Dangerous liaisons

In a recent post I quoted from Richard Carlson's self-help book You Can Be Happy No Matter What. I recommended the book and mentioned that I've found it very useful.

But I don't want to give the impression that I agree with everything Carlson has to say. I think his approach can be too simplistic and, at times, even dangerous. Here's an example from his chapter on relationships:

Think about someone you know whom you perceive to be an offensive or demanding person -- someone you have difficulty maintaining a positive feeling toward. Now, despite your difficulty, you know there are people who feel warmly toward that person. How do they do it? Are they blind to the facts? No. They do the same thing we all do for people we care about, without even knowing it. They look beyond the person's behavior. The person they like is not a static personality, set forever in stone, but someone whose behavior fluctuates according to his level of insecurity. They say, "Oh, Jim didn't mean what he said. He tends to lose his temper, and sometimes he says things he shouldn't." They see Jim, whereas you look at Jim's behavior.

We are all capable of looking beyond another's behavior, and do it all the time intuitively. We dismiss or defend the actions of people we love when we understand that they are feeling insecure. To improve our relationships we need to do the same thing with intention, to have a warm feeling for someone even though we don't feel they deserve it. As we practice this, our rapport and feeling of mutual respect will increase. [Page 81]

Now, there is certainly some truth in this, and in many cases it can probably work, but I would not recommend Carlson's approach in all situations. For one thing, it is not always possible or even desirable to separate the "behavior" from the person. A person, after all, is responsible for his behavior. More important, to intentionally overlook bad behavior on a regular basis is to reward and even enable that behavior.

Consider the case of a battered spouse. The thought process described by Carlson is exactly that of a wife whose husband has just physically abused her. "Oh, Jim didn't mean to hit me. He tends to lose his temper, and sometimes he does things he shouldn't." The battered wife doesn't look -- doesn't want to look -- at Jim's behavior. She wants to look at the "real" Jim, who is somehow distinct from the bad things he does. She wants "to have a warm feeling for someone even though [she doesn't] feel they deserve it."

Practicing this technique will not cause the "rapport and feeling of mutual respect" between the wife and her husband to increase. Quite the opposite. The more excuses she makes for Jim's behavior, the worse his behavior is likely to be.

Carlson would probably say he's not talking about really bad behavior, such as acts of violence. But there are other kinds of abuse. Jim might not beat up his wife physically, but he might subject her to chronic emotional abuse, which can be just as bad.

In general, Carlson strikes me as someone who has had little experience of the dark side of life -- someone who dramatically underestimates the amount of sheer malice that's out there in the world. His techniques work well in dealing with people who are basically decent and well-meaning, but I think they would fail -- in fact, I think they would bring about the opposite effect to the one that he intends -- when applied to people who are just plain bad.

And such people do exist. They're not the majority, but they're not an inconsequential minority, either.

In other words, there are wolves in the woods. And not all of them can be won over by simple acts of kindness. Some of them perceive kindness as weakness, and will take ruthless advantage of you if you let them. They will bite the hand you extend to them.

So by all means, read and profit from Carlson's book. But as always, caveat lector.

Comments

[Henry B.]

Now,now Michael. The leaders and citizens of Iran and North Korea just need a bit of mass psychotherapy, and then we can all be friends. Kum by yah...

[Roger Knights]

Hemingway had a short story, "The Doctor and the Doctor's Wife," that gave a sketch of the doctor's nasty encounter with psychopath and of his Christian-Scientist wife's refusal to acknowledge the evil in the man, blandly dismissing her husband's account of what occurred and assuring him that the psycho wasn't really badly intended.

[dagezhu]

People who are simply malicious due to some personal problem can be handled with a bit of forethought and preparation. (E.g. perhaps the local mailman has XYY chromosomes and gets into fist-fights due to elevated testosterone. This can be handled by managing fist-fights with security cameras and nonlethal intervention.)

On the other hand, people who are benevolent are genuinely dangerous. Pol Pot was benevolent. He wanted to make a better world. In the service of that envisioned utopia, any atrocity is a small price to pay.

[william]

“On the other hand, people who are benevolent are genuinely dangerous”

Jesus and the Buddha must have been real dangerous people. Look at some synonyms for benevolent and are you sure you want to make such a statement.

“Pol Pot was benevolent”

Pol pot was anything but benevolent he was an egotistical, selfish, ignorant, self-deceived fool that I suspect had a very smart intellect. He used violence to appease and project his self-hatred out to the world. You are confusing benevolent with ignorance.

[Sandy]

I came back from my NDE as a very innocent and trusting individual. For the most part, people tend to be on their best behavior when that’s what you expect from them, so being naïve isn’t usually much of a disability in life. But there are people who are just bad people. My husband is always warning me about them, because I’m still way more trusting than I should be. He counts on me to be a good judge of what is best in a person. He often asks me to read people for him and to tell him what their feelings are and what is important to them because he isn’t very good at picking up that sort of thing. I trust him to deal with the scary people for me, because I don’t have any talent in that respect. It seems to me that both skills are equally useful when applied towards the correct circumstances.

[pmprescott]

I've just started reading the book, and particularly the part you quoted in the previous post explains why different thought processes if you're not aware of them can make you very frustrated, and knowing how to accept people with different points of view can be a calming effect has merit. He is after all preaching happiness, though I think he's really trying the reader to be is accepting and content as if that relates to happiness. He does leave out the role we all play in making decisions or judgements on the other thought processes. Without a moral compass you can justify just about any behavior with a "well that's the way he thinks."

[Michael Prescott]

"Without a moral compass you can justify just about any behavior with a 'well that's the way he thinks.' "

Although I think Carlson's viewpoint on thought systems is useful and valuable, I do think he misses out on one salient fact: that thought systems can, within limits, be subjected to reality-testing. They are not entirely arbitrary, as he seems to believe. For instance, if my thought system includes the belief that I can walk through walls, I will be disabused of this belief the first time I actually try it!

Still, I find it helpful to keep the idea of thought systems in mind when I become too attached to my own beliefs or too fed up with someone else's. A great deal of what seems obvious to me may seem far-fetched to someone else, and what seems obvious to others may elude me completely.

I'm glad to hear you're reading the book. I hope you enjoy it.

[dagezhu]

"Jesus and the Buddha must have been real dangerous people."

Given that Jesus and Buddha were sages, refer to the Dao De Jing (ch.5):

"Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any wish to be benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt with. The sages do not act from (any wish to be) benevolent; they deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with."

To my mind, Jesus was dealing with the people around him as he might have dealt with dogs of grass, and Buddha was not benevolent, just awake.

[Kevin]

dagezhu,

I was wondering if you could illustrate for me what a "dog of grass" is? Is it simply a dog?

Jesus did use a parable or two that seemed to characterize human beings as dogs. One was the dog who ate the crumbs off her master's table. Also, Jesus told parables that characterized human beings as God's slaves who do not deserve to eat until God has been taken care of. These types of parables are at odds with the "gentle Jesus" that many people imagine him as being. This does show a lack of "benevolence".

Anyway, please do let me know what "dogs of grass" are. I want to get the image of prairie dogs out of my head.

[Michael Prescott]

"One was the dog who ate the crumbs off her master's table. Also, Jesus told parables that characterized human beings as God's slaves who do not deserve to eat until God has been taken care of."

I remember the comment about crumbs (not a parable, more like a metaphor or a quip), spoken to a Gentile woman. But I don't remember anything about human beings as God's slaves who don't deserve to eat, etc. Can you specify the passage(s) you're referring to?

The story about Jesus' disciples eating corn on the Sabbath ("The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath") would seem to make the opposite point.

[william]

“I came back from my NDE as a very innocent and trusting individual. For the most part, people tend to be on their best behavior when that’s what you expect from them, so being naïve isn’t usually much of a disability in life”

You may be on to something Sandy.

Dr Hora teaches that nothing comes into experience uninvited indeed it is one of his eleven principles. Not sure I agree with entirely with that principle but that is something to think about. He devoted his life into seeking into the mysteries of life and healing. He also was a Christian Scientist or at least attended their Sunday worship often. It appears that may have bias his total outlook on the paranormal.

This is not meant to be a put down of his teachings for I think many of his teachings are profound. I do know he had many issues with the Christian Scientists as a religion. They would not publish any of his material. For me anyhow that helps to validate much of his material. http://www.pagl.org/

Kind of like when the Catholics censored Anthony de Mello’s videos and books. You know he was on to something to get censored by the Catholic Church in Rome. As was Meister Eckhart censored.

It appears that if one of their priests starts to “awaken” they get shut down pretty fast. I have not found one catholic yet that has learned about Meister Eckhart’s sermons or defense to the pope in the masses they attend on a weekly basis.

[Kevin]

Michael,

Here are the two passages I was referring to in their entirety:

(1). Matthew 15:21-28 (New International Version)

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

(2). Luke 17:7-10 (New International Version)

"Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'"

I will assume that Jesus was testing the Caananite woman's faith in his own goodness and message. But, nevertheless, I don't understand why he simply didn't say, "Just because you are a Caananite doesn't mean that I or God feel that you are a dog. You are not dogs!" I really wish he would have made that clear! Instead, he leaves it ambiguous as to whether or not Caananites are to be considered lesser human beings. We may simply go along with tradition and the usual theological assumptions and believe that Jesus loved and embraced everyone, but passages like this never really blow all doubt out of the water. In this passage it is clear that the Israelites are the master's (God's) children and the Caananites (or anyone other than the Israelites) are dogs. At the end of the passage, we are left only being told that the woman has great faith -- not that she isn't a dog. Perhaps she remains a dog -- a dog with great faith.

In the second passage from Luke, we are told that we must always tend to God, even after we have done some great work for Him. We must always be taking care of Him first and ourselves last. We are compared to slaves and the message is that we are, essentially, God's slaves. It also implies we are not even worthy of any thanks or gratitude for any of the works we do for the master. We are only to remind ourselves constantly that we are "unworthy servants" doing "our duty".

I long identified myself as a Christian, but passages like these often made me feel ashamed of myself and frightened of God. They made me feel that God looked at all of us as dogs and slaves and that nothing we ever did or became would be good enough for Him. That, in fact, He would rather not have any dealings with us at all, as we were beneath Him and only worthy of doing more slave-labor for Him.

I know this must sound rather one-sided as there are other passages that state that we are no longer servants, but friends of Jesus. But one could interpret those passages as being only stated to his direct disciples and not to others outside of that circle.

Anyway, that's all for now. I do hope that Jesus, if He is truly the image of God made perfect in man, is much more the loving entity of Near-Death Experiences than the slave-driver of these New Testament passages.

[william]

Kevin it does seem odd that at times Jesus parables and teachings are so profound and other times they appear to have a human element and even human ignorance to them. There could be a couple of reasons for this.

One-his statements have been misquoted for a variety of reasons. Followers of a person as advanced as Jesus almost always screw up what this advanced person really stated.

Two-maybe Jesus had a lot more human traits to him then we realize. He may have struggled with his humanity and all the ignorance and prejudices that go with being human.

I prefer the first one but that may be my bias. Remember Jewish people wrote these gospels and in that day many had this idea they were the chosen people of God. Personally I am amazed that it appears many of Jesus’ teachings have been kept as well as they have. Many of his teachings preachers’ won’t touch with a ten-foot pole even today. 2000 years later and still some of his teachings are shunned.

I have a Christian friend that still thinks the Jewish people were the chosen ones by God to keep records because the Jews kept good records according to her. We humans are an interesting species to say the least. Some will find a way to make the bible relevant in spite of the words contained in it.

One has to wonder what Jesus teachings would have been to Americans after 9/11.

The teachings about the camel and the rich man come to mind. And the one about be perfect as your father is perfect and you shall do greater things than I. Etc.

Personally I decided several years ago (14) not to focus in or follow any one so-called enlightened one or spiritual master but I do notice there are some teachings that I continually go back to. Some teachings just appeal to me more than others.

What I do notice about religious teachings even many so called advanced spirits that come through a medium (spirits book) they still teach this idea that God punishes us. It appears religious beliefs can stay with us for a very long time even on the other side.

From my point of view Jesus teachings were so profound; too profound so they figured out a way to put him to death. If he came back today I believe he would meet a similar fate not on a cross but from a religious nutcase with a gun that thought he was doing God’s work for him. Kind of like the jihad idea.

The word jihad has been hijacked from its original meaning by some. I.e. human thing. The writers of the gospels or later scholars wanted to correct certain statements to fit their bias and agenda. You can bet those with good intentions this very day, week, and year are changing the bible.

[Kevin]

William,

There are a great many scholars who believe that most of the gospels of the Bible were written many decades after Jesus' death. Mark is thought to be the earliest, with Matthew and Luke both plagiarizing most of Mark's material and incorporating some of their own.

Matthew is often noted to be more legalistic and "Jewish" than the other gospels. The passage I referenced from Matthew is very clearly directed at a Jewish audience. I suppose the impact it was meant to have was, "Oh shit, the Messiah takes care of the Caananites too."

Nevertheless, when I was younger, I was entirely unaware of this historical background. I wasn't able to read the Bible adequately due to my ignorance. When most people pick up the Bible today, they come to it from a 21st century perspective, entirely unaware of the culture that the Bible was created within. For that reason, most people totally misunderstand the Bible and think it says things that it never even attempted to comment on. When I was younger, I read the above referenced passages and thought, "Oh my God, Jesus is calling human beings dogs and slaves." I had no other "reality tunnel" to understand these passages through. In fact, I was encouraged to read the Bible as though God was directly addressing me individually, right where I was, and not as I ought to have -- as a historical document addressing a particular audience, in particular circumstances, at a very particular time.

Further, as you noted, the Bible has human fingerprints all over it. We know that certain books were put in or left out because of political reasons or even somewhat arbitrarily and not, as many believe, due to divine guidance. Many are entirely unaware of this and are encouraged to believe that the Bible was divinely protected from any tampering and is entirely trustworthy as it is. They are even threatened that any doubts about this will culminate in the eternal damnation of their soul. Meanwhile, one might wonder, if God is capable of keeping a historical document entirely blemish free and perfect for thousands of years, why doesn't he intervene in the world when terrible disasters occur? We are to believe one highly unlikely miracle is constantly occurring as one of God's top priorities, but when little Sally is raped and murdered, we are told to accept that God allows men to sin and withholds action on these matters until the responsible individuals are deceased. This makes little sense to me.

Anyway, the bulk of people need far more education about the nature of the Bible and the means by which it was compiled. They need to know more about the culture that the writers of the Bible existed in, and they need to know their history. Most of all, they need to read the Bible not as though it is directly addressing them where they are, but as a historical document. This should serve to save many people from unnecessary shame and guilt and inner torment.

Unfortunately, what you do not have left after all this preparatory work is a sense that God is immanent. I think it is due to this fact that many are uninterested in approaching the Bible in any other way than the usual -- that they, themselves, are the intended audience.

This is due to one part human narcissism and one part human ignorance. Dangerous indeed.

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks, Kevin, for the quotes. I remembered the Canaanite woman but had forgotten the other one.

I think it's clear that Jesus himself saw his mission as primarily (perhaps exclusively) to the Jews. It's recorded that when he sent out followers to proselytize, he told them to stay away from Gentiles and preach to Jews only. This tradition is probably accurate, since it's not the sort of thing that would have been invented (it contradicts the later direction of the church, after all). St. Paul appears to be one who expanded the movement's outreach to the Gentile community, against opposition from "headquarters" in Jerusalem.

The quote about servitude seems to be in line with other sayings of Jesus. For instance, he tells people that his yoke is light - i.e., that if they are yoked to him (like oxen), they will find him an easy master. But he's still the master, and they are still yoked!

Modern ideas of personal self-sufficiency and independence are absent from the Gospels and indeed from the Bible as a whole. It was a culture in which everybody was "yoked" to somebody, and the only question was whether the yoke would be heavy or light.

My feeling about Jesus is that he was a spiritual master, very advanced, possessing profound wisdom, but still a product of his time, with some of the biases and prejudices of his era and his culture.

[william]

“This is due to one part human narcissism and one part human ignorance.”

From my point of view human narcissism has its home in ignorance or its synonym unawareness. I am also amazed when I talk to Christians how little they know about the history of their religion. Of course I did not start my own search into these mysteries of life until almost 50 years of age, which appears to be a common age for men to get interested in the spiritual aspects of life. When materialism has run its course often we look elsewhere for peace or happiness. And a logical place to look is religion as there is a church on just about on every corner in America.

“My feeling about Jesus is that he was a spiritual master, very advanced, possessing profound wisdom, but still a product of his time, with some of the biases and prejudices of his era and his culture.”

This could be although I don’t like to think Jesus had bias and prejudices but what I like and don’t like is of no concern with the reality of history. I have noticed when I studied the enlightened Hindus they also seemed to be affected by their culture and religious beliefs of their culture. Maybe a good teacher knows his audience well.

I suspect Jesus struggled with his own humanity but not to the degree that we do; we of course not having his wisdom. I attended a Christian church with a friend today and the preacher stated the only way to have joy is through Jesus. Now I liked his sermon it was all about love and spirit but I wanted so bad to ask him, are you saying the Hindus and Buddhists don’t have joy in their lives. Of course that would only be showing my intellectualism, which has its home in my ignorance.

“This should serve to save many people from unnecessary shame and guilt and inner torment.”

I am sure there are many causal variables involved with the crime and drug problem in America but I have often wondered if being exposed to such religious beliefs as spending eternity in a hellfire does not add to that fear and discontent. I suspect fear has all kinds of ill side effects.

Anthony de Mello a catholic priest from India used to teach that tribes in the jungle did quite well until they were exposed and taught Christian beliefs and then they started to steal and lie to one another. Then he suggested on one of his tapes that Jesus was a spiritual master not God and that got him censored by Rome after he had already crossed over. It was like he waited until he knew he would not be around to witness Rome’s censorship. He started many of his books with an apology for the sins of the Catholic Church. In his video’s he was able to tell many Buddhist and Hindu jokes to a catholic audience.

He was such a quiet gentle soul that had so many stories to tell about life and spirit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y3Q7H2urto

Anthony on you tube about waking up. Give it a look I think you will be amazed this is coming from a catholic priest. His first joke is worth the price of listening and your time.

And to think this priest was censored by the church in Rome. Tragedy. Pure unawareness.

[dagezhu]

"I was wondering if you could illustrate for me what a "dog of grass" is? Is it simply a dog?"

I asked Taiwanese scholars about this, because it bothered me too.

Their basic advice was to translate "dogs of grass" as "ordinary dogs." (Their advanced advice was to spend considerable resources studying the intricacies of translation from ancient dialects! If I ever get the right books and enough Mandarin skill to read them, I'll bombard the web with bloviations on the topic, but right now my resources are allocated to other projects.)

My speculation is that grass is mentioned because ordinary dogs, whether tame or wild, lived outdoors on grass.

Note that there is an interpretation which is widely regarded as fallacious. Someone started up the idea that the dogs in question were just sculptures, toys, or ritual images representing dogs, but made out of grass. The main stream of Daoist interpretation says that's fallacious, the dogs referred to are actual, living, breathing, furry quadrupeds.

[dagezhu]

“Pol Pot was benevolent”

"Pol pot was anything but benevolent he was an egotistical, selfish, ignorant, self-deceived fool ..."

I think Pol Pot was indeed benevolent, and I chose that example because if the Dao De Jing was written after Confucius, then that chapter was written as an anti-Confucian screed.

Pol Pot was indeed benevolent in the Confucian, governmental tradition. That is *exactly* why Daoists generally imitate the legend of Laozi and try to avoid governmental responsibilities.

People do not build cults, governments, tax systems, brothels, prisons, and gallows out of malice. They build them out of benevolence. Eric Hoffer wrote about the 20th century variety of this benevolence in The True Believer, but it's always been around.

Egotism, selfishness, ignorance, and self-deception are the fertile soil in which the weed of benevolence grows. When you over-value yourself, you are proud enough to think your ego knows what is best, etc.

'57
...
The world is mastered by nonintervention.
How do I know this? By this:
the more restrictions there are, the poorer the people;
the more sharp weapons, the more trouble in the state;
the more clever cunning, the more contrivances;
the more rules and regulations, the more thieves and robbers.

Therefore the wise say,
"Do not interfere, and people transform themselves.
Love peace, and people do what is right.
Do not intervene, and people prosper.
Have no desires, and people live simply."'

[steve wood]

Michael...'Modern ideas of personal self sufficiency and independence are absent from the Gospels'
I think the parable of the talents can be made to fit here.
'My feeling about Jesus is that he was a spiritual master'
We would have to ignore what he said about himself,though, if we reduce him down one of 'these.'
At his trial before the Sanhedrin....."Are you the Christ, the one who is to come, the son of the most high" etc(different versions can be used)
" I am "

I don't know what to make of Jesus's claim to be the son of God.(we are all of course sons of God in one sense, maybe he was categorically affirming this)
But then again, if the whole universe originated from matter condensed into the size of a football(soccer ball)(pretty bizarre)maybe 'God' did have a special son.
The revelations from NDE'rs seem to contradict one another,so not to much help there, either.
William, I'll have a look at that video.

[william]

“The world is mastered by nonintervention.”

This could get into a political or economic debate fast and that is dangerous ground to be on. The world is a different place then when these words were written; the world did not have global corporations or corporate lobbyists. If you think corporations are nonintervention you have a lot to think about. Corporate lobbyists are indeed intervening in Washington to maximize profits and if you think those profits are trickling down then do some research how the wealth has been distributed these last 30 years or the 12 years before 1929.

Many suspect most politicians are in the pockets of corp lobbyists. Those politicians fighting a national health care for all citizens check and see how much they receive from these corporations. We are the only industrialized country without a national hearth care system for all its citizens and we are ranked last in heath care by the world health care organization and we want to keep our system.

Mega profits from the sick and needy. That kind of thinking is capitalism defined. Some health insurance execs are making 9 to 11 million a year in wages and bonuses. How? Finding ways to not pay or utilizing pre-existing conditions to max profits. In America capitalism and patriotism are synonyms.

It is unheard of in other industrialized countries were citizens are filing for bankruptcies due to medical bills. Hey have no fear the president is going to give another speech that should fix things. Speaking politically from my point of view the swamp needs to be drained it is beyond fixing with new inserts of newly elected politicians. I.e. Jefferson time in America.

“Do not intervene, and people prosper.”

Yes the government did not intervene and 12 years before 1929 we had a great depression and when the government did not intervene we had child labor that was akin to slave labor. The government did not intervene and we had slavery. The government had to intervene to eliminate slavery. The gov had to intervene to protect workers pension plans, as the company would often fire the person two weeks before they retired to avoid paying the pension or spend the person’s pension. I saw it happen to my friends I lived through that one.

Show me anywhere in the world where a free for all society; no intervention by government is prospering.

A free for all society ends up being a third world society a totally gov run society ends up the same way. Obama could learn much from this president he understood nonintervention the best as it applies to the wealth of a nation not enlightenment.

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/us/fdr1936.html

[Sandy]

William, thank you for the link to Anthony de Mello's thoughts on waking up. It really made me smile!

[dagezhu]

'“The world is mastered by nonintervention.”

...The world is a different place then when these words were written; the world did not have global corporations or corporate lobbyists. If you think corporations are nonintervention you have a lot to think about. '

I disagree. The Dao De Jing has to be understood on a very deep level. The reality on that deep level has not changed.

Corporations are not masters of the world. They certainly steal, poison, and degrade many lives, but they are not in control. A corporation can be compared to an unclean spirit; a corporate lobbyist can be compared to the man who tries to sell his soul to unclean spirits.

Unclean spirits may have enough power to wreck things, but they don't accomplish anything.

'“Do not intervene, and people prosper.”

Yes the government did not intervene and 12 years before 1929 we had a great depression and when the government did not intervene we had child labor that was akin to slave labor. The government did not intervene and we had slavery. The government had to intervene to eliminate slavery. '

I strongly disagree with your claims about USA history. The USA government tended to intervene a great deal; the problem is that you're using a different definition of 'intervention.'

If you want to discuss politics, we can do that in email and leave Michael Prescott's nice blog for paranormal topics.

Deepak Chopra said it better than I could have:

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2009/09/life-after-death-by-deepak-chopra.html

To approximate:
Action without love is meaningless;
love without action is irrelevant;
get to undifferentiated consciousness;
see all souls as aspects of oneself;
at that point, loving-kindness is one's nature.

Speaking for me personally, I have *not* attained undifferentiated consciousness, so I am not immune to the temptations of flame wars.

[dagezhu]

Any emails inappropriate to this blog can be directed to dagezhuATgmailDOTcom, with the appropriate changes for AT and DOT.

[Michael Prescott]

"Corporations are not masters of the world. They certainly steal, poison, and degrade many lives ..."

They also enrich many lives. I personally enjoy my microwave oven, my DVD player, my car, my Internet access, and the laptop computer I'm using right now.

I think it's a mistake to believe that a quest for spirituality entails a disdain for material luxuries, comforts, and conveniences.

Actually I'm quite a big fan of materialism, as long as it is not misunderstood as the be-all and end-all of life.

[fb]

'[corporations] enrich many lives. ...

Actually I'm quite a big fan of materialism, as long as it is not misunderstood as the be-all and end-all of life.'

Picture yourself in the USA, circa 1840. You're visiting a gentleman. The weather is hot so the gentleman signals his chattel-slave to bring you some lemonade.

The gentleman says: "Slavery enriches many lives. Actually, I'm quite a big fan of lemonade, so long as it doesn't become an idol."

The material comforts are not the problem. The damage inflicted in the process of obtaining them is.

The existence of corporations tends to erode human rights. The right to free speech, for example, was once limited to natural persons; then corporations got more rights than natural persons and the corporate privilege of spending money on publicity became equated with the "right of free speech."

Corporations can harm humans in many, many ways, even if corporate fascism and materialism don't seem to be extreme.

[Michael Prescott]

I don't think capitalism, if properly regulated, is equivalent to slavery. I do agree that totally unregulated capitalism can lead to conditions of slavery - for instance, in the case of coal miners who were denied the right to unionize and who were paid in scrip that could be used only at the company store. They were effectively treated as chattel by the coal mine's owners.

However, I don't think modern corporations in the regulated marketplace of today are a big problem. Some of them do bad things, to be sure, but this is a consequence of human nature, not anything inherent in corporations as such.

Personally I would much rather work for a corporation than for the government - any government - but YMMV.

[fb]

' I don't think modern corporations in the regulated marketplace of today are a big problem.'

The slavery comparison was a somewhat strained metaphor on my part.

I'll spare you ten thousand words of my "corporations are evil" ranting, and merely say that better writers and thinkers than myself have penned better indictments of corporations than I ever hope to pen.