but this is pretty normal world wide..
Allan
--
(
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:46 AM, rigsy03 <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sadly, the aims of the United Nations have been a flop.
One problem is global communications have distorted the struggle it
takes to achieve- from personal competancy to democracy. I fear many
think success and equality is an instant thing.
> ...
On Oct 24, 4:15 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Allan, there is thread that Neil has started... it's important...
> starts with what " I " and we each might want, as in time vs work vs
> remuneration, sees problems in that context that democracy as a system
> has, and recalls the presence of "banksters" and oligarchs who might
> certainly ( oxymoron ) thwart the kind of dispensation which will
> allow all that we seek in economic terms, to serve in turn our need
> for freedom and leisure !
>
> First, as it is, we are not there at all... when our dream of a fair
> life, with freedom and sufficiency, can be guaranteed for everyone.
>
> Not when we have just ousted Gaddafi, who'd stolen 143 tonnes of gold
> ( approx US$ 8 billions ) with the connivance of this same world order
> that prevails.
>
> Not when armies and militias are equipped to establish the " might is
> right " rule in US, Turkey, Israel, LatAm, Africa, ME, Pak, Maoists in
> India n Nepal, Sri Lanka, Burma, China, Philipines, NKorea... and a
> whole host of motley warlords and rebels all over.
>
> Not when 1318 TNCs still control ownership over the wealth and means
> that produce 80% of world's revenues and bankroll most of the
> "might" !
>
> Agreed a few societies can begin to take tentative steps... yet, even
> in them, not everybody is on the same page, with the same degree of
> evolution. The Scandinavians are much better placed but there too the
> effects of globalisation and multi-culturalism is manifest, both for
> the better, in fostering liberalism, and worse, in fracturing the
> homogeneity and causing social fault lines.
>
> In conclusion, I do not find myself in a position to lay out
> certainties... a whole picture with rules, institutions and processes,
> clearly laid out across society, polity and economy, and a justice
> system to keep it going.
>
> Now, this is not say that I do not have ideas of what a modern
> Corporation should be like or what is the kind of Society I would
> prefer to have.
>
> I Much complexity about us... as individuals, persons... has to be
> sorted out in our spirit and our intellect, so as to be able to by-
> pass the emotional relativism we claim as a matter of right, in our
> needs and our value judgements, our willfulness, our motivations, our
> sense and extent of ownership, etc... before we really can expect
> simplicity in our deeds, speech, values, behaviour and way of life.
>
> The social, economic and political simplicity must seamlessly pervade
> our personal lives, which in turn should be self - empowered enough to
> deal with the complexities that arise through our sub-conscious, vital
> and emotional content. These complexities, drives and should be
> channeled into arts, meditation, literature, drama, celluloid, canvas,
> music, crafts, even personal religious practices... but not find
> expression in speech or behaviour transgressing our community
> commitment to simplicity, fairness, honesty, freedom, non-violence,
> human rights, compassion and kindness.
>
> It's a tall order... one I believe in, live with, and most of the time
> act in accord, without having hope or expectation of any kind from
> others or society about me.
>
> II We would always need human initiative... to create, improve,
> form, lead, manage, organise, write, debate, think, suggest,
> experiment... so, Capitalism would still be our best bet, under
> regulation to check... miscarriage of justice, unjust treatment,
> unfair practice or advantages, equal opportunity, transparency, human
> rights, recognition and reward, etc.
>
> Profit is welcome... profiteering is not. Profit should take care of
> reasonable expenses and remunerations, returns on risks and
> initiatives, cost of capital, and the costs of remaining in business
> in future incl R&D, creation of reserves, etc.
>
> III I would still go along with Democracy, not only for want of a
> better system of governance but also for the promises its evolution
> holds. All it needs are mechanisms and structures to feedback people's
> will and participitation, not just from one election to another but on
> monthly, fortnightly and daily basis.
>
> There should be a number of truly autonomous, empowered and competent
> regulatory bodies to oversee the Govt / Executive, quite as the
> Judiciary oversees the Legislature passing laws in accord with
> provisions in the Constitution... Regulatory Bodies for Exchanges,
> Insurance, Anti-Corrution, Citizen's Charter Of Services, Human
> Rights, Food, Education, Sports, Media, Advertising, Consumer
> Protection, Energy, Mining, Environment, Animal Rights, Water
> Resources, Forests, Pollution, Companies & Corporations, etc.
>
> There should Promotion bodies as well, as institutional arms of the
> govt.
>
> IV Corporations are unavoidable... but they ought to be more in the
> nature of public trusts, as in they serve the people and their needs,
> than private fiefs !
>
> The rest will take care of itself... once its people interests and
> will that comes centre-stage in govt, parliament, judiciary, corp,
> police... that's all we want, in preparing for the day when people are
> ready to form society in accord with their higher nature !
>
> Sorry for the voluminous output. And Thanks for your patience.
>
> On Oct 24, 11:51 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I actually understand what you are saying Vam,, I do not think it is
> > forcing ones will on another,, Just to the contrary,, it is looking at
> > ideas to build a better society, hopefully you will add you thoughts and
> > ideas,, looking at what is wrong and not just saying this is bad , this is
> > bad condemning everything,, not this is bad but what is more important is
> > we look at how to improve all of society taking the best of eastern and
> > western ideas..
>
> > I do not think India run by a few individuals using corporations is what
> > you want.. or is it?
>
> > Unfortunately the world is becoming more dependent on the rest of society.
> > The questions come down to what we see as good in our way of life (western)
> > and hopefully what you see as good in your way of life (eastern) but that
> > takes your input in all areas philosophical, financial, and in economics,
> > which includes health care, how to deal with natural disasters,
> > Today unfortunately what happens in your home also effects me here in
> > Holland , Neil in England and Molly in the States , just to name a few..
>
> > The question is two part.. 1; How do we create a better society 2: how do
> > we prevent corporations from dominating the world society.
>
> > But if you do not add you insights on just how you see the world government
> > should be.. How can your ideas be included if you do not add them?
>
> > Not that any of us have the power to change the world, there are some of us
> > who qualify as "grouchy old men" me included.. But , I repeat But maybe
> > someone will read what we have to say that can improve the world and
> > society.
>
> > Vam your ideas on what corporations,and government should be like is
> > extremely important,, at least to me.
>
> > The question is how do we improve all of society and is is it possible to
> > keep the individuality and best of each society.
> > Allan
>
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:30 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I share your enthusiasm Gabby. All very well Vam - yet the language
> > > around us is so deceptive we have to do something new with it so as
> > > not to be suckered by fine words from the weasel.
>
> > > On Oct 24, 5:35 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > From Brihadaranyaka Upanishad ( one of the oldest ) :
>
> > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband
> > > > loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true
> > > > nature, is one with the Supreme Self.
>
> > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, but
> > > > she is loved for the sake of the self.
>
> > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved,
> > > > hut they are loved for the sake of the self.
>
> > > > "Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it
> > > > is loved for the sake of the self.
>
> > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the brahmin, my dear, is the brahmin
> > > > loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.
>
> > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the kshatriya, my dear, is the kshatriya
> > > > loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.
>
> > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, are the worlds
> > > > loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
>
> > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the gods, my dear, are the gods loved,
> > > > but they are loved for the sake of the self.
>
> > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the beings, my dear, are the beings
> > > > loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
>
> > > > Verily, not for the sake of the All, my dear, is the All loved, but it
> > > > is loved for the sake of the self.
>
> > > > "Verily, my dear Maitreyi, it is the Self that should be realized—
> > > > should be heard of, reflected on, and meditated upon.
>
> > > > By the realization of the Self, my dear—through hearing, reflection,
> > > > and meditation—all this is known.
>
> > > > On Oct 23, 11:55 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > To feel concern for others or love , is a human feeling and a person
> > > > > tries to better the lot of the less fortunate. There is nothing
> > > > > Eastern or Western about this , but it is only a humane sentiment and
> > > > > is common to all societies. If I make the lives of a few others happy
> > > > > I feel happy about it , but that doesn't mean that my behavior is
> > > > > self-centered , rather it would be so if I acted for my personal
> > > > > well-being at the expense of others.
>
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I do not understand much that has been said here... really.
>
> > > > > > What I can make out is this talk of doing something "for others."
> > > This
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário