GameBanshee Forums

Oh, So You're A Canadian!

Treading carefully here as it was not my country that was attacked.

From Halifax, Nova Scotia! Odd how I just now noticed that. I keep forgetting that people from other countries can write here as well, unless they are British or Australian, as I've become used to them. Or even Holland, as I have e-mail pals from those three nations. Oh, Bernd is from Germany. Well, maybe I can drop Australia as she hasn't written in awhile. But after I left here last time, I was wondering if you might not be a U.S. Citizen.

One time my father and I were coming home from The Colony, Texas. We stopped in the Arbuckle Mountains just to rest and read the sign about the rock formations. We met a trucker from Canada who was arguing with the sign and presumed we were on his side of the issue. He declared the sign wrong because it stated the mountains to be millions or billions of years old, but that was wrong, because the whole planet was only 10,000 years old!

But rather than argue the point with him, the subject somehow changed to the names of Texas counties and cities. "Six Flags Over Texas" means that six different governments have ruled, not counting Native-Americans, since the Spanish founded it. So the names reflect that heritage. Anyway, what Dad and I found the most bemusing, was that he didn't know about the Alamo, and thus didn't realize that some of the names stem from being named in honor of the Alamo's fallen defenders, or of Republic of Texas leaders like Sam Houston. He was like, "Really?!" His behavior seemed to indicate that he didn't think it was right to name places after such people.

As your posts make more sense than his speech patterns and behavior, I'm guessing that you aren't him! So back to you now. Hello, Northern Neighbor!

But Canada is one of our allies. You're a sister nation to us, with the U.K. being our mother nation. Hm. What gender should I assign to Spain and France though? Oh! Native-Americans can be the father figure, while the European nations can be the mother figures! Wow! Mini-harem, or serial monogamy?! :laugh:

What you have said makes perfect sense, but the examples given have only reinforced my point. Actions taken by these people have caused your people to take actions that have harmed themselves (Patriot Act) lash out at the wrong target (Iraq) and for a time at least tarnish your reputation in the rest of the world.

No! You aren't going to make me the Elizabeth Hasslebeck of this!

I will claim to understand some motives of those folks (extreme poverty, brainwashing). The leaders are motivated by something else, and it is not the welfare of their people. I know those those folks do not know me, and hate me none the less, but hatred is a very strong word and emotion I reserve for VERY personal occasions.

I'm not bringing up "hatred" this time. To make it personal for me, all I have to do is think about Ellen almost being in one of the towers that day, if that's the kind of "personal" you mean. Otherwise, it was "personal enough" that they hit the building themselves, being a architecture admirer. (I used to draw imaginary cities quite often in the 1970's.) There are various levels of what "personal" can mean. The guy in the video who beat a cat against the wall and laughed. Sure it wasn't my cat, so it wasn't personal like that. But on general principle, it may as well have been. I want to take that guy and do to him what he did to the cat. I'd feel better if I did so. As for the bong and cat guy, I don't condone drugs. So I'd have to substitute the bong with a smoke house or something. It's more anger than hate, as I'm older now and don't think of them as synonyms.

As hatable as bin Ladin is, he does not meet that criteria...yet for me. However this only applies to me. Others are free to walk a different path.

Heh. I'm not Jewish, Homosexual, Russian, or the rest. So what Hitler had done to such people in the camps, wouldn't be "personal" in that sense, as I don't belong to those demographics. But I can relate and understand how they would feel about it. On their behalf I can be as angry about it as they are, because they and I are homo sapiens. Oh no, I'm about to become Joy Behar!

PS I'll debate this further only in a different thread.

What's to debate about? I know what I mean by "hate" and "anger"! It's what do you mean by it? That's the mystery here! A different thread? Whatever for?

LeoStarDragon said
What's to debate about? I know what I mean by "hate" and "anger"! It's what do you mean by it? That's the mystery here! A different thread? Whatever for?

just the politics LeoStarDragon, as much as I love to debate em, i was in serious danger of drifting off topic. You have proven my point again of coarse since someone you cared for directly was nearly hurt 9/11. I am more distant from it by the fact no one I knew was there. Still it impacted everyone.

On a more serious note, I am flattered and glad that I am a bit more coherant than that fine example of a trucker you mentioned.

jklinders]I'll debate this further only in a different thread [/QUOTE] That's fine wrote:Why do I get the strangest feeling that this went from just normal hating someone, to hatred on a WHOLE other level?

Because this is SYM?

Lady Dragonfly wrote:You are right, of course, but those examples are extreme. If we go by your definition of enemies, most of us should never complain because our problems are trivial compared to the horrors you described.

In this case, the all-inclusive, personal nature of the message ("Its possible to also desire your enemies happiness and be sympathetically joyful when THEY are happy") would seem to require no less than a test of pretty severe suffering at the hands of enemies, to prop up its absolutist stature. The more extreme the message, the more personal experience I think is demanded to back it up; and this one went beyond even the supposedly god-based "love thy enemy" to actually "take joy from your enemy's happiness" which is an order more demanding altogether.

I suppose I could accept such a statement to "desire your enemies happiness and be sympathetically joyful when THEY are happy" from a person who has suffered through the sorrows of a love affair gone bad, but that kind of enemy just doesn't promote the magnitude of suffering or forgiveness required to make the statement credible, in my opinion. Even if it was the git of a girlfriend I had back in 1977, either.

Now, if we consider more mundane statements about dealing with enemies such as "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer" or "I can work with my enemies" or "The guy who has killed my last two promotions because he'd rather get me to do all the work while his protege advances, is going to end up with a horse head in his bed tomorrow morning," then I think we can dispense with requests for an understanding about how much those people have suffered. They aren't making special claims to greater spiritual understanding based on an assumed experience that has yet to be determined. They are simply decent people, trying to deal in their own way with the crap that enemies throw at them in various ways.

"They aren't making special claims to greater spiritual understanding"

But I didn't claim that. Just saying. I did say that an enemy is defined within the mind. And that such a notion is impermanent. And that I wanted to be friends with my enemies. All three of which I believe to be true.

Do you have something against Buddhist? Because that is buddha's teaching. Its called the 4 immeasurable minds. And they extend to all people's all times. Even in hell etc.. (Jeffrey Dahmer Saddam Husein etc)

I guess to elaborate it is my feeling that in buddhism spiritual understaning is stored in the awareness and not in the view. So if you say that you cannot know something unless you experience it. The spiritual understanding is not stored in that view. It is stored in the awareness. Your awareness recognized something and then thinking mind formulated some concepts. But the spiritual understanding is not stored in the concepts. They (the concepts) would just be skillful means for you to communicate.

So in fact it is meaningless to say that my awareness is more spiritual than yours.

Claudius, please reread what I wrote. It's right there, plain as day. What you wrote, what level of personal experience you had to back up the statement.

If you feel my comments target Buddhism, feel free to PM Buck.

Well I guess I would just restate that I don't feel that I have a higher spiritual understanding. I guess there is not much to talk about.

[QUOTE=fable]In this case, the all-inclusive nature of the message ("Its possible to also desire your enemies happiness and be sympathetically joyful when THEY are happy") would seem to require no less than a test of pretty severe suffering at the hands of enemies, to prop up its absolutist stature. The more extreme the message, the more personal experience I think is demanded to back it up; and this one went beyond even the supposedly god-based "love they enemy" to actually "take joy from your enemy's happiness" which is an order more demanding altogether.[/QUOTE]
As much as I tend to agree with you, I am willing to stipulate that the creator(s) of the Buddhist philosophy/religion experienced suffering at the hands of their enemies and the followers are expected to adhere to the set standard.

I don't think I would be able to take joy from my enemy's happiness while being tortured by the said enemy but once again, I was not indoctrinated. I lack the required faith and my worldview is different. In my perspective, loving your executioner is as abnormal as loving the pain. Outside the religious teachings it is not a sign of a healthy response to a negative stimulus. It can also be a defense mechanism (loyal slaves of a cruel master? victims falling in love with their jailer?) - I think we had a similar discussion some time ago, if my memory does not play tricks on me.

The things might change if you believe in martirdom, karma, heavenly rewards for meekness and humility, and other worthy subjects.
The things also might change if you try to follow certain ethical principles.

I will refrain from encroaching upon Claudius' area of expertise however; I know little about Buddhism.

As for the Christian outlook, I think Rev. M. L. King Jr. expressed his point of view very well in his famous sermon:

History unfortunately leaves some people oppressed and some people oppressors. And there are three ways that individuals who are oppressed can deal with their oppression. One of them is to rise up against their oppressors with physical violence and corroding hatred. But oh this isn't the way. For the danger and the weakness of this method is its futility. Violence creates many more social problems than it solves. And I've said, in so many instances, that as the Negro, in particular, and colored peoples all over the world struggle for freedom, if they succumb to the temptation of using violence in their struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and our chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos. Violence isn't the way.

Another way is to acquiesce and to give in, to resign yourself to the oppression. Some people do that. They discover the difficulties of the wilderness moving into the promised land, and they would rather go back to the despots of Egypt because it's difficult to get in the promised land. And so they resign themselves to the fate of oppression; they somehow acquiesce to this thing. But that too isn't the way because non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.

But there is another way. And that is to organize mass non-violent resistance based on the principle of love. It seems to me that this is the only way as our eyes look to the future. As we look out across the years and across the generations, let us develop and move right here. We must discover the power of love, the power, the redemptive power of love. And when we discover that we will be able to make of this old world a new world. We will be able to make men better. Love is the only way. Jesus discovered that.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:As much as I tend to agree with you, I am willing to stipulate that the creator(s) of the Buddhist philosophy/religion experienced suffering at the hands of their enemies and the followers are expected to adhere to the set standard.

But of course--only Buddha's name was missing from that phrase about desiring the happiness of one's enemies. It is too easily said, and repeatedly, like so much in all religions; and what was a startling revelation on the breadth of a person whose experience was extraordinary, becomes a wall to growth in others who pay lip service to sayings. Still, every now and again you run across someone who either is alive, or appears dead, and who can communicate words and make them mean something, because they experienced whatever was necessary to make them grow.

Jesus was one, Buddha, another. Others, too. But there are some great leaders still among us--Havel, Mandela--who could speak words about hatred and enemies, and those would be worth hearing. Even if they were the same as whatever all of us have written here. Because they'd be different.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:As much as I tend to agree with you, I am willing to stipulate that the creator(s) of the Buddhist philosophy/religion experienced suffering at the hands of their enemies and the followers are expected to adhere to the set standard.
<snip>

Which is as much speculation as thinking that somebody just wanted to cash in one some philosophy and invented some "rules to live by" and called it a religion.

I can follow fable a long part of the way that it is easy to just speak the scriptures - but unless you lived the situations and then speak it - it quickly sounds hollow as just reading from a book.
It is easy to be forgiving - or claim to be forgiving - when not faced with the situations. But I also think it is easy to claim to be forgiving even after you've walked the walk, if using the walk for other gains (political, religious, monetary or what ever). A martyr role scores high in the popularity rating and it'll be impossible to actually know what is going on inside a person - despite what they say. So while I would listen if Mandela said to "forgive and forget" much more then somebody saying it based on a book - I would still question the truth behind such a statement, even coming from Mandela because there are still motives behind such statements.

Let me humbly suggest that if nobody had ever come up with untested theories, then we would still be living in caves, practicing slavery, believing that the earth is flat, etc., so on, so forth .

And Xandax, your approach to your poor hypothetical Mandela puts him in a no-win situation. What I gather is that you could never really believe his claim of overcoming hatred/bad feelings because you'd be suspicious of his political motives for saying such a thing. Maybe your assumption is that his being a politician automatically trumps all other aspects of his humanity?

My, we have a tough crowd here.

Xandax wrote:I can follow fable a long part of the way that it is easy to just speak the scriptures - but unless you lived the situations and then speak it - it quickly sounds hollow as just reading from a book.
It is easy to be forgiving - or claim to be forgiving - when not faced with the situations.
<snip>

Your right, but how many people would have the strength of will to beable to just love the person who brutlized them?

Demortis wrote:Your right, but how many people would have the strength of will to beable to just love the person who brutlized them?

That's the thing, isn't it? Let's assume Bigby's Nose and myself are correct, for the moment, and that Mandela or Havel would have no ulterior motive for their feelings and words about forgiving others that jailed and beat them for decades. Even if we accept this experience as rightful and theirs, is there any way to transmute it into something we can--no, not own, but incorporate as something more personal than just words in a religious pamphlet? How do you, meaning anyone, faced with this situation, get themselves from A to B?

You would have to speak with Mandala or someone who had the same understanding (due to having spoken with Mandala etc).

Claudius wrote:You would have to speak with Mandala or someone who had the same understanding (due to having spoken with Mandala etc).

Well, that wouldnt really work would it. That would still leave it as "Is it true or make believe? Fable said it already, How do we know what goes on in the human heart of other people? We dont really know if he has some super revenge cooked up. I mean, come on, in this day and age, its almost impossible to forgive and forget someone who beat you to a pulp. Damn its so hard to try and explain this so that everyone can understand it and not see stars, lol. We are, after all, animals. 99.9% of people who would be subjected to brutallity, would not survive intact mentally. So the baser instinces kick in and give us that much needed assist.

I guess you are right Demortis. I was just thinking from the standpoint that if I wanted to learn something I have the opportunity to learn from someone who knows about it. So if I want to learn about wallpapering I would learn from someone who knows how to do tthat. Of course we would probably have to actually do a job together. In that sense I agree with you and Fable.

Ok - Theory Time.

Thought experiment:
What motivates you more to forgive your captors?
A)The knowledge that you can consider yourself a good, spiritual person for forgiving people who beat you in prison for years.
B)The knowledge that if you don't find a way to emotionally deal with your tormentors on a day-to-day basis, you may not live to see your family and friends again.

I'm starting to suspect that Lady Dragonfly was on to something when she picked "Indeed, why even bother?" as the subtitle to her poll. Perhaps a Mandela or a Havel got the will to forgive/love their enemies from the fear that their causes would be for naught if they themselves were to succumb to despair and general negativity. In other words, perhaps loving your enemies is pointless (or worse) if it doesn't have a practical application.

Even the Dr. King quote that Lady Dragonfly posted argues that we should love because it produces desirable real-world results, while hating just will not. I don't see him arguing that we should love for its own sake or because it's going to make us saints or what have you.

Perhaps this is the starting point for translating a Mandela/Havel experience into our own lives, Fable?

Bigby's Nose wrote:Ok - Theory Time.

Thought experiment:
What motivates you more to forgive your captors?
A)The knowledge that you can consider yourself a good, spiritual person for forgiving people who beat you in prison for years.
B)The knowledge that if you don't find a way to emotionally deal with your tormentors on a day-to-day basis, you may not live to see your family and friends again.

<snip>

Well, your right in that case, theres one of four things that could happen while in captivity. You could:
1) Except it and become a slave to it, loving thy captor.
2) End it all and steal their satisfaction of breaking you.
3) Learn their rules and fight back with everything that you have.
4) Take as many of the bastards with you to hell :mischief:

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqOtebVTrrI"]Option #3[/url]

I would rather in that situation take either options #3 or #4. My temperment leans me more towards them, but everyone is different in what they would do. I go for more of the "Its better to die on your feet, then to live on your knees".

Bigby's Nose wrote:<snip>
And Xandax, your approach to your poor hypothetical Mandela puts him in a no-win situation. What I gather is that you could never really believe his claim of overcoming hatred/bad feelings because you'd be suspicious of his political motives for saying such a thing. Maybe your assumption is that his being a politician automatically trumps all other aspects of his humanity?

My, we have a tough crowd here.

Frankly - I don't care if he's in a "no-win" situation. It is a matter of not believing everything you hear, just because it is said. Source critique and all that. Taking it with a grain of salt.
And yes - I do believe people who use their "hardship" or "martyr state" for gains - whether religious, political or monetary - automatically deserves to have their motives questioned when they speak.

And yes - there is a tough crowd here

So, Demortis, forgiving your captors is out? You'd rather give the bastards what they've got coming and then go out in style, so to speak? What if forgiving your captors could get you a reward? Like eventual freedom without strings attached for your cooperation and good behavior?