kill me".....
Look, can we lay off the broad rhetoric? Is it possible that maybe, rather than looking for "black hats" and "white hats" we just try to talk to each other? Any chance of that, at all?
I mean, politically, I'm left of center (I think, anyway) but I'm not about to vote for most of the democrats, because they don't strike me as leaders. Sometimes I even agree with some of their ideas, but the way they phrase it seems, well, like they think I'm not a very good person. Or, they seem too strident. Or, they seem to lack conviction. I vote based upon platform, so, I'll probably end up voting for Edwards, and when the ticket is Clinton/Obama, I'll vote third party, again. I don't think that makes me a raving lunatic, do you?
As far as religion goes: I've got my beliefs, but they're mine, and no, I'm not sharing them. But, that doesn't mean that I think yours are wrong. Just don't tell me that you won't extend the same courtesy to me. See? I'm neither a zealot, nor a fiery heretic.
I just think that some of the issues at hand are far too important to drown them in self-righteousness, and insecurity. We need to talk, and not just consolidate our base. We need to try to understand each other, or there will be no need for understanding.
Yeah, I'm a pie-in-the-sky dreamer: I still believe that people are more important than, and that people can overcome beliefs.
]]>