Re: Betrayel

slider wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 12:11:38 +0100, one <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> slider wrote:
>>> one wrote:
>>>
>>>> When winners exist, losers exist
>>>> which sounds kinda like a game.
>>>
>>> ### - debating isn't a game,
>>
>> If, for you, it isn't or
>> by definition it isn't, then,
>> it might be semantics or
>> simply how you see.
>>
>> The debate that is a debate
>> might be great or simply for fun, imo.
> 
> ### - that movie is based on a true story, it actually happened, a lowly 
> black college beat white harvard university in a debate about what the 
> definition of morality is and is not, that regardless of everything 
> being against them in a white man's world the higher principles won the 
> day and the so-called white version of morality lost... much of this 
> later contributing to the civil rights movement that argues everyone is 
> deserving of good/fair treatment and not just a privileged few...
> 
> iow: this is an example of how human knowledge advances on a daily basis 
> in the daily waking world, and it applies to both nations and to 
> individuals...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> it's an intelligent way of getting at the
>>> truth of an issue, a win-win scenario for both sides because everyone
>>> comes out the better for it even if they lose the debate,
>>
>> To surrender to win occurs at times.
>>
>> To let go and allow to be. A question
>> emerges regarding higher powers or a
>> Higher Power if there is a singularity.
> 
> ### - on the human stage just letting things be results in the strong 
> ruling the weak and the law of 'fist' (as in might is right etc) ruling 
> the world, that being exactly what the nazi's believed in... and if the 
> world hadn't gotten together and opposed them we'd all be speaking 
> german now and going to military schools!
> 
> e.g., you mention the tao fairly often as being a narrative you like/are 
> attracted to? (nada wrong with that) but under the nazis anything like 
> that would have been banned and eventually eradicated
> 
> that struggle is still continuing btw...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> the main thing
>>> is the argument has evolved some, and even if nothing definitive is
>>> arrived at, at least one argument (the losing one) has been dismissed 
>>> from
>>> the equation no matter how much appeal (emotional or otherwise) it might
>>> have previously had... and overall that's an advance see?
>>
>> Given various presumptions, yes.
>> Science and mathematics may use such a way.
>>
>> Psychology might depend more on a society
>> in terms of what is defined as well or ill.
>>
>> Debates about what is right and/or wrong
>> might change over time, reverse, modified, etc.
> 
> ### - doesn't matter what culture you come from, some things are 
> universal like don't do any harm, or don't be a low life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> both sides get a
>>> win regardless of the outcome because knowledge has been advanced a
>>> fraction...
>>
>> Seeing as how you appear to see debate happening,
>> thus far, in this thread, what new knowedge have you seen?
> 
> ### - not much, yet (smile...) there's a certain inertia that has to be 
> overcome/resisted first as people are sticklers for what they know, or 
> think/believe they know, so being opened minded has to come first before 
> anything new can enter in (ref. old zen story about needing to first 
> empty one's cup)
> 
> i mean, i look around here and everyone's cups are already filled to 
> overflowing, there's no room for anything more or different, people 
> don't like/resent anything 'different', they like to feel that they've 
> gots it all nailed down already...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> there's a very nice movie about it that explains the above in detail
>>>
>>> just cut through all the hollywood-esq bs added to sell movies, and 
>>> at the
>>> heart of it there's human awareness, discipline & advancement...
>>>
>>> https://ok.ru/video/2387686132251
>>
>> Website has something about cookies being required.
>>
>>> (an important movie)
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Debaters
>>
>> No idea how that relates to WILD nor Christ
>> or cosmic consciousness, mental illness, healing
>> the world or people who live on a surface.
>>
>> Some people see the world as in trouble,
>> the end is near, paranoia may be their mode.
>> Fear might be a driving energy for them.
> 
> ### - the tibetan buddhists have a nice story/myth they circulate, it's 
> about when a 3rd of the world has actually 'reached' enlightenment, and 
> another 3rd is actually on a genuine road 'to' enlightenment, then 
> something wonderful will occur and the last 3rd - the hardest/most 
> difficult of all to enlighten: all the pigs & fishes heh - will be 
> somehow miraculously drawn-up into it via a kind of siphon-effect, and 
> then the whole world will be enlightened! (nice story huh)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> As for Taoism seeing
>> as how that's a group in to which this cross-
>> posted thread continues and I post from,
>> a technique is to not try to win, grow
>> nor to change the world.
>>
>> The world is said to be sacred.
>> Trying to change it is not advised.
> 
> ### - are you suggesting/saying that the tibetan buddhists are in error 
> working to enlighten the whole world? that it's not advisable?? or does 
> that perhaps only apply to those who don't really know what they're 
> doing, an injunction as such to those people to wait until they 'do' 
> know what they're doing!
> 
> it's true, however, that there's some who don't get involved for 
> whatever reasons of their own, be it religious or otherwise they remain 
> indifferent/don't take students for example... others, however, take a 
> more active hand, trying to add to the quota of already enlightened 
> and/or setting students on a road that leads to it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Lots of people see what is wrong.
>> They could be called the trouble seers.
> 
> ### - they could even be policemen kinda thing, an alternate 'kind' of 
> police heh, arresting muggers and stuff and even putting some of them in 
> jail on occasion ;)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Looking for problems they might be views
>> as being the trouble makers.
> 
> ### - or conversely: peace-keepers/makers ;)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Looking at sides can be a potential view,
>> toward a form of unity consciousness
>> as compared to forms of duality
>> like what occurs in a debate.
> 
> ### - now we're cooking :)
> 
> 
> 
>> Some people who are diagnosed with mental
>> phenomena might be able to heal others
>> and yet not be able to quite fit with
>> various cultures naturally.
> 
> ### - iow: don't look for the spiritually advanced among ordinary 
> people, such types are more usually outcasts, tramps, even mentally 
> ill... they never quite 'fit-in', they're outsiders looking in...
> 
> 
> 
>> Theirs could be a difficult Road, Way, Tao.
> 
> ### - one accepts that the life of a policemen is never an easy one...
> 
> after all, they're forced every day to always see both sides of every 
> coin and debate/decide something, it's their work/job ;)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Some Taoists might be reclusive, like shamans
>> except different. To find a Tao, a Way, that works
>> for a so-called individual may take time for
>> time beings tend to be normal.
> 
> ### - anyone can sit on the fence and do nada (lol people spend 'years' 
> learning to do nada), it takes a certain kind of courage, however, to 
> come back and work in the world, to bring their enlightenment 'to' the 
> world instead of maybe just keeping it all to themselves?
> 
> i like the bodhisattva story... i mean, here was a dude who'd reached 
> enlightenment! actually made it all the way! and he could have 
> presumably just gone-off doing all the incredible things enlightened 
> people can probably do with such gifts... his problem was that he 
> clearly saw that humanity had nothing, nada, were spiritually poverty 
> stricken with no hope of ever finding anything, zip! and that kinda hurt 
> him ya see?
> 
> to him it was unthinkable that he could just piss-off to go-live an 
> exalted life of riley while that poor bunch of bastards have nothing 
> whatsoever, and in all likelihood never will...
> 
> he had compassion for them, see? or maybe he was just an idiot hah!
> 
> either way, he decided to stay with them, and then at least they had 
> 'him' then didn't they!
> 
> perforce they loved & revered him for that, of course they did, but he 
> just *couldn't* abandon them, ya know?
> 
> only a great being could ever do something like that!

here i am