I posted this quote from Alan Watts a few days ago:
“ As Robert Oppenheimer said a short while before he died, 'It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so.'
You see, many of the troubles going on in the world right now are being supervised by people with very good intentions whose attempts are to keep things in order, to clean things up, to forbid this, and to prevent that. The more we try to put everything to rights, the more we make fantastic messes. Maybe that is the way it has got to be. Maybe I should not say anything at all about the folly of trying to put things to right but simply, on the principle of Blake, let the fool persist in his folly so that he will become wise.”
I mentioned that the quote seemed ‘very Buddhist’.
After I posted the quote it occurred to me that, by taking sides and posting my opinions, I was persisting in trying to influence events in Thailand - and that it was probably both foolish and hypocritical.
I decided I would stop - I found I couldn’t!
I suppose I’d just become too cynical to trust in one of my favourite songs ’Let It Be.'
Not enough faith in Buddha/God for me to stop interfering and trust.
Today, it finally dawned on me that not only was Alan Watts’ quote very Buddhist it was also very Christian : “The road to Hell is paved with GOOD intentions!”
I don’t want to go to Hell - or help create one!
So I’ve deleted what I can and I’ve added this as an explanation of why.
I wish the very best of luck to the Great Lady and the US initiative http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/04/02/national/USAids-to-launc...
And to all others engaged in the heroic attempts to heal Thailand’s crippling divide!
Comments
Mangone | May 30, 2010 - 16:57
I feel I ought to explain why I changed my mind on the ‘Let It Be’ decision.
Realising that Oppenheimer was essentially speaking about ‘Nuclear Weapons and proliferation’ etc. and re-reading Alan Watts’
I realised that both were talking about reactionary efforts to try and maintain a status quo that is quite probably unsupportable.
It seemed to me that I should be part of the process that strives for balance and that the best way to facilitate that was to point out the flaws in the reactionary arguments because their media was suppressing the arguments of their opponents.
For an effective synthesis the common truths must first be identified and then reconciled.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So for a laugh I composed the following lines of reasoning and a little illustration of what might result from a rigid reactionary response to an unpredictable opposition :O)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe it was Hegel that expressed a basic yet fundamental law -
Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.
Which can be defined in the following way :-
The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis, perhaps a radical reaction to the proposition.
The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.
However, in my opinion it is simply an expression of balance.
Whatever you start with - the Thesis - must be effected by change (because everything is) and a force that opposes that change will arise in an effort to bring balance.
This antithesis will probably trigger reactionary forces that resist it but eventually some synthesis will emerge (or the whole system will collapse).
It works just as well if the ‘thesis’ is the ‘status quo’
The antithesis is the opposition, the reaction to the thesis
The ‘synthesis’ is the reconciliation of the two to form a new ‘status quo’
Perhaps it is simply the process of evolution.
Now, if you imagine that a land suddenly gets more rain and its major river becomes prone to flooding.
To solve the problem a dam is built just upstream of the most important city in the land.
Now this dam might stop the flooding downstream but it will inevitably increase the chances of flooding upstream.
If suddenly, the rain becomes heavier, until the dam is in danger - what to do?
If you were wise you built a sluice into the dam to allow a regulation of the water level.
If you were wise you would probably have chosen a different method to deal with the problem in the first place so it is likely that now you’re at the mercy of the weather.
Okay, lets say you’ve never really been concerned much about the welfare of those upstream and so you’re not too bothered about the flooding there. So all you need to do is to build the dam higher and perhaps reinforce it a bit. Naturally this makes things worse for those upstream but it maintains the ’status quo’ for those downstream.
Obviously, there will come a point at which the dam cannot hold and you have to think about cutting your losses. Do you find some way of releasing the pressure on the dam and suffer a little flooding downstream, or, do you keep reinforcing the dam in the hope that the rains will ease?
The danger here is that if you go for the continuous reinforcement option then those upstream are going to get increasingly angry AND if the dam breaks you lovely little downstream is going to get washed away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Somebody has to take on the thankless task of warning the dam builders that the dam is in grave danger of collapsing despite their best efforts to reinforce it… regardless of the shouts of the downstream landowners that fear they may get mud on their boots :O)
Tom Brown | June 1, 2010 - 14:32
“ As Robert Oppenheimer said a short while before he died, 'It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so.'
Only one thing’s more scary than that a handful of Jews control the world. It’s that a handful of Jews don’t control the world.
To your William Blake quote I have nothing to add.
Cheers! Mr Brown
Mangone | June 7, 2010 - 22:39
I’m not sure of that Tom. Certainly, a lot would depend on which Jews!