tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20280304.post4200197678636877307..comments2023-09-12T12:29:00.905-04:00Comments on The Art of Rebirth: One Piece of a Giant PuzzleRaederlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17388803926470907739noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20280304.post-13411957400500053772011-08-29T05:15:54.861-04:002011-08-29T05:15:54.861-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20280304.post-53303341713023421702011-08-23T11:41:32.914-04:002011-08-23T11:41:32.914-04:00I certainly have much respect for Ghandi's bel...I certainly have much respect for Ghandi's beliefs. I've been quoting him on this one for years: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. <br /><br />It's true that if we lived true to the changes we wanted to be implemented, that alone could work. However, many people have trouble fully implementing that concept because it's hard to connect our real impact on others with the impact we want to receive from others.Raederlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388803926470907739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20280304.post-88249584195199538632011-08-22T18:16:12.098-04:002011-08-22T18:16:12.098-04:00That's an acute observation, that negativity w...That's an acute observation, that negativity works better on a political level than a personal level. I'm mulling it over and it seems correct to me. I can think of a couple of reasons why it might be the case, though they don't seem to fully explain it.<br /><br />To me, one of the aims of politics is to encourage and facilitate people to live their lives in better ways. Sometimes politics can lead - for example in challenging racism - and sometimes it can facilitate - for example, a well-planned town can facilitate walking and cycling. I think Ghandi's exhortation "be the change you want to see in the world" is probably a good one. He was someone who tried to live the life he wanted people to live, while also acting vigorously in the political sphere.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16909425215873991491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20280304.post-84703301566355431012011-08-22T17:23:59.912-04:002011-08-22T17:23:59.912-04:00Tim, as always you raise interesting points. I th...Tim, as always you raise interesting points. I think part of the issue of this debate is personal vs. political. <br /><br />Sometimes it's hard to rally people to something unless they are angry enough about the current situation to do something. <br /><br />Whereas you can have a great idea that many people agree with but nobody really makes an effort to bring it about. So politically, often nothing gets done because it's easier to unite people with fear and anger. <br /><br />There is the carrot and the stick approach. Carrots are often not as effective as sticks, especially when the carrot is hypothetical and the stick is very real. <br /><br />Now, when we talk about personal issues, it's much more evident that pro-positive is much more effective than anti-negative. If you go around bitching and complaining all the time, people are less likely to want to be around you, so you often get little support from friends, and have less friends. If you are a happy positive person you tend to make lots of friends and are able to bring them together to accomplish common goals. That's just one example of how this works differently in your personal life, but I believe I could come up with ten or twenty reasons why this works differently in politics than it does in personal life.<br /><br />However, that said, if we all changed our personal lives, then politics would become less and less relevant.<br /><br />~ RaederleRaederlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388803926470907739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20280304.post-52834847468540515102011-08-21T10:23:05.925-04:002011-08-21T10:23:05.925-04:00"I will never attend an anti-war rally; if yo..."I will never attend an anti-war rally; if you have a peace rally, invite me."<br /><br />I think this quote from your previous quote helps highlight another problem that's relevant here.<br /><br />Let's imagine it's 2003 and the US and UK are pushing for an invasion of Iraq. Two rallies are being organised, an anti-war rally and a pro-peace rally.<br /><br />The first question that springs to mind is: are these rallies really just the same? "Peace campaigners" tend to attend "anti-war" demonstrations. Is the only difference between the two rallies whatever emotive difference there is between <i>describing</i> yourself as "pro" or "anti" something? Is peace identical to the absence of war?<br /><br />In 2002 and early 2003, Iraq was being regularly bombed by foreign planes. The regime was violently repressing dissent. Was it in a state of peace or a state of war? Neither description seems quite right. Does "peace" have a broader meaning than "not at war"?<br /><br />I'm not sure, but let's say that peace does have a broader meaning, or that is how it is often understood.<br /><br />Surely being "pro-peace", then, is better than simply being "anti-war"? I'd say no. The advantage of being "anti-war" is its <i>specificity</i>. It identifies a specific course of action that is bad - starting a war. It is more clear who is <i>responsible</i>. This specificity means the anti-war rally is more likely to be successful.<br /><br />I do suspect, from the tiny bit I know about Mother Teresa, that one of the reasons she took this position is precisely to avoid identifying people as responsible, to avoid becoming too "political" and to keep operating on a broader, vaguer (and less effective?) moral plane.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16909425215873991491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20280304.post-53692196513601493592011-08-21T09:49:20.152-04:002011-08-21T09:49:20.152-04:00I agree with this in spirit, but disagree with it ...I agree with this in spirit, but disagree with it in fact. On the whole, campaigns and movements are more successful in opposing things than proposing them. I'm reminded of how many revolutions are successful in overthrowing the existing system but fail in putting into place the alternative they want.<br /><br />Of course, the identification of a single factor as either the cause or solution to a very wide range of problems is usually problematic. (Though not always incorrect; sometimes complex problems do spring from simple causes - the importance of equality in societies may be one example.)<br /><br />Incidentally, while pH screams quackery at me, I think it's fairly well documented that lack of sleep has been a factor in some very poor major decisions. IIRC, the decisions leading up to the Challenger disaster is an example of this. (The Cuban Missile Crisis may be as well.)Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16909425215873991491noreply@blogger.com