A documentary about the Galveston hurricane in 1900, which is not only relevant to events this weekend, but also to how many today relate to climate change (with astonishing hubris or indifference).
A story on Open Medicine (as in Open Source) from BBC:
Britain’s Sir John Sulston says that profits are taking precedence over the needs of patients, particularly in the developing world. ….
Sir John shared the 2002 Nobel Prize for medicine for his work on the genetics controlling cell division.
He is well known for his commitment to public medicine and his opposition to the privatisation of scientific information.
Eight years ago he led the fight to keep the data being derived from the Human Genome Project open and free to any scientist who wanted to use it.
If there is any field where free access to and use of information is obviously of value, medicine is it.
And if there is one question that is important in health care, it is this: Do we want a medical system that is primarily aimed at profit, or service? Of course, it is not necessarily one or the other, but the way it functions globally today, it is far too often narrowly in the service of profit, at the expense of people.
It is also good to keep in mind that what has the most substantial positive effect on health for groups and individuals is the quite simple things: Clean water. Healthy food. Enough sleep to feel rested. Basic exercise. Psychological well-being. And basic medicines and surgery for the most common diseases and problems.
And that too shows how skewed the current medical field is today, with an enormous amount of resources spent on research and treatment of illness that benefit only a few percent among the richest of the world’s population, while large number of people globally suffer from illnesses can easily be prevented and treated with simple means – if only resources were directed to it. And in some cases, if there was a free access to and use of current proprietary information.
I wrote a post last year on a Salem News story on Charles Schwab. If there is some truth to this story, it deserves far more attention than it has received so far. If you know something about this case, contact Tim King with Salem News.
The reporter just sent this message to me:
This is Tim King from Salem-News.com. We have generated another story on Schwab and Wayne Pierce and some slightly strange things have transpired since then. Let’s just say there is a relationship between Wayne’s email hacking and what we have experienced. I do not want to elaborate as we are investigating, but this is the tip of an iceberg from the way it appears and any agencies or individuals that have anything to offer on this are encouraged to send me an email at newsroom. FYI, we are TV and newspaper professionals with many years under our belts as mainstream reporters. Salem-News.com is independently owned and operated and that is the only reason we were able to get these stories off the ground in the first place. Thanks, Tim King
Take a look at the new Salem News story and interview with Wayne Pierce, and also this video interview:
It is a very well made movie, weaving together several different stories and perspectives: A Chinese monk traveling along the Silk Road around year 630. A woman from Kabul visiting the Buddhas that her father has visited in his youth. A family living in a cave between the Buddhas, and then relocated by the current regime. A French archaeologist searching for the location of a 300 meter long reclining stone Buddha in the same valley. An Al-Jazeera reporter who filmed the destruction in 2001.
Some of the information is not so well known in the west, such as the claim that Saudi Arabian engineers were called in and helped with the destruction. And that the destruction of the statues was ordered in response to western money coming in to restore artifacts, instead of as much needed aid to the people of Afghanistan. (It may be just a way to blame the west for something people in the west were upset about, but there could also be a grain of truth in it.)
When I first heard about the destruction in March of 2001, I thought of how well it illustrates the essential teaching of Buddhism – impermanence.
If we really get impermanence, if we see it and feel it, over and over, not only in stories of impermanence but as it happens here now in immediate awareness, there is no foothold for identification within content of awareness. And this invites a shift into Big Mind, into finding ourselves as that which experience happens within, to and as.
Exploring impermanence, thoroughly, over and over, as it happens in the sense fields here now, is one of the many ways to discover what we really are, and probably a sufficient one as well.
Also, it is an invitation for me – and us all – to see what stories we cling to as true, and examine them and find that is already more true for us.
It is a reminder that iconoclasm is maybe not so useful when targeted at artifacts, but has more value and meaning if we target the real icon worship: Taking stories as true. Making a thought – a story, an image – into a God for ourself.
And a reminder that we all are at different places in regards to all of this. Some of us take a modern western view on it, emphasizing the value of culture, art and tolerance. Others take a more fundamentalist view, seeing literal iconoclasm as a pretty good idea. And others again see it as a reminder of impermanence, and of iconoclasm having its value if targeted with some wisdom and applied with gentleness.
And if we want to be practical about it, we see the validity in each of those views, work on ourselves with impermanence and investigation of beliefs, and in the world in trying to prevent these things from happening using whatever – hopefully skillful – means seem appropriate.
Btw: Here is a link to the German version of the movie, although it is also available in English.
Yet, is it true that torture doesn’t work?
It seems that torture works well if what you want is that feeling of revenge and to vent frustration rather than useful information.
In the same way, the Iraq war is a success if the aim is to establish an US foothold in the middle east, and keep a large army there for a long time.
It can be helpful to look at politics and one’s own life in this way.
If there is support for a policy that doesn’t seem to work, in what way does it work? What do we get from supporting that policy?
Similarly, on a personal level, when I keep on doing something that doesn’t seem to work, in what ways does it work for me? What desirable results do I get? Maybe I can find another way to meet those needs?
It can help us understand the dynamics a little better, while keeping in mind that these are just assumptions. Questions rather than answers. A what if that may yield insights and suggest different strategies/solutions to try out.
It goes without saying that in conversation or public discourse, assigning views and motivations to others they themselves don’t admit to is a recipe for disaster. It too easily derails the discussion and fuels defensiveness.
Much better then to stay on topic, informed by the new perspectives we may have found through these explorations.
The prison industry in the US has lobbied long and hard for longer and harsher sentences for more and more crimes, and it is paying off well for them. For the first time in the US, one in a hundred is in a prison, according to a new PEW report.
This is easily the highest incarceration rate in the world, with China a somewhat distant second. The rate is more than ten times higher than in my home country of Norway, and the US has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s incarcerated population.
Maybe the most disconcerting information is in the details, from this New York Times article:
Equally disconcerting is how the strategies of the prison industry align so well with the mindless opinions around punishment among mainstream Americans, and how they also fuel and guide these mainstream opinions. A people gets the politicians, and the policies, they deserve, as this is just another example of.
As with the health care system in the US, the prison industry is expensive, inefficient, and made possible by an uninformed public.
It is my experience too, and research agrees: The difference between Christians and non-Christians in Norway – when it comes to views and lifestyle – is hardly noticeable anymore.
Christians are more and more progressive and liberal minded, and non-Christians are more and more into spirituality.
It is maybe not so surprising. Strong humanistic values is a shared ground for Christians and non-Christians, as are post-modern and liberal views.
(I guess it is what happens when you hardly have any fundamentalists around, either at the religious or the non-religious side. It gets far less polarized in general.)
Here is an article in Norwegian on the topic.
This seems like a simple thing… If we go far enough, we come out on the other side.
And this seems true for radical relativism, realizing all as perfect as is, loving what is, seeing all as pure innocence, seeing how all human actions come from fear, then love, noticing the inherent neutrality of all situations, and much more.
If we go far enough in any of these, see it clearly enough, feel it in our bodies, love it as it is, as what is already more true for us, we come out on the other side. We are free from it, in terms of our actions.
We see any story as just a story, the inherent neutrality of any situation, all as pure innocence, so we are free to use stories as practical tools in daily life. We are free to act in any way that seems appropriate to the situation.
We are free to have an open heart, receptive view, a sense of nurturing fullness, and act from compassion and care, meeting people exactly where they are.
And meeting people where they are, sometimes means tough love. It sometimes means a clear no to what they are doing, in our words and actions, if it harms others.
Quite the contrary from hindering action, as some seem to think, it frees up action. It frees up our range of possibilities, the repertoire of stories we use as practical tools only to guide actions in the world.
So why beat people over the head when they explore radical relativism and the other things mentioned above? Why make it “wrong”, as for instance some in the integral world like to do? At best, it stops people where they are, it prevents people in going far enough in exploring it, which means they don’t come out on the other side.
Why not instead encourage it? Encourage going all the way, exploring it all the way through to the freedom on the other side. The freedom from identification with stories, and instead finding them as tools of practical value only.
I see that government officials in India are now banned from wearing the tilak, which may be another drop in the ocean of post-911 silliness. (Of course, I don’t know if there is a real connection, but it fits into a pattern of attitudes and behaviors that have turned legitimate in the world following 911.)
Some random, onesided and relatively uninformed thoughts about the banning of burkas, turbans, dots and other signs of religious (or ethnic) affiliations…
I suppose the topic of the previous post also relates to the discussion around postmodernism.
We can use an exploration of the grain of truth in reversals to (a) free ourselves from taking any story as an absolute truth and (b) invite a glimpse of the inherent neutrality of any situation.
But if we stop there, we get stuck in the same way as (some forms of) postmodernism.
The next step is now to engage with the conventional stories of our society, this time from a more differentiated clarity, and a more receptive mind and heart.
We find a freedom from beliefs and identities, which is also a freedom to use and work with the conventional views, stories and frameworks.
As Aldo Leopold pointed out, one aspect of cultural evolution seems to be a movement towards wider circles of concern, care and compassion. As our numbers increases and technology develops, this is not only in our own self-interest, but essential for our survival.
In a seamless planet, and with the impact of our current civilization, we cannot make decisions while leaving out the effects on ecosystems and future generations.
Our current ideal of democracy, which is a form of tyranny of one generation of humans, has been a phase of our cultural evolution, and one that is now outdated. We need to move from a democracy to a biocracy. A process of decision making where the interest of nonhuman species, local and global ecosystems, and future generations are taken into account, because their interest is our interest.
In the seamless whole of Earth, the health of the whole and the parts are intimately connected, as is the health of current and future generations.
Our health and existence as individuals and society is dependent on the health of local and global ecosystems, and the health of these ecosystems are – now – dependent on the health and maturity of individuals and human society. In the same way, the health of future generations is dependent on the health and maturity of our current human generations, and life-centered choices of our current generation is dependent on taking future generations into account (bringing them into our circle of concern).