Re: ID of ruler with ruled
>It seems to me that a ruler has the job of maintaining the social being of which the ruler is a member -- this is not necessarily the same being as the state being ruled.
>It seems to me that the entire issue of human rights has arisen from the difference between the society of the rulers and the society of the ruled. If the ruler is a member of the same being as the ruled then the need to specify protections for the ruled vanishes. Of course, getting a complete identification of rulers and ruled might be a bit difficult.
This is dangerous: society as one being, ruler as responsible for it, loving it, cleanses it of the communist (or capitalst) cancer. Community is a being, yes, as is society, & the state etc. and an individual with complex overlapping hierarchies of inclusion, cooperation, conflict, moral, social, legal, political ... and we're //in// all this so can't get an objective view. Sometimes I think that the best we can do is to do our best: cultivate understanding in the service of compassion, excersize compassion in the service of wisdom. Simply advocate the end of abuse, help those in need, spread //metta//. While having no idea what the ideal form of social organization would be...
-- "Santipala
At 06:15 PM 10/6/95 -0600, Stephen Evans wrote:
IIIt seems to me that a ruler has the job of maintaining the social being of which the ruler is a member -- this is not necessarily the same being as the state being ruled.
>>It seems to me that the entire issue of human rights has arisen from the difference between the society of the rulers and the society of the ruled. If the ruler is a member of the same being as the ruled then the need to specify protections for the ruled vanishes. Of course, getting a complete identification of rulers and ruled might be a bit difficult.
>This is dangerous: society as one being, ruler as responsible for it, loving it, cleanses it of the communist (or capitalst) cancer. Community is a being, yes, as is society, & the state etc. and an individual with complex overlapping hierarchies of inclusion, cooperation, conflict, moral, social, legal, political ... and we're //in// all this so can't get an objective view. Sometimes I think that the best we can do is to do our best: cultivate understanding in the service of compassion, excersize compassion in the service of wisdom. Simply advocate the end of abuse, help those in need, spread //metta//. While having no idea what the ideal form of social organization would be...
>-- "Santipala
Yes, it is dangerous -- and non-compassionate people keep attempting to do it over and over. How is one to point out a problem without acknowledging the nature of the problem? These rulers are going to keep trying to bring about a complete identification, and they are going to keep failing.
My question is: How do you advocate the end of abuse to people who are not compassionate? Arguing compassion is fruitless, and a waste of time. It seems to me that the tool available to a Buddhist is causation -- and the realization that effects create their causes. Is the Buddhist going to convince the non-compassionate that effects create their causes? Not likely. Instead, point out individual loops within the web. Map "human rights" into small sections of dependent coarising.
-----
Sphere.
>My question is: How do you advocate the end of abuse to people who are not compassionate? Arguing compassion is fruitless, and a waste of time. It seems to me that the tool available to a Buddhist is causation -- and the realization that effects create their causes. Is the Buddhist going to convince the non-compassionate that effects create their causes? Not likely. Instead, point out individual loops within the web. Map "human rights" into small sections of dependent coarising.
>-----
>Sphere.
I am in agreement with you (if I understood you correcly, of course!) To give a somewhat prosaic example. I have found to that to convince my children to do something 'because it's a good thing to do, because we should try to be kind' etc. is ineffective and actually somewhat dubious. To try to explain the effects of their actions and making them think through to possiblities (ending with 'and you will happy/unhappy) is generally much more effective and, I think, helpful.
--
Rayya
At 01:47 PM 10/8/95 GMT, Rayya Ghul wrote:
>I am in agreement with you (if I understood you correcly, of course!) To give a somewhat prosaic example. I have found to that to convince my children to do something 'because it's a good thing to do, because we should try to be kind' etc. is ineffective and actually somewhat dubious. To try to explain the effects of their actions and making them think through to possiblities (ending with 'and you will happy/unhappy) is generally much more effective and, I think, helpful.
--
>Rayya
I think treating the world's leaders as children is a wonderful idea! You do not attempt to teach a child everything all at once. You attempt to teach them what you think they will understand, using words they already know.
For example: I think we should thank the government of China for giving the world Tibetan Buddhism and raising HHDL to such prominence. Perhaps from this they may learn a bit about unintended consequences. (Getting them to generalize and become compassionate? Well, a rock is worn away drop by drop...)
-----
Sphere.