Are You Giving Yourself the Chance to Live?

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Kendrix:

So, as it relates to the elephant ( one of my my favorite animals),

Mine too, and none of this is intended to disparage elephants.

 

I d say: Holy shit, that elephant has ruined your home.

That sucks big time. However, the best way to deal with it is not to brood.

But maybe it is. Sometimes "brooding" is merely taking a lot of time to contemplate what might be a very large problem. And sometimes if you aren't willing to go through the pain of "brooding" you can't ever solve the problem to your satisfaction or even truly learn to live with it.

 

A lot of great scientists, artists, philosophers and statesmen have been brooding sorts of people. And wouldn't have it any other way. They're willing to comtemplate things that most of us feel they don't have time to or are unwilling to because it's painful. Yet there's no denying we've all benefitted from what they did.

 

The trick of course is knowing whether you (or someone you care about) are brooding in service to your nature or it's an affectation that needs to be overcome. That decision in itself often requires a lot of thought and care. Which goes back to what Chip was saying about people not having the time to discover who they really are, everyone taking the default path, etc. etc.

[Jimbroni]

If you don't feel sadness at losing a loved one then you don't really value them while they live. And your still-living loved ones know it.

Well first understand, there is room for sadness, hence the Middle Way. I'm not saying being sad is the wrong thing. I'm saying its YOU who is creating the sadness and I think understanding that is important to this topic.

Secondly, I want to say that I disagree with your above statement. I love my grandpa, but I wasn't sad when he passed. During that time near his passing, my memories were filled with joyful moments from my childhood with him. Of course, my grandpa was hilarious. Please don't tell me that I didn't value my Grandpa. Heck for all my talk of being lighthearted, I'm nothing compared to him. When we were there, my Uncle looked at me and said, "You know I don't think Grandpa had bad day in his life, except maybe the war." I thought to myself, "Hes's right Gramps was always happy. Compared to him, I haven't had to deal with nothing, yet he lived and died with a smile on his face."

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by geekgurl:

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

She really had no clue that Rome was a city in Italy, let alone that it was the seat of one of the greatest empires of all civilization.

Which leads me to the point that whoever suggested the school system holds a lot of blame for the situations you decry was, to some degree, correct.

You know, I have a hard time placing the blame on schools ... I have a dear friend from high school ... she thought you could drive to Hawaii (we're in California) ... went to the same schools as I did. And I can't remember a time when driving to Hawaii didn't sound ludicrous to me.

Ok, but that misses the point. Sure, you knew all your life that driving to Hawaii was ludicrous. But how did your friend's parents and the school system so fail her that she didn't? The people we're talking about and those who make us laugh at their ignorance on the Leno and Street Smarts don't appear to be learning impaired.

 

How do people make it to adulthood without knowing that Hawaii is an island (with all the implications of that fact), Rome was the seat of a huge Empire, and who the current president is?

 

It's mind-boggling.

[strat0124]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

Originally posted by Geenard:

99% of the reason I moved to the mountains and took a massive pay cut. I'm healthier, happier, and sensually stimulated beyond

What is sanity like?

Not bad my brother. Releasing stress is a wonderful thing. Stress is also a major factor in illness. I've been less stressful and I gather thats the reason I've been "better". I may kick it tomorrow, but today I'm livin large and enjoying the ride. Don't think about it so long and hard, just decompress a bit. Turn the TV off helps too. Especially at bedtime, don't watch that @#$%ing thing. Nothing like getting a massive dose of bad news to fall asleep to.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Jimbroni:

I'm not saying being sad is the wrong thing. I'm saying itw YOU who is creating the sadness and I think understanding that is important to this topic.

I dunno, if we acknowledge that sadness is an appropriate response to something then I'm not sure it matters who "created" it. Nor am I even entirely sure anymore (although I once felt the way you did) that all emotions are really self created. Some of them are obviously, and some are vanities or indulgences. Others, while they may "arise" from you in the same way that the inspiration for a song does, are not necessarily "created" by you nor could you change them. Just like some songwriters write because they sit down and commit to writing, others write because they hear music in their heads and it won't go away - it's a fundamental part of their nature and may have divine origins.

 

Obviously sorting out which is which is a lot of work.

 

Secondly, I want to say that I disagree with your above statement. I love my grandpa, but I wasn't sad when he passed. During that time near his passing, my memories were filled with joyful moments from my childhood with him. Of course, my grandpa was hilarious. Please don't tell me that I didn't value my Grandpa.

I think it is possible to value someone and yet prepare yourself for their passing, especially if they're old and have had a full life, so that you aren't sad at the time. But that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about our interdependence on each other and people's very real, and very deep, need to be needed. On a daily basis our presence means something to our loved ones, hopefully. For them to just carry on in our absence as if nothing was missing is pretty creepy. If I had a friend who lost a loved one and they acted that way, they couldn't mourn, that would make me less trusting of that friend.

 

And to a lesser extent (I think this is what Chip is talking about) we do that to each other every day. Couples cheat on each other, and expect to be cheated on, and have developed a creepy kind of callousness to that. Marriages are not really expected to last, so a lot of people don't take marriage seriously in the first place. It's also expected that you might have to pick up and relocate for a job, or spend lots of time away from your family, and you're not supposed to miss them and they're not supposed to miss you. You're all too busy. You don't get to know your neighbors very well because you might have to move... etc.

 

I think if we responded with appropriate sadness to these situations we wouldn't be in them. We wouldn't tolerate them.

 

When we were there, my Uncle look at me and said, "You know I don't think Grandpa had bad day in his life, except maybe the war." I thought to myself, "Compared to him, I haven't had to deal with nothing, yet he lived and died with a smile on his face."

That's awesome. Your grandpa was obviously a wonderful person. But I think there are many kinds of wonderful people... some people's nature is to make the best of whatever comes their way, others is to fight to change what's causing people pain. By the same token, "making the best of things" can be cowardly and "brooding over the world's ills" can be self indulgent BS. The difference IMO is whether you're acting in accordance with your nature or contriving to escape that nature. Chip's point is that most people at this time don't even recognize that such a deeper nature exists or feel it's worthwhile to cultivate it. This reduces all emotions to the transitory kind, and everything in our nature as up for negotiation... malleable and fixable with pills or more money or whatever.

[Michelle ggurl]

Which leads me to the point that whoever suggested the school system holds a lot of blame for the situations you decry was, to some degree, correct.

You know, I have a hard time placing the blame on schools ... I have a dear friend from high school ... she thought you could drive to Hawaii (we're in California) ... went to the same schools as I did. And I can't remember a time when driving to Hawaii didn't sound ludicrous to me.

Ok, but that misses the point. Sure, you knew all your life that driving to Hawaii was ludicrous. But how did your friend's parents and the school system so fail her that she didn't? The people we're talking about and those who make us laugh at their ignorance on the Leno and Street Smarts don't appear to be learning impaired.

I don't think I missed the point; You asked: "But how did your friend's parents and the school system so fail her that she didn't?" The key there is the parents; The individuals and the values they chose to instill in the child.

 

Which, is what we're talking about here, right?? The relationship the values of societal collective as a whole as well as each individual's values. How did I miss the point?

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

Excellent points, Chip. The education system purports to enrich us as human beings but has become a sort-and-train center for cookie cutter jobs.

 

There are schools that see things in a different way, however, most are private or privately run charter schools. Goverment schools are, largely, pathetic for anything other than job training.

I work for a public school district, although what I do is drastically different from most public educators since I teach the severely developmentally disabled. That said, one thing that I should point out is that largely, what public school does that people don't think about is that they prepare people to become functioning members of society. Yes, absolutely, it's about education as well, but we are teaching people show up at 8:00 each morning, obeying rules, not questioning authority but rather to listen and follow, to get along with others, have good manners, respect property, be responsible for working, and probably a hundred other things that would make this post too long.

 

I don't have to spell this out completely, though, do I?

 

I think a lot of teachers realize this role, but if they don't, then when they are going for their teaching credential, one of the professors is there to let them know.

 

Every once in a while, someone will get a teacher in the public school system who kinda gets them inspired, does something unconventional, makes them realize other choices, etc., but most of the time, it's lemming time.

 

And this isn't really a criticism of teachers, either. Teachers have an obligation to stick very closely to the state framework/guidelines and adhere to what school administration tells them. And also, for a society to function, it quite frankly IS important for people to tow the line, show up to work and do their work consistently, obey rules, and all those other polite things. But at the same time, we often stamp out individual thinking and the ability to see alternatives, and that's ultimately detrimental because it's often those ideas and people who raise society up to a higher level.

[halljams]

I always say it, but getting out of the city away from the commercialism and throwing away your television will fix a LOT of these issues and dillemmas.

It's like having a drug problem, complain all you want but the root of the problem has to be addressed.

 

In a short period of time our society has gotten far removed from the lifestyle of working physically 10 hours a day just to aquire food for ourselves and families to survive.

Due to modern convieniences we have more free time than ever before and we are confused about what to do with it and where our importance in the world lies, we have more time to ponder and what we reflect our pondering on is commercialism.

Commercialism tells you that you need to make more money, you need to have this and this and this and you are bombarded by it everyday, more so in the city and to a painful extent on television.

Why do people make them selves suseptible to these things? Because America says it is a way of life?

Bullshit.

Think for yourselves and you will find the way out.

Otherwise, thanks for leaving us all this room here in the country.

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Originally posted by Kendrix:

The book simply explains some of the Buddist concepts related to taking responsibility for your own state of mind and suggest some methods for accomplishing this. These things do not come naturally to most folks- and are certainly not programed into us by society.

True enough, and I do think those concepts are very valuable, and Chip probably COULD benefit from Buddhist principles. They're a great help in training your mind and gaining some control over your thoughts so you can enjoy life, for sure.

 

My caution has to do with how and when to apply those principles. Like anything powerful, they can be misused. If you use them to avoid your own nature or as an excuse to shirk your larger responsibility to society and future generations, then they haven't helped you or anyone else.

My feeling is that Buddhist teachings would be rather difficult to misuse. It's more likely that they would be misinterpreted. One of the basic teachings of Buddhism, btw, is, essentially, to live in the "now". In other words, that suffering is caused by too much dwelling on the past or the future. Does that sound like it could help anyone? Possibly....

 

At any rate, I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in a very easy to read, lucid, *practical* approach pick up some of Thich Nhat Hanh's books, such as one entitled "Anger", which I think is a wonderful book. One lesson in there discusses anger: when you are angry, don't look to cast blame; take care of you and your anger first. Just like if you found yourself in a burning house, you wouldn't look to find out what caused the fire, you'd get to safety first.

[Jimbroni]

One of the basic teachings of Buddhism, btw, is, essentially, to live in the "now". In other words, that suffering is caused by too much dwelling on the past or the future.

I think thats a bit narrow, but heading in the right direction. I think a more general description is proper. One could say clingyness to worldy things, whether those be possesions, ideas, desires, ego, etc are the cause of suffering. The idea being that while those things are necessary in every day life, there's no reason to get bent out of shape over them, because they are not permanent.

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by Jimbroni:

One of the basic teachings of Buddhism, btw, is, essentially, to live in the "now". In other words, that suffering is caused by too much dwelling on the past or the future.

I think thats a bit narrow, but heading in the right direction. I think a more general description is proper. One could say clingyness to worldy things, whether those be possesions, ideas, desires, ego, etc are the cause of suffering. The idea being that while those things are necessary in every day life, there's no reason to get bent out of shape over them, because they are not permanent.

I wouldn't say it's "narrow". It's *one* of the basic teachings of Buddhism. One of the major ones, quite honestly.

 

What you are referring to is the removal of attachment, which is arguably at the heart of Buddhist teaching (well, okay, along with compassion for all sentient beings). And that's obviously very very important.

 

I wasn't trying to sum up Buddhism with that statement, but rather taking one of its basic teachings and attempting to make a point that Chip might find useful.

[sojend]

Lee, I take it you've read "Ishmael"?

[Lee Flier]

Heh... yeah. Why do you ask?

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by geekgurl:

...I don't think I missed the point; You asked: "But how did your friend's parents and the school system so fail her that she didn't?" The key there is the parents; The individuals and the values they chose to instill in the child.

 

Which, is what we're talking about here, right?? The relationship the values of societal collective as a whole as well as each individual's values. How did I miss the point?

As you point out, I did include her parents as an integral factor in her lack of education. But the fact remains she fell through the cracks and wasn't even aware of it. Even if someone's parents are ignorant, that's no excuse for the educators teaching their children to allow the children to be as ignorant as the parents.

 

You may be right that it was simply the values taught by the parents. But how can someone graduate high school with so little education? Unfortunately, it happens everyday.

 

It pains me, Ken, to think that it's necessary for school to be there to teach people to be on time, work in a structured environment, etc. That's ridiculous. You don't need 12 years of school to learn structure and discipline. What it appears you're saying is that public education is a waste of most people's time in deference to government wishing to pump out little soldiers. Whether they end up being big soldiers or soldier-like cogs in societies system is immaterial. Either way it adds up to a sad state of affairs. No wonder more people than ever are finding alternatives to a public school "education". And no wonder about a third of Nashville's public school teachers have their own children in alternative educational environments.

 

You also seem to illustrate a major reason supporting Chip's assertion that so many of us are merely worker bees with little sense of the beauty, wonder and possibilities that exist in this world.

[sojend]

You had mentioned "Hunter Gatherers" in an earlier post and it just struck me that way. I really enjoyed the book myself, although I wonder if it is really pertinant with world population as it is.

 

BTW, thanks for responding to an old NEWBIE.

 

Steve Presley

 

http://www.geocities.com/pmproductions_studio/

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by sojend:

You had mentioned "Hunter Gatherers" in an earlier post and it just struck me that way.

Oh. Well most of my study about hunter gatherers predates Ishmael by a good bit, but that was a good "summation for the masses" of some relevant points.

 

I really enjoyed the book myself, although I wonder if it is really pertinant with world population as it is.

Well, and some of it is just plain not accurate... but still, I think the object was to get people thinking, and that's cool.

 

BTW, thanks for responding to an old NEWBIE.

No problem and welcome!

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

I don't think that was Chip's point though... his point was that he feels alienated by OTHER people's seeming lack of caring whether they have time to contemplate anything or not.

Lee, as usual, understands what I'm saying...

 

and I think he's gotten quite a few responses that are exactly the sort that make him feel alienated.

Yeah. I suppose I am seeing what I expected. A mixture of people completely missing my point, and those who are offended by it I suppose - par for my course.

 

I suppose it's a Richard Branson/Ted Turner philosophy vs. a Warren Buffet/Donald Trump philosophy. If that means anything to anyone...

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Gord -B:

To take a line out of Lost In Translation:

A great movie, except for the bit about Murray's character being a reluctant philanderer. Is cheating hip today?

 

"The more you know who you are and what you want, the less you let other things upset you"

 

So much in life is crap that just is not worth worrying about... you live you die, whats the point in worrying.

Because.... if you *do* know who you are and what you want, AND you know the possibility of attaining it exists... Then *that* is your life, or should be. To not worry about it would be to discount what it is you want. Perhaps for some it's just a jelly donut, but for others it may be something deeper and more valuable than that.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by blackfish:

no sir. I think you are the one who fails to see.

"Ok, if you say so".

 

if you have never shared a great love, never seen that lifetime in one you care about, then you are indeed too far outside the human

You are creating a supposition that does not relate to my point.

 

 

race. That you make light of human emotions-the last thing one who started athread

I make light of human emotions...? Where, exactly?

 

for you indeed, such deep thoughts with out any substance behind them. It is the like minded

That's kind of a whiny statement for someone to write who starts his initial posts out by calling someone out for being "fucking whiny"...

 

thinking displayed here that leads to indifference and malaise in how we deal with

Hmm. So, suggesting people who are stuck in a closed-loop of a doldrum existence based around an ever-increasing cycle of work, in light of doing something unique or creative is "indifference and malaise"? Fascinating....

 

i am pointing out the fact that your statement sounds like an aging person growing bitter with the passing of time. My point is that

It's a sort-of free country.

 

smell- your point- may in fact be evolving to include new aspects of life in our changing

You're re-arranging the context and retroactively drawing an inference from that.

 

Preoccupied, as in distracted from the rest of your life, how does that make your point? Human

You're too obsucated for me to concentrate on at the moment, I'll try tomorrow...

 

is not something to strive to be, it is something you are inherently through nature. A

You don't get it, at all. Or, my reading comprehension has suddenly failed me.

 

glorified monkey with opposable thumbs, whining about the lack of complexity and sincerity in the world. Get off your dead horse and get down it, you may just smile at the result.

I bet you're also of the belief that all beggars should really just go get a job somewhere because it's their fault, right?

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by jackpine:

See if there are any roses around to smell.....

Remarkable. You get it, thanks....

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Kendrix:

Is there some underlying thought behind your statement that I'm missing?

Yeah, and again it points directly to my position:

 

being happy is not something a *human* should need instruction on. If you're not happy, *IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT HAPPY*. *You see nothing at all strange about going out and buying a book, taking the time to read it, about being happy????

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

It's *one* of the basic teachings of Buddhism. One of the major ones, quite honestly.

 

What you are referring to is the removal of attachment, which is arguably at the heart of Buddhist teaching (well, okay, along with compassion for all sentient beings).

For that very reason I hate Buddhism. It denies the basic nature of humans is *emotional*. It's ultimate end is dissolvement, to end your suffering by laboring towards removing yourself from the cycle. Which effectively means an ever-incresingly ascerbic choice of life until you *are* allowed "freedom" in the form of basically becoming nothing.

 

That's a rather ultimately cynical and non-human philosophy. If you can practice it in part and have it make you a happier person, that's great... Personally, I do not seek to end my suffering through dissolving into nothing. Not only that, but attachment to other humans is what in part makes us human: the *capacity* for that attachment, through the *human* drive to seek the love of another.

 

Yeah, you don't have to take Buddhism that literally, BUT - ultimately that is what it's about, and ultimate if you take it seriously you have to embrace that. It *is* a self-contained truth: if you believe in the contruct outlined - the principles of reincarnation and the dynamic of trying to escape it to remove the element of suffering from your awareness - then ultimately you must subscribe to that idea. Which I don't.

 

I *do* need to learn to live in the "now", but not through artifice. The psychological process of suspending contemplation of the past or future is not one I see that has to be tied to a philosophy or religion. If that works for others, great - for me, it's off-putting.

 

I want to be happy, and I want to remain human.

[Geoff Grace]

I'm afraid I don't have the energy to read the whole thread right now. I've been sick in bed with pneumonia for the past ten days, but it gave me the chance to finish this fine and possibly relevant book that my sister has been after me to read since the seventies. The image of the book is a clickable link to the opening pages. Feel free to read them if you like...or not, whatever works.

 

http://homepage.mac.com/musicproduction/.Pictures/Seth.gif

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Wewus432]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

It's *one* of the basic teachings of Buddhism. One of the major ones, quite honestly.

 

What you are referring to is the removal of attachment, which is arguably at the heart of Buddhist teaching (well, okay, along with compassion for all sentient beings).

For that very reason I hate Buddhism. It denies the basic nature of humans is *emotional*. It's ultimate end is dissolvement, to end your suffering by laboring towards removing yourself from the cycle. Which effectively means an ever-incresingly ascerbic choice of life until you *are* allowed "freedom" in the form of basically becoming nothing.

 

That's a rather ultimately cynical and non-human philosophy. If you can practice it in part and have it make you a happier person, that's great... Personally, I do not seek to end my suffering through dissolving into nothing. Not only that, but attachment to other humans is what in part makes us human: the *capacity* for that attachment, through the *human* drive to seek the love of another.

 

Yeah, you don't have to take Buddhism that literally, BUT - ultimately that is what it's about, and ultimate if you take it seriously you have to embrace that. It *is* a self-contained truth: if you believe in the contruct outlined - the principles of reincarnation and the dynamic of trying to escape it to remove the element of suffering from your awareness - then ultimately you must subscribe to that idea. Which I don't.

 

I *do* need to learn to live in the "now", but not through artifice. The psychological process of suspending contemplation of the past or future is not one I see that has to be tied to a philosophy or religion. If that works for others, great - for me, it's off-putting.

 

I want to be happy, and I want to remain human.

I'm NOT a Buddhist by the way, but I do believe in the power of suspending conscious thought, and I do believe in the power of direct experience, rather than philosophical inquiry.

 

It's pointless to elaborate on every possible answer to a question, and just hope that you'll stumble across the right one, and that's what you're doing.

[Jimbroni]

It denies the basic nature of humans is *emotional*.

Yeah this is the problem with trying define, buddhism with a couple of short posts.

 

Buddhism doesn't deny emotions, it shows you how to look at them objectively, and to not take yourself too damn seriously. Sounds like someone could use a little help in that area. Buddism is a path to the truth, to deny your emotions is to to deny the truth. We don't deny emotions we try to understand them. So there's no reason to HATE the most compassionate religion this world has. Thats alot of wasted energy.

I think the reason people brought it up, is because of the idea you bring about simplification of your life. Buddhists teach this as a way to the truth. So to me having studied many readings, I don't see how your ideas here are all that different than a buddhist's ideas would be. The buddhist may just have better coping skills, to deal with those ideas.

[sojend]

I think self-improvement and inner reflection, no matter what name tag you put on it, is always a good thing. None of us will, more than likely, ever get being human right, but trying to improve what we are is more than reasonable.

 

Steve

 

http://www.geocities.com/pmproductions_studio/

[Kendrix]

It continues to amaze me how our personal filters cause us to make assumtions about each others thoughts beyond what was said/intended.

 

FWIW- Im not a Buddist either. However, there are aspects of Buddist teachings amd methods that I think can be very helpful to many people. Im really not about dissolving in to nothingness- just about owning my state of mind.

 

Owning your own state of mind does not constitute disowning your inherent being. However, it does empower you to shape / change yourself for the better.

If someone thinks this is a bad thing I disagree.

 

The one and only thing each of us really has a chance to control in life is our rection to the world, our state of mind, our thoughts.

Failing to take advantage of what that has to offer seems really limiting to me.

 

Characterizing the various thoughts cast around there as Donald Trump/Warren Buffet vs. Ted Turner/ Branson just tells me how Very badly we are miscommunicating. Its a total mis-characterization that, for my part, I must object to.

 

Just cause someone sits on the opposite side of the fence from you on a particular point should not lead one to assume a total Red state/Blue state type of broad brush characterization of that person un-related to whats been said.

 

Man is that ever a big, unsubstantiated jump.

So, which team are you on???

Thats the kind of thinking that does make me feel alienated.

 

Peace

[Michelle ggurl]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

It pains me, Ken, to think that it's necessary for school to be there to teach people to be on time, work in a structured environment, etc. That's ridiculous. You don't need 12 years of school to learn structure and discipline. What it appears you're saying is that public education is a waste of most people's time in deference to government wishing to pump out little soldiers. Whether they end up being big soldiers or soldier-like cogs in societies system is immaterial. Either way it adds up to a sad state of affairs.

 

You also seem to illustrate a major reason supporting Chip's assertion that so many of us are merely worker bees with little sense of the beauty, wonder and possibilities that exist in this world.

When I read this I was just reminded that I wrote a poem in my senior-year creative writing class about our school system churning out workers on an assembly line and crushing individuality. My former-hippie teacher liked it and read it aloud in class.

 

I choose to let my freak flag fly. Since that's not the norm in society, I do pay for it in lots of little ways, though.

 

Interesting thing is, if you're bizarre by societal standards and have no money, you're a pariah and marginalized. BUT, if you HAVE money, you're an inconoclast, a visionary, a ... Michael Jackson. Money buys you freedom to be who you really are. Isn't that interesting?

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

It's *one* of the basic teachings of Buddhism. One of the major ones, quite honestly.

 

What you are referring to is the removal of attachment, which is arguably at the heart of Buddhist teaching (well, okay, along with compassion for all sentient beings).

I *do* need to learn to live in the "now", but not through artifice. The psychological process of suspending contemplation of the past or future is not one I see that has to be tied to a philosophy or religion. If that works for others, great - for me, it's off-putting.

 

I want to be happy, and I want to remain human.

I should say that it's not about artifice. I think you're misunderstanding Buddhism. It actually is anti-artifice in that it attempts to strip away the nonsense and get to the real stuff, and doesn't push down emotions.

 

Living in the "now" doesn't mean ignoring the past or the future. It doesn't mean you don't consider, you don't learn, you don't plan, you don't contemplate. What it means is that you don't become preoccupied with it.

 

For example, someone who is preoccupied with the future might unnecessarily worry about the future to the point of where they are afraid to try new things, to go for a career change, whatever. They obsess over what may go wrong. A Buddhist might say that this obsession over the future might be what causes suffering. No one is saying to ignore what you feel. On the contrary, you acknowledge it. You don't push it down within you. You acknowledge it and then you plan accordingly. But you don't OBSESS over it or become preoccupied.

 

The past: same thing. You consider it, learn from it, contemplate it, but if you are obsessed with it, it causes suffering. Chip, surely you must know someone who had something painful happen to them, and many years later, that person is still straitjacketed over what happened. They can't love another person again, or they stopped doing something they formerly enjoyed because they had a bad experience with it. A Buddhist might say that this is from an extreme preoccupation with something from the past, and that this causes suffering.

 

And ATTACHMENT is the same way. You feel love for a person. Or hate, although that's considered negative. You feel everything. You acknowledge how you feel. That's VERY important in Buddhism. But you don't dwell on it because, according to Buddhism, it's that attachment that causes suffering. You do feel your emotions. In fact, Buddhism is very good at getting people in touch with their emotions. That's what it's all about. But you recognize the IMPERMANENCE of it all, that things change, things move on, and acknowledge it all.

 

Now, I must mention here that I am not Buddhist. I really greatly admire and appreciate Buddhism, and try and adopt some of its principles to my life, but I cannot say I'm Buddhist. Attachment, for example, is something I have great difficulty doing. I think that it has a very valid point, but really takes far more discipline than I have. But I have found that the more I acknowledge how I feel but recognize the impermanence of things, the less I do suffer. I do feel it, but I don't know if it's a lesson I can learn in this lifetime. I just try and be as happy as possible (which is another strong lesson of Buddhism - just basically to be happy).

 

I truly hope I haven't butchered how Buddhism is, but I want you to know that it does not push down emotions. It acknowledges it, and seeks happiness. For more on this, I strongly recommend that you read Thich Naht Hanh or the Dalai Lama. I think they are able to convey the main points of Buddhism to Western audiences in a meaningful manner.

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

It pains me, Ken, to think that it's necessary for school to be there to teach people to be on time, work in a structured environment, etc. That's ridiculous. You don't need 12 years of school to learn structure and discipline. What it appears you're saying is that public education is a waste of most people's time in deference to government wishing to pump out little soldiers. Whether they end up being big soldiers or soldier-like cogs in societies system is immaterial. Either way it adds up to a sad state of affairs. No wonder more people than ever are finding alternatives to a public school "education". And no wonder about a third of Nashville's public school teachers have their own children in alternative educational environments.

 

You also seem to illustrate a major reason supporting Chip's assertion that so many of us are merely worker bees with little sense of the beauty, wonder and possibilities that exist in this world. [/QB]

Yes, actually, I wrote that in part to illustrate one of the main topics of this thread. I am concerned about our culture's move towards this. I think that public education has some value, and not all of it is predicated on learning to be a worker drone. People do learn valuable skills.

 

But at the same time, I do feel that it's next to impossible to deny the impact of getting people to show up every day at 8:00, learn responsibility, learn to listen to authority figures, the whole bit, and not draw a parallel to going to work.

 

And while I think that some of this is disturbing, I also think that not teaching this would lead to an eventual erosion of society.

 

If you think I am taking somewhat of a middle path to this, you'd be right.

 

I acknowledge the disturbing parts of this, the implications to churn out little worker drones, but at the same time, recognize that this is part of where people learn to operate in society.

 

And I have some possible solutions. See what you think about these:

 

What I think would assist in making things better is a dynamic shift in how schools operate. To encourage free thinking, creative thinking, creative solutions, and not regurgitation and following orders.

 

What I would further propose would be that at the beginning of the school year, the students in a particular class would participate in creating the rules of the classroom, with the teacher serving as arbiter and moderator.

 

Studies, as well as my personal experience, have shown that when students participate in the creation of class rules, they feel like they have more of a stake in it. They feel that they understand the reasoning behind it. They feel more involved, as its not arbitrary rules and punishments meted out by an authority figure. And that's freakin' powerful.

 

And it's radical to most teachers.

 

But the truth of the matter is that almost always, the rules (and in particular, punishments) that students create are harsher than what the teacher creates, and the teacher actually has to tone it down. But in studies in which students have participated in the creation of their own rules, they've shown a marked increase in participation, better behavior, less stress and anger, and an increase in overall satisfaction and grades.

 

Why do I know a bit about this? Because of several reasons, actually. One is that I used to do this in my grade school class. You read that right. GRADE SCHOOL. It works as early as grade school. It's very effective in jr. high and high school (studies indicate that it's actually MORE effective in those grades than grade school, but I always feel it's important to start early). Another reason is that this was my Master's Thesis when I was obtaining Master's Degree in Special Education. And yet another reason is because I share your concern, Fantasticmusic, for our culture. Teachers largely shape the future, and the shape of things to come is often disturbing to me (not always, but *often*).