Discerning Darkness From Light

[Qryos]

~ Oh!

I think that by 'dark' he was refering to the fear & greed that causes humans to harm others. Y'know, "the bad & the ugly"...

Evidently he's believing that humans are evolving beyond the baser instincts to a more over-all civilised existence.

It IS a lovely concept, isn't it? Wouldn't it be nice?

{ Certainly would be nice if people stopped using shopping carts like lawn-mowers taking out stubborn weeds! }

Just a word. Yep, I know, 'just a word' too often isn't sufficient.

[Youch]

~ Oh!

I think that by 'dark' he was refering to the fear & greed that causes humans to harm others. Y'know, "the bad & the ugly"...

Evidently he's believing that humans are evolving beyond the baser instincts to a more over-all civilised existence.

It IS a lovely concept, isn't it? Wouldn't it be nice?

{ Certainly would be nice if people stopped using shopping carts like lawn-mowers taking out stubborn weeds! }

Just a word. Yep, I know, 'just a word' too often isn't sufficient.

Well, that is my point.....that hoping/wishing human nature is/was something other than what it is, is a fantasy. A "concept?" Well, perhaps....a fictional one, of course. This also refers to the "world peace" thread. Nature is not peaceful.

He has no evidence that humans are evolving in any different direction.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Well, that is my point.....that hoping/wishing human nature is/was something other than what it is, is a fantasy. A "concept?" Well, perhaps....a fictional one, of course. This also refers to the "world peace" thread. Nature is not peaceful.

He has no evidence that humans are evolving in any different direction.

I'm not seeing your point. Nature is not peacful. This is true. What does that prove?

[Youch]

I'm not seeing your point. Nature is not peacful. This is true. What does that prove?

I am only pointing out that this new found "darkness" of man isn't. It isn't new, and nature isn't dark. We only have more ways of talking about it. But hey, this is JUST my own opinion. The opinion of others may be just as valid or real. There are different ways of looking at things, of course...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I am only pointing out that this new found "darkness" of man isn't. It isn't new, and nature isn't dark. We only have more ways of talking about it. But hey, this is JUST my own opinion. The opinion of others may be just as valid or real. There are different ways of looking at things, of course...

Nature is not good or evil. Nature is indifferent. Nature is not sentient.

Humanity is both good and evil. Humanity is sentient. There is darkness. There is light. It depends where we look.

Nothing about any of this is new. What is new is the awareness. Now that we know about the "inner darkness" -- we no longer need to project it onto others. What we don't like in our selves; is the darkness that we see in others.

IMO.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Youch]

Nature is not good or evil. Nature is indifferent. Nature is not sentient.

Humanity is both good and evil. Humanity is sentient. There is darkness. There is light. It depends where we look.

Nothing about any of this is new. What is new is the awareness. Now that we know about the "inner darkness" -- we no longer need to project it onto others. What we don't like in our selves; is the darkness that we see in others.

IMO.

You are repeating what I have said previously in this thread. This is a good thing.

[Bro. Hex]

Nothing about any of this is new. What is new is the awareness. Now that we know about the "inner darkness" -- we no longer need to project it onto others. What we don't like in our selves; is the darkness that we see in others.

Exactly, Jon... nothing about this is "new", nor has anyone here suggested otherwise. So, let us get past this distraction of quarreling over whether the darkness is "new or not"...clearly it has been a part of the human psyche for a very long time, as much of William Shakespeare's work illustrates.. One cannot read Macbeth...or Hamlet...or King Lear without realizing just how very dark the human heart can be.

As Jonathan quite correctly points out, our willingness to "own" the darkness that is PART of our human nature, frees us from the need to project that darkness onto others as we try to explain "why we did whatever it was that was done". Realizing that we are not JUST beings who are motivated by "good will toward all men"...that we are ALSO motivated by vengeance and by anger and by jealousy, and undo pride, and by hatred, and by selfishness, is a crucial part of "know thyself".

Whenever we "do something" that was motivated by such a venal motive, if we are NOT aware of (and willing to acknowledge to ourselves) our "petty aspects", then we wind up JUSTIFYING our less-than-good behaviors by "blaming someone else". Learning to NOT blame someone else is a relatively "new" development....

Let's repeat that...

LEARNING not to blame others for our own "bad behavior" is a RELATIVELY new development in human social ethical and intellectual evolution.(I am not talking about biological development, here, and I am are only talking about developments inside our Western culture in this observation, and most particularly the English speaking part of world .

Edited May 5, 2012 by Hexalpa

[Youch]

While you pretend to ignore me:

In this century we have been newly filled by the conscious knowledge of our own darkness - that we carry this darkness within us. We no longer need to project our darkness outward into demons or scapegoats - or, if we do, we know we are courting disaster. It is by encounter with our own darkness that we recognize the light. It is the light itself which shows us the darkness - and both are summoned from within us.

Exactly, Jon... nothing about this is "new", nor has anyone here suggested otherwise.

Really?

As Jonathan quite correctly points out, our willingness to "own" the darkness that is PART of our human nature, frees us from the need to project that darkness onto others as we try to explain "why we did whatever it was that was done". Realizing that we are not JUST beings who are motivated by "good will toward all men"...that we are ALSO motivated by vengeance and by anger and by jealousy, and undo pride, and by hatred, and by selfishness, is a crucial part of "know thyself".

You've not shown any evidence that the aggregate human is rife or prone to blame others for their actions, or that anything has recently changed in this regard. Do you have evolutionary evidence? Statistics?

Whenever we "do something" that was motivated by such a venal motive, if we are NOT aware of (and willing to acknowledge to ourselves) our "petty aspects", then we wind up JUSTIFYING our less-than-good behaviors by "blaming someone else". Learning to NOT blame someone else is a relatively "new" development....

What evidence do you have of this so-called "new" development?

What has caused this "new" development?

Let's repeat that...

LEARNING not to blame others for our own "bad behavior" is a RELATIVELY new development in human social ethical and intellectual evolution.(I am not talking about biological development, here, and I am are only talking about developments inside our Western culture in this observation, and most particularly the English speaking part of world .

What evidence do you have of this so-called "new" development?

What has caused this "new" development?

Yeah, yeah, I know you pretend to ignore me.....but you cannot. Nor can you answer my questions. Right?? Please prove me wrong. Look, I'm just trying to advance the conversation. I ask my questions with honest intent. As always.

[Fawzo]

Happy, I would think that every day human experience, history and common sense would be all the evidence you need to see the validity in Hex's post and since it is near impossible to convey common sense to another being he may not see the point in trying

Edited May 5, 2012 by Fawzo

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Happy, I would think that every day human experience, history and common sense would be all the evidence you need to see the validity in Hex's post and since it is near impossible to convey common sense to another being he may not see the point in trying

I'm in full agreement. Demanding statistic proofs that knowledge increases over time...... Why bother?

[Youch]

Happy, I would think that every day human experience, history and common sense would be all the evidence you need to see the validity in Hex's post and since it is near impossible to convey common sense to another being he may not see the point in trying

I'm in full agreement. Demanding statistic proofs that knowledge increases over time...... Why bother?

Glad you guys are in agreement. But that's not what I've been trying to say. Or ask. Over time, humans are more aware of lots of things, most things perhaps. This is obvious and I'm not disputing it. But what evidence is there that self-awareness has changed our nature or behavior? If it is such "common sense" then surely we could be talking about specific examples??

[Fawzo]

Glad you guys are in agreement. But that's not what I've been trying to say. Or ask. Over time, humans are more aware of lots of things, most things perhaps. This is obvious and I'm not disputing it. But what evidence is there that self-awareness has changed our nature or behavior? If it is such "common sense" then surely we could be talking about specific examples??

I would think that some examples to evidence this would be the way many humans views such things as slavery, women's rights, child labor, and cruelty to animal as opposed to peoples of ages past.

[Youch]

I would think that some examples to evidence this would be the way many humans views such things as slavery, women's rights, child labor, and cruelty to animal as opposed to peoples of ages past.

Finally a conversation. Thank you Fawzo.

So, in "light" of this "recent enlightenment" of our "darkenss," you point to laws that govern man as examples of self-awareness changing our behavior, is that correct? And THAT is what Senor Alpa was talking about? Social contracts in the western world?

[Fawzo]

Finally a conversation. Thank you Fawzo.

So, in "light" of this "recent enlightenment" of our "darkenss," you point to laws that govern man as examples of self-awareness changing our behavior, is that correct? And THAT is what Senor Alpa was talking about? Social contracts in the western world?

My response was to your question

"But what evidence is there that self-awareness has changed our nature or behavior? If it is such "common sense" then surely we could be talking about specific examples??

Our laws change to match the morality of the masses at specific points in time and culture it would seem. As a people become more sophisticated it follows that their laws would as well.

Modern psychology and such concepts of Id, ego, anima and animus seem to point to our demons and darkness all emitting from within ourselves through genetics or nurturing. The idea of demons and devils and darkness controlling us from without is fading fast in modern societies. The first century great psychologist Yeshua Ben Yosef pointed this out quite clearly with his statement "there is nothingfrom without the man, that going into him can defilehim; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man."

That clearly speaks of the awareness of the darkness within us.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Fawzo

[Ex Nihilo]

Finally a conversation. Thank you Fawzo.

So, in "light" of this "recent enlightenment" of our "darkenss," you point to laws that govern man as examples of self-awareness changing our behavior, is that correct? And THAT is what Senor Alpa was talking about? Social contracts in the western world?

I think Fawzo is right to point out that laws can be generally viewed as examples of societies' growing realisation that "darkness" in a particular form exists and which manifests itself as injustice to others and taking steps to change in such a way that combats that darkness. Actually, it's a great litmus test for gauging human self-awareness and development. It takes a LOT of people agreeing with a proposed law to get it passed, it gets vetted, debated, reviewed over and over again before it finally gets voted on. I can see where an issue like child labor bans, which was especially detrimental to monied industrialists, would have to have enormous popular and support and will to overcome the economic arugments that politicians are all too susceptabile to. I think it shows self-awareness and growth writ large. It shows societal movements of consciousness.

In fact, you can track self-awareness and growth by watching the trends of lawmaking over time. Beginning in earnest in the 70s and up until today, environmental justice has been a large part of the legislative landscape. I think it shows that a large segment of the public has recognized how man's greed and ignorance has harmed the earth and all those who share it. Now, I see universal access to basic human services and resources as being a new stage in the development of human social self-awareness. Examples include projects like ending hunger, providing affordable access to healthcare or universal healthcare, looking for alternative and renewable sources of energy...all of these I see as ways in which we as a society have become cognizant in our own failings that have created huge inequalities and inequities that cannot be fully justified in the light of human suffering and poverty.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Rev'd Rattlesnake

[Youch]

My response was to your question

"But what evidence is there that self-awareness has changed our nature or behavior? If it is such "common sense" then surely we could be talking about specific examples??

Our laws change to match the morality of the masses at specific points in time and culture it would seem. As a people become more sophisticated it follows that their laws would as well.

Modern psychology and such concepts of Id, ego, anima and animus seem to point to our demons and darkness all emitting from within ourselves through genetics or nurturing. The idea of demons and devils and darkness controlling us from without is fading fast in modern societies. The first century great psychologist Yeshua Ben Yosef pointed this out quite clearly with his statement "there is nothingfrom without the man, that going into him can defilehim; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man."

That clearly speaks of the awareness of the darkness within us.

I think Fawzo is right to point out that laws can be generally viewed as examples of societies' growing realisation that "darkness" in a particular form exists and which manifests itself as injustice to others and taking steps to change in such a way that combats that darkness. Actually, it's a great litmus test for gauging human self-awareness and development. It takes a LOT of people agreeing with a proposed law to get it passed, it gets vetted, debated, reviewed over and over again before it finally gets voted on. I can see where an issue like child labor bans, which was especially detrimental to monied industrialists, would have to have enormous popular and support and will to overcome the economic arugments that politicians are all too susceptabile to. I think it shows self-awareness and growth writ large. It shows societal movements of consciousness.

In fact, you can track self-awareness and growth by watching the trends of lawmaking over time. Beginning in earnest in the 70s and up until today, environmental justice has been a large part of the legislative landscape. I think it shows that a large segment of the public has recognized how man's greed and ignorance has harmed the earth and all those who share it. Now, I see universal access to basic human services and resources as being a new stage in the development of human social self-awareness. Examples include projects like ending hunger, providing affordable access to healthcare or universal healthcare, looking for alternative and renewable sources of energy...all of these I see as ways in which we as a society have become cognizant in our own failings that have created huge inequalities and inequities that cannot be fully justified in the light of human suffering and poverty.

Bare with me, as we are finally getting to a point I tried to make very early in the thread.

So, you guys assert that our increasing self-awareness is changing our behavior (for the better). YET, we continue to have more and more government in our lives. Do you not see the contradiction??? If our behavior was changing due to our increasing self awareness, why would we need more increasing levels of regulation??

You speak of "growth of trends on lawmaking." Yes, we have MORE AND MORE regulation, which logically means humans are NOT improving their behavior.

What you guys are advocating is not a self-awareness and changes of behavior, but CONTROL of behavior. We (meaning folks like you) don't like reality, so you impose more and more regulation and government to control natural behavior. You both have admited this, in so many words.

Until humans act as angels, we will require government. And because government CONTINUES to grow and expand, one can agrue that we are not progressing toward angelic behavior. So, what is this new enlightement of which you speak??

I, of course, have very specific views on this issue. But I refrain from exposing them here, as it tends to prevent open dialog. Plus, this may not be ther correct area of the forum to espouse them. But perhaps you guys get where I'm going with this??????

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Humanity is not yet perfect. There is still a lot of room for improvement. We need more time. Until the process is complete, we will need government.

In the meantime, I suggest cultivating patience.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Ex Nihilo]

True, we are looking at a snapshot not the end-game. I agree that government is getting into more and more areas of life, but only because there is a widening awareness that human actions have consequences that cannot or are not being regulated extra-governmentally. I believe Thoroeau was right:the government that governs best governs not at all, and when men are ready for it, that is what they will have. Perhaps that's the next great trend.

[Brother Kaman]

Governments grow in order to survive. Our government, with help from the media, has made a massive effort to train us all to think of ourselves as victims that need Uncle Sugar to protect us. The program is further enhanced by giving away money to all the government created victims. The more people who perceive themselves as needy victims, the greater and larger the government becomes. Very few wish to take responsibility for themselves regardless of their claims of independence.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Governments grow in order to survive. Our government, with help from the media, has made a massive effort to train us all to think of ourselves as victims that need Uncle Sugar to protect us. The program is further enhanced by giving away money to all the government created victims. The more people who perceive themselves as needy victims, the greater and larger the government becomes. Very few wish to take responsibility for themselves regardless of their claims of independence.

It is a touch more complicated than that. There is an organic quality to law that causes growth.

The government has a responsibilty to make driving on public roads as safe as possible. That means drunk driving has to be outlawed. Then impaired driving has to be defined. And blood alcohol levels. And standards of observable infraction. And of course, there is the whole structure of enforcement. Police, lawyers, judges, prison, rehab. etc.

Another valid area of government concern is food safety and purity. Do we really want ground up rat and rat feces in our hamburger meat? What about human fingers and blood, from workers empolyed in unsafe conditions?

What about drug safety? Should there be a penalty for selling false substances in place of medications? What about sanitary packaging?

What about our banks? Should there be no controles at all on what a bank can do?

None of this happens in the abstract; for the sake of growing the law. There are valid reasons for all of it.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl