Stuff I've learned, or been reminded of these last 12 months.

[scottobear]

Things I believed in a year ago that I don't right now.

Karma, especially enforced karma.
People are basically good. (Some are but I don't feel it's the norm. I feel it's more environment than nature. Man is a savage creature.)


Things I believe right now, that I didn't have as good a grasp on this time last year.

Innate Evil in Everyone, and Society & Law is needed to contain it. (When left to his own devices, man will seek the most selfish way, not the most kind or beneficial for the whole)
Mercy is vital, perhaps more so than Justice, as it's not my place to be the judge.


Things I still believe

Be Nice... it doesn't matter if they're nice back.
Don't bother arguing past the point of reason with a stupid person
Some people will not accept what I find to be reasonable or common sense to be such.
The opinions of folks I don't care about don't matter.


On a lighter note, I bet sweetalyssm would like some of these! MMmmMMm Marshmallow sugar black cats! found at http://www.marshmallowpeeps.com , of course.

Comments

[weswilson]

I'd like to add some corallaries to your postulates.

1) People who aren't AFRAID have the capacity for inherant goodness.

2) When people live in fear, they tend to seek out their own selfish desires and not act in a way that improves the well being of the general public.

These things I believe.

I agree with you, with these corallaries.

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

1) all people can be nice when they're comfortable. the true test of goodness is when they're at risk or in danger.

2) very few people live in that degree of comfort.

[artemii.livejournal.com]

"man is a savage creature"?

i think there are some things that tend to happen in a society...but i think that's society speaking, not "human nature". almost nothing is universal "human nature," in my experience.

Re:

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

man is a savage creature, in my opinion and belief.

society is an offshoot of human nature, as far as I'm concerned...that's a construct that keeps us all more or less in line, and I've found where many things might not be universal, there is a great deal of commonality. rule making, some basic laws and reason sets, even religion have a great deal in common, if not being exactly alike.

Anarchy isn't the norm, nor is it a desirable survival trait in humans, as far as I'm concerned.

[artemii.livejournal.com]

i don't know, i just find your way of looking at it kind of sad (to me i mean of course). there have been societies based on kindness, even some that had no concept of violence at all. i can see where you'd come to the conclusions based on our own society, but i still don't think it's universal.

Re:

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

I shared your viewpoint this time last year... I know that some societies function more on a kindness level than others.

as far as having no concept of violence, I'd like to see that society interacting with another. only the most aboriginal possible would be able to maintain that level of non-agression, and it'd have to be a small group, at that, too, I think. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly an oddball when all of man's designed group behavior is concerned.

[artemii.livejournal.com]

well, clearly - like tibet - they are screwed when faced with a major military power. in pre-colonized africa and places like that, they did pretty well, though. a lot of pre-western-industrialized societies had a lot more respect for individual societies than modern post-industrial ones do. even the roman empire let the societies they conquered do pretty much whatever they wanted; a lot of people think that's one of the reasons the roman empire was generally one of the most successful ones.

(then, of course, there were societies like sparta, where the majority of the populace were slaves and they were kept in check not by respect but by deliberate fear-inspiring tactics by the ruling class.)

[moonmama.livejournal.com]

"Things I believed in a year ago that I don't right now...

...People are basically good. (Some are but I don't feel it's the norm. I feel it's more environment than nature. Man is a savage creature.)"

So has your attitude towards people changed or has the way you approach new people changed at all because of this?

Re:

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

Not as much as you might think.

I still believe in "be nice". but I've stopped being surprised when other folks turn out to be "just acting in their own interests"

I know some innately good, kind, wonderful people. I just know now that they are in the vast minority.

[deunsander.livejournal.com]

Have you read any of Cheng Man ch'ing's literature? He was a great practicioner
of Chinese Medicine and Tai Chi chuan He is also famous world-wide for his art and literature.

Anyway, I think you are amazingly intelligent and imagine you would appreciate the following:

I especially think you would love "Cheng Man ch'ing: Essays on Man and Culture.".
That's where I copied the following from:


"Hexagram #38 K'uei, Opposition 9 at the beginning: Remorse Disappears

Your horse runs away. Do not chase after it,
it will return
When you see evil people, just guard against mistakes."

From Professor Cheng's Complete I Ching.

"Twenty-five: To love Virtue and Detest Evil

Confucius loved virtue and detested evil, saying "Whose heart is set on goodness will
do no evil" He wanted us to choose and practice the good points we see in others and
change their bad habits- but only as we find them within ourselves. Do not take responsibilty
for changing others mistakes. Lao Tzu, on the other hand made no distinction between
virtue and evil. Master Ch'ien Ming-shan believed that Taoism represents the Way to survive
a chaotic world, as explained by the I Ching, "When you see evil people, just guard against
mistakes" Mencius taught that man's nature is entirely virtuous and revered sage-kings
Yao and Shun as perfect humans. Although his theory is wrong, we see his approbation of virtue.
Hsun Tzu afforeded inherent evil a position as part of our nature, and we see his approbation of evil.
Yang Hsiung and Kao Tzu propounded similar mistaken theories and need not be discussed.
As we can see, Confucius studied only to correct his own mistakes and enrich his life; Lao Tzu
was one step removed from this when he sought a method to survive a confused world and depreciated the importance of jen."

All of this abstract is from his book Essay's and Man on Culture. I appreciate his wisdom
greatly. Although, I am more familiar with Kongo Zen Buddhism myself.

Arrigato goshimashita

*bows respectfully*

Derryn

Re:

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the fine compliments!

the Tao te Ching / I ching is a fascinating bit of culture, certainly.

(I certainly wouldn't want to live in a true confucianist society, though... castes and such give me the heebie jeebies.. a few very nice ideas to be taken, though. )

Lao tzu is quite the sharp bit of work.

thank you for sharing that!

*bows in retun, courteously*

[nottoneedyou.livejournal.com]

Shoot! I did not know such a treasure such as those particular marshmellow peeps existed! I am so giddy like a little school girl. I'm going on a marshmellow peep hunt.

Re:

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

have a punkin for me!!

mmm! sugary good.

[satyrich.livejournal.com]

Woo-hoo! Halloween peeps! I like 'em stale and chewy....

Re:

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

them's the best for the easter ones... I'v enever had the pleasure of the halloweens.

[sherahi.livejournal.com]

Um, technically, those are illegal. Listed on the illegal drug list right after cocaine. I think bin Laden grows like 75% of the world's crop, they've gotten really popular, especially in the US because of its addictive qualities and its a cheap high.

*sigh* I can't believe websites are openly selling them...*sigh*