Post Reply
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Man Lives without Money & Lives the Teachings of Jesus
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 7:38PM #21
arielg
Posts: 9,116

On the individual level, I think that's insigtful and true. However, on a greater scale, the extremes of wealth and poverty can be a grave injustice.


Also, suffering in poverty is no trite thing. It can be very grinding and dehumanizing.



To be right on the individual level is the only way to contribute positively on a greater scale. 


  Injustice, poverty, dehumanizing, etc.  are all results of the  struggle for selfishnes on an individual level, which becomes the state of society when projected on a greater scale.


A true individual contributes more to the betterment of society (even though that is not  what he is trying to do ) than the schemes and theories of intellectuals who are not in touch with Reality.



 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 08, 2012 - 10:30AM #22
vra
Posts: 6,403

Ever hear of a fellow by the name of "John the Baptist"? Wink

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 08, 2012 - 10:39AM #23
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 8, 2012 -- 10:30AM, vra wrote:


Ever hear of a fellow by the name of "John the Baptist"? Wink




Yes. And I would say this fellow is following John the Baptist more closely than he is Jesus.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 08, 2012 - 10:41AM #24
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 7, 2012 -- 7:38PM, arielg wrote:


On the individual level, I think that's insigtful and true. However, on a greater scale, the extremes of wealth and poverty can be a grave injustice.


Also, suffering in poverty is no trite thing. It can be very grinding and dehumanizing.



To be right on the individual level is the only way to contribute positively on a greater scale. 


  Injustice, poverty, dehumanizing, etc.  are all results of the  struggle for selfishnes on an individual level, which becomes the state of society when projected on a greater scale.


A true individual contributes more to the betterment of society (even though that is not  what he is trying to do ) than the schemes and theories of intellectuals who are not in touch with Reality.



 


 




The suffering is in large part because of not caring a crap about anything beyond one's doorstep.


Instead of seeing oneself as a member of a global family. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 08, 2012 - 11:04AM #25
vra
Posts: 6,403

May 8, 2012 -- 10:39AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 8, 2012 -- 10:30AM, vra wrote:


Ever hear of a fellow by the name of "John the Baptist"? Wink




Yes. And I would say this fellow is following John the Baptist more closely than he is Jesus.





I'm not certain there's that much of a difference, although there is some difference, no doubt.  Remember where Jesus tells the prince to give all to the poor so as to follow him?  Did Jesus own a house?  have a job when he was preaching?  have a nice bank account?  drive a brand new camel? Cool 


My point is that I do not think that one's job and what they may buy are the only things to be considered, and if this was the case, then people like John the Baptist, Gandhi, Buddhist and Catholic monks and nuns, etc. would be "failures".  I don't believe that's the case.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 08, 2012 - 5:14PM #26
arielg
Posts: 9,116

The suffering is in large part because of not caring a crap about anything beyond one's doorstep.


Instead of seeing oneself as a member of a global family.



More harm to the world is done by people who are into  too much doing,  than by people who are not doing anything.


The best thing  people who want to help the "global family" can do,  is to stop interfering and creating problems. That  will be more helpful  than any active doing. The global family is just an abstraction.  In reality it's me and what I do around myself. The world will take care of itself. Let it be.


 But the doers, who  are usually the ones who need to work on themselves the most,  are the ones least willing to do so. So they try to change the world according to their vision. That is what causes the suffering. Idiots will only spread idiocy and that causes suffering, regardless of their intentions.


 A tribe in the Amazon minding their own business is doing more for peace in the world than the armies of the do-gooders who want to "civilize" them. 


 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 7:26AM #27
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

May 8, 2012 -- 5:14PM, arielg wrote:


More harm to the world is done by people who are into  too much doing,  than by people who are not doing anything.


The best thing  people who want to help the "global family" can do,  is to stop interfering and creating problems. That  will be more helpful  than any active doing.



Many if not most people do not understand that what from their limited perspective looks like "not doing anything" actually is very much driving forward the dynamics currently in power.


E.g., entrusting your money to an investment banker.


E.g., buy your food at the local supermarket.


These things come along innocently as "nothing much", as "remaining inactive". While in fact they constitute the full force of complacent and ignorant inertia that drives our planet against the wall and facilitates suffering big time.


No man is an island, and to pretend so is irresponsible if not highly criminal.


tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 1:25PM #28
mindis1
Posts: 7,910

May 7, 2012 -- 12:05PM, costrel wrote:


Thoreau seems to have eaten meat when it was practical to do so (salt pork, fresh fish, moose meat, etc.), and even though he views "preying on other animals" to be "a miserable way" to live, he also clearly rejects living "by rich cookery" ("whether of animal or vegetable food") and eating sensually, the latter of which he also describes as a "slimy, beastly life." This is why I thought that he might have agreed with Dillard . . .



And what could be a sillier assumption than that? You don’t know of any (other) examples where Thoreau agreed with some bald absurdity, do you?


And quite honestly, in our postmodern urban world, it is less time-consuming to throw a burger on the grill or a hotdog in the microwave . . .



It doesn’t take less time in your “postmodern urban world” to pop into a microwave or onto a grill a prepared frozen vegetarian meal than those ground-up cows and pigs, who required much greater amounts of time and energy to get to that frozen patty or sausage state than do frozen prepared vegetarian meals.


As I said, the very idea that there is something expedient about eating animals compared to a vegetarian diet is too insane. You have not only repeated Dillard’s ignorant comment as though there were something true about it, and tried to defend it, you have suggested that Thoreau would have agreed with such idiocy, without any logical basis whatsoever, without being able to articulate any logical argument that leads to the conclusion that Thoreau would believe such an obvious falsehood. Thoreau didn’t live in your “postmodern urban world” where people pop frozen prepared patties of meat into the microwave. Thoreau didn’t live in your postmodern urban world where people are so disconnected from reality that they don’t have the first clue as to where their postmodern urban food comes from. Thoreau would have understood how much more time and energy is required for a meal consisting of animal flesh than to eat a fruit from the vine or potatoes from the ground.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 2:11PM #29
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 8, 2012 -- 5:14PM, arielg wrote:


The suffering is in large part because of not caring a crap about anything beyond one's doorstep.


Instead of seeing oneself as a member of a global family.



More harm to the world is done by people who are into  too much doing,  than by people who are not doing anything.


The best thing  people who want to help the "global family" can do,  is to stop interfering and creating problems. That  will be more helpful  than any active doing. The global family is just an abstraction.  In reality it's me and what I do around myself. The world will take care of itself. Let it be.


 But the doers, who  are usually the ones who need to work on themselves the most,  are the ones least willing to do so. So they try to change the world according to their vision. That is what causes the suffering. Idiots will only spread idiocy and that causes suffering, regardless of their intentions.


 A tribe in the Amazon minding their own business is doing more for peace in the world than the armies of the do-gooders who want to "civilize" them. 


 





Sound phenominaly self-absorbed to me. 


But hey, suit yourself. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 4:27PM #30
costrel
Posts: 6,226

May 9, 2012 -- 1:25PM, mindis1 wrote:

It doesn’t take less time in your “postmodern urban world” to pop into a microwave or onto a grill a prepared frozen vegetarian meal than those ground-up cows and pigs, who required much greater amounts of time and energy to get to that frozen patty or sausage state than do frozen prepared vegetarian meals.


As I said, the very idea that there is something expedient about eating animals compared to a vegetarian diet is too insane. You have not only repeated Dillard’s ignorant comment as though there were something true about it, and tried to defend it, you have suggested that Thoreau would have agreed with such idiocy, without any logical basis whatsoever, without being able to articulate any logical argument that leads to the conclusion that Thoreau would believe such an obvious falsehood. Thoreau didn’t live in your “postmodern urban world” where people pop frozen prepared patties of meat into the microwave. Thoreau didn’t live in your postmodern urban world where people are so disconnected from reality that they don’t have the first clue as to where their postmodern urban food comes from. Thoreau would have understood how much more time and energy is required for a meal consisting of animal flesh than to eat a fruit from the vine or potatoes from the ground.



Why are you getting all bent out of shape about this? If you recall, I wrote to MysticWanderer, "I suspect he might have agreed with Annie Dillard, who is often compared to him, when she told a group of young writers that authors should not be vegetarians, because preparing vegatarian meals takes up too much of their time, time that they could devote to writing." I didn't say that Thoreau would have agreed with Dillard had he lived in the 20th and 21st centuries. I said I suspected that he "might have agreed" with her. Likewise, he might not have agreed with her either. And since he's dead and buried in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, we will never know (because I also do not believe in life after death, so I don't believe that anyone will ever get the chance to ask him, on this earth or in some postmortem world). I wish now I hadn't even said that comment about Dillard, because my whole thread is now derailed as a result of one little statement where I used the word "might." I see no reason to continue this discussion about Thoreau and Dillard (especially since I was not the one who mentioned Thoreau in the first place). Now, can we please get back to discussing the opening post? The man in the opening post, after all, eats roadkill and food he finds in the garbage. So he isn't following Thoreau or Dillard when it comes to finding food. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook