 |
New Civilization News: NEW STYLE THINKING |
Category: Philosophy 10 comments 10 Jan 2003 @ 16:11 by invictus : Thanks Mark...For the clarification. The term has been coming up in various places; I like your definition, and Patricia Sun's. Thus far, I've been thinking of it more in terms of flexibility (New Style as, if anything, the willingness to honestly question the old). The conclusions you arrive at above are certainly in tune with the tentative ones I come to when I engage in such questioning. All I really ask of people is to question; to think... whatever conclusions they come to for themselves. That is critical; respecting people's rights to come to their own conclusions. I don't want to tell people what the results of their "new style" thinking should be, if only because I certainly wouldn't want to be told such things myself. I do, however, agree that the ones above are the most constructive, and that they are backed by damn good reasoning, if you really think about them. We waste so much time having the same old debates over and over because we often work off of really dysfunctional, stale, destructive basic assumptions. I especially agree with the last paragraph; the Golden Rule is such an important principle. So simple, and it's much more useful than any law or code of conduct book. Just be decent to people (ALL people); effective education in that will do much more good than all of the laws in all of the law books on this planet, no matter how much our society tries to scare people into following them. Attempts to coerce everyone into being well-behaved show a terrible contempt for what may be our most important freedom: to decide for ourselves. That's true, regardless of how convenient it may be to use coercion. Thanks for the post; it's good to see you in the News Logs again Mark. And thanks to your spouse too, for going out of her way to inspire a different perspective. Thank You Andy 10 Jan 2003 @ 16:59 by b : Peace and Good Will It has been my experience that one or many cannot demand peace and good will. Demands are never free. However, peace and good will can demand wisdom. Just a little word play Mark. It is good to see you back. Demand was a poor use of the word and the sentence would be a better expamle of NST as follows: We should expect peace and goodwill from ourselves and do everything possible to empower others to live a peaceful existence. 11 Jan 2003 @ 01:33 by jazzolog : A New Suit We'll hope that Ms. Sun's trump here announces a fair deal from a fresh and complete deck rather than the first notes of the trumpet of doom. Mark tells us this New Style Thinking is not new, which presents the first problem to me of why call it "new" then? I hope any emerging consciousness or style and fashion that I'm supposed to adopt at least can describe itself accurately. He says the standard concepts of existence are outdated in a regressive way; so I guess most people are wasting our time looking backwards, judging and steering our lives by some perspective not even relevant to the wisdom of the ages. That may be true, but phrases like "standard concepts of existence" and "wisdom of the ages" are about as vague a huge mouthful and mindful as you can get---and I should think a debate on this will involve some very specific definitions. My mind may have slipped into a composite of the dustbin of history, but I'll want a better reason to change my style than everything I think is outdated...even if I'm the last Bozo on the bus. So, NST perceives the Universe with Loving behavior, and OST plows backwards with a list of arbitrary restrictions that are Selfish. This comparison seems to stack the deck pretty clearly in favor of NST, for who wants to be that old, selfish stick-in-the-mud? Well, I might take the mud actually, if the alternative is a gooey quicksand of sentimental platitude. Possibly we're foundering on the thorny principle of duality here, since I have heard many New Age philosophers (who maybe are among those with this emerging consciousness---and also have last names like Sun and Moon and stuff) complain about dualistic distinctions as though they are the plague of life. Undoubtedly trying to tell the difference between good and bad has been a tiresome chore ever since the effort got us thrown out of the Garden. Perhaps NST tries to bypass ethics altogether, by supplanting the discipline with Universal Acceptance of Everything---indeed a blissful state, we gather, from reports of Realized Beings. But Mark proceeds to lay out a very good case precisely for ethics in everyday life---and to urge our development of individual morality with supreme care. We need to maintain concern for how we are with others, at least as much as we gurgle in pleasure at the latest Internet plaything...or new internal combustion toy. So what is the bone of contention exactly? He concludes that we are unwise and inefficient creatures thus far in our evolution, and that the key to success, survival and happiness must be "constructive energy." He implies that such responsibility will remove even any need for law and rules. Apparently we need the Morality Police who will demand the peaceful good will of us, when it's not showing. Even if we intend to be good NSTers, the proof will be in the pudding of our actions---judged, apparently, by our peers and comrades who have evolved into Total Constructs. I mean they don't say or do anything negative or wrong, as defined by---well, let's see...this part gets hazy for me. Do we look to a guru for this? Ms. Sun or somebody? I get a feeling for this NST stuff, but I also sense a very big mind needed to tell us what's New, what's Old, what's In, what's Out---and any argument from very little minds is going to be viewed as very obstructive. Can a New Style Thinker set me straight on this part? Richard - I really don't understand your comments. >>>I see. The definition I wrote for NST is quite clear. >>>If you say so--- Clarity may not be the issue. People can be clearly wrong, for instance. Or mislead. On the other hand, the abilty to act within the boundary love is what might need to be more clearly defined. >>>Not sure I've ever seen the words "boundary" and "love" next to each other. ---Richard 11 Jan 2003 @ 05:18 by shawa : Hehehehehehe ;-) Richard, I LOVE ya!!! *grin* It´s part of NST, as it´s called - *wink* - to hear ALL opinions. The decision for one or other thing/thought/direction comes about when we feel that something is actually functioning, not only for ourselves, but for a whole bunch of people. "What works" is the key, what works in a space where everybody can feel good about themselves. Small islands of people, experimenting with "new", perhaps... 11 Jan 2003 @ 06:45 by martha : some people Some people will never be able to live without laws and rules for they lack respect and love for life. Of course none of this is new. Jesus gave it as his only commandment- love your neighbor as yourself. The problem is the perversion that has occured by man against nature and himself. For example Israel and Ireland are perfect examples of old style thinking. All four groups have been deeply wounded and are angry and project that anger out. Many in these groups can't even allow the space inside themselves to understand that maybe their enemies are in as much pain. To further inflame the situation prevents the healing. Once a space can be allowed to understand the other side and want peace, than it will happen. It will not happen by posting articles about one side or the other pointing fingers. That is the old way. The new way is through hard work of bringing groups together to talk and find the solutions. This is not easy because honesty, love and goodwill are needed. The old energies of power, domination, and "I'm right, your wrong" no longer work and never did. AND THAT IS WHY I HAVE RECENTLY STATED IN SOME POSTS THAT THEY ARE EXAMPLES OF OLD STYLE THINKING. martha@tiredofthesameoldcrap.com 11 Jan 2003 @ 16:40 by sharie : NST I was looking for a new style, thanks Mark. Glad to see you back. 12 Jan 2003 @ 00:22 by strydg : it may be in your writing style but by your own definition you seem to be a perpetrator of OST. the content of your words says one thing but between the lines you betray that you do not live up to the NST ideal. Ironically, nobody is asking you to live up to anything - nobody but yourself, or, better said, the false idea of yourself. further, selflessness is OST to the MAX. love your neighbor even as you love yourself means that one must love and accept one's self and only then (s)he will be able to love the neighbor. one cannot love anyone else until one loves one's self - to me this is NST. sometimes we do odd things as an invitation to others to show us love. these invitations may include inviting abuse. non-acceptance of self, non-love of self, is a cultural program, but some of us bare the unbearable pain of its effects as a service to others. is "tiredofthesameoldcrap" a confession of frustration with one's self or a way of pointing the finger at others? if we accuse another of OST are we not pointing and blaming that they are not doing right while we are? 12 Jan 2003 @ 00:55 by shawa : Hi, strydg ...Interesting website you have there. :-) 12 Jan 2003 @ 06:29 by martha : doing right I'll be the first to admit that I stumble all the time as I work with NST. I choose to do this to free my mind further and look futher outside the box. I believe NST is necessary for a "new civilization" which is one of the reasons why people come to this site. For connection and looking for a new view of the world. The reason I point out OST and NST is for others to see examples of both for understanding. And you are correct, one must learn to love one's self before love can be extended out to others. And one must heal their wounds in order to understand love. It's a question of how each of us uses the energy we posses. And how we think determins our future and our planets future. martha@beautifuldawn.com 22 Jan 2003 @ 16:20 by simpleman : JUST THINKING ABOUT LOVE! This may sound profound, but nevertheless I'll say it anyway. If a person has never experienced love, or is not even sure what it means to love, how does this person show love? So, I agree, one must know and understand what love is, but knowledge itself does not instill the feeling. Taking it one step further and now I have a person who does not love themself, but knows what love is. Is this person incapable of showing love, and if so how does this person come to love themself. With that in mind, would it not be logical to say that one must love others before loving themself. Kind of like What goes around comes around. I think there are alot of people who love themselves and could care less about anyone else(selfeshness). But, then again, those people would probably be told they really don't love themselves. What do you think? SIMPLEMAN Gregg - I think there is no boundary between the success of inner and outer realms. Any part of a system that is unhealthy degrades the whole system and likewise, if the whole system is unhealthy, individuals have a difficult time thriving. Understanding the power of Love is one constant in the Universe we can depend on and it seems like a good place to call "center." Other entries in Philosophy 17 Jun 2010 @ 06:07: Stereotypes are circular and non-scientific 29 May 2010 @ 18:00: StereoTypes are debased Concepts 31 Mar 2010 @ 15:08: What's the line between "immersing in beauty" and exaltation? 26 Mar 2010 @ 14:47: Dialectical Analysis of Consciousness and Information 6 Mar 2010 @ 07:49: The word for World is Forest 17 Feb 2010 @ 15:55: Dialectical analysis of the Post-modern Epoch 10 Feb 2010 @ 18:50: Mindmap for Ifa for the 21st Century 19 Dec 2008 @ 09:42: Cosmic Egg, Cosmic Onion 4 Dec 2008 @ 03:58: Profound Metaphysical Questions to Ask Yourself 30 Nov 2008 @ 10:59: The Hard Problem of Conscious Experience
|