Disillusioned with nationalism East and West

[Guest guest]

Dan,

 

> Dear Gary,

>

> Not on-line here to get into extended debate

> about politics.

 

Point well taken and I pursue this only to bring out an application of

non-dualist thinking.

 

[snip]

 

> The deeper one looks into the corporate

> nature of the power structures

> governing world politics, the more clear the

> picture is concerning how governments are

> supported, wars determined, and outcomes

> used for further expansion of corporate

> wealth and control, including the corporate

> weapons-producers who end up arming both

> sides in many conflicts.

>

> Studying the flow of resources clarifies what is going

> on; it's not about democracy vs. dictatorship

> (although that's a useful tool for rhetoric

> that inspires nationalism),

> and the rebuilding of Japanese and

> German industries was totally consistent

> with the expanding power of corporations

> that operated in those countries as

> well as the U.S. Allowing self-determination

> has not been big on the " political priorities "

> list of the U.S. when self-determination

> interfered with corporate interests,

> in spite of the avowed belief in democracy.

>

I take dualist thinking to be better described as dichotomous thinking. The

problem is in seeing dichotomies where there are complex interrelationships.

The framework above is dualist in the sense in that it implicitly opposes

corporate interests to . . . what? The people? Since corporations employ

people, serve customers, and create wealth that is owned by increasingly

larger numbers of people in democratic societies, the relationship between

" corporate interests " and the common good is complex indeed. As significant

and visible instances of people organizing themselves, corporations are

significant and visible objects of legislative acts and governmental

policies. But we shouldn't think of them as having a life of their own apart

from from people anymore than we suppose that mind and body operate

independently of each other or that (the most dualist assumption of all)

Reality abides in Silence while all talk is merely prattle.

 

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho

 

Publications and professional services:

http://home.att.net/~garyscho

[Guest guest]

Dear Gary --

 

The thinking you've expressed below evidences

a core dualism that runs throughout:

the opposition of a dualistic perspective

to a nondualistic perspective.

 

Further, it confuses an absolute position

with a relative position. Absolutely

there are no dichotomies -- relatively speaking,

one conceptual entity can indeed be considered

to act in ways that are counter to the interests

of another conceptual entity. Otherwise,

there couldn't be legal or financial systems.

To say this

entire discussion of entities and

interests is conceptual, relative,

and not " ultimately real " ,

would, indeed, be accurate.

 

And of course, there is no statement to be

made about ultimate facticity.

 

To think that corporations operate for

the good by making profits for individuals

(and leaving out of the equation

other individuals exploited,

long-term consequences of short-term gains,

animals which are harmed, ecosystems thrown

into imbalance, etc.)

may be viewed as naive or

cynically distorted. Either

way, it's not a complex view at all.

 

That you suggest that reality abides in silence

while words prattle, is fine with me.

 

It is the reality of this silence (which, rather

than being opposed to words, actually

" inhabits " all words equally)that seems overwhelming

to the conceptual entity. This conceptual

entity only seems to have resistance,

for its resistance is dependent on

references of thought and individual perception

that dissolve in silence's presence.

 

This silence at once and at first-hand

" disproves " all verbal

references and representational images.

 

The fact of this silence has nothing to do

with an individual profit motive, nor is

it against any individual. There simply

is not any separable individual there

in it (nor somewhere else).

 

So, indeed, it is this very silence that

shows the lie involved in the corporate

structures designed to produce profits

for individuals (by gaining an advantage

over other individuals and positing

the use of

nonhuman populations as well as ecosystems

for the advantages of individuals) ...

 

To say these systems are oriented around

fictional entities doesn't mean they

are bad or wrong or shouldn't exist.

Far from it.

 

None of it " really " exists.

So yes, this is prattle :-)

 

-- Dan

 

 

 

 

> I take dualist thinking to be better described as

> dichotomous thinking. The

> problem is in seeing dichotomies where there are

> complex interrelationships.

> The framework above is dualist in the sense in that

> it implicitly opposes

> corporate interests to . . . what? The people? Since

> corporations employ

> people, serve customers, and create wealth that is

> owned by increasingly

> larger numbers of people in democratic societies,

> the relationship between

> " corporate interests " and the common good is complex

> indeed. As significant

> and visible instances of people organizing

> themselves, corporations are

> significant and visible objects of legislative acts

> and governmental

> policies. But we shouldn't think of them as having a

> life of their own apart

> from from people anymore than we suppose that mind

> and body operate

> independently of each other or that (the most

> dualist assumption of all)

> Reality abides in Silence while all talk is merely

> prattle.

>

> Gary Schouborg

> Performance Consulting

> Walnut Creek, CA

> garyscho

>

> Publications and professional services:

> http://home.att.net/~garyscho

>

>

 

 

 

 

Make a great connection at Personals.

http://personals.