Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: What do you think is the root cause of human problems? - Page 2







Post#26 at 04-09-2012 11:43 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-09-2012, 11:43 AM #26
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

This is not the first time that technology has outpaced morality. We are undergoing a transformation similar in both nature and magnitude to what our ancestors went through when they adopted farming and built the first civilizations. Then, too, they had a set of values and institutions that worked perfectly well for a pre-civilized, hunter-forager human community, but proved inadequate for the numbers, complexity, and way of life that farming entailed.

Why? Because an agricultural community is a settled community, with the potential for much larger numbers living in a given land area, able to free a larger percentage of the population from the work of food production, and in sharper conflict with its neighbors. That kind of life was no more suited to our genes than what we have today. And yet our ancestors were able to adapt to it and create social and political structures and values regimes that worked. We may not much LIKE those values and institutions from today's perspective, but they worked.

On the way, institutions and values different from pre-civilized life but also different from what ultimately became the classical civilized paradigm (as I term it) were temporarily adopted. Communal farming was tried repeatedly. Various types of republic or democracy were created in a number of places. Tribal governments replaced the informal governing structures of pre-civilized life, before ultimately giving way to aristocratic monarchy which was the universal form. We can see in the New World at the time the Europeans arrived a snapshot of the transition from pre-civilized to classical civilized life. A few tribes in the Amazon, California, the Arctic, and the Pacific Northwest still lived a full-fledged pre-civilized life by foraging and hunting. Most of the peoples of North America were in one stage or another of transition, practicing farming but not yet gathered in cities, and governed by values and institutions betwixt and between. The civilized peoples of Mexico and Central America and also the Inca had developed the classical paradigm full-on, complete with kings, nobles, slaves, state religion, and written language.

We are, and have been since about the 15th century (through all the modern saeculum, in other words), undergoing a similar transition, and it isn't complete yet. Exactly where we're going remains to be seen. But unless we actually destroy ourselves and either become extinct or revert to a pre-civilized existence, we will not proceed in the "wrong direction." It's impossible to do that very far; such things are self-correcting.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#27 at 04-09-2012 12:04 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
04-09-2012, 12:04 PM #27
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

So we are currently betwixt and between? Scroll down to Kupchan's list. "Early Agriculture" would seem to have been betwixt and between.
Last edited by TimWalker; 04-09-2012 at 12:17 PM.







Post#28 at 04-09-2012 12:17 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
04-09-2012, 12:17 PM #28
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by TimWalker View Post
So we are currently betwixt and between?
Yep. Until we become more than human that is. *insert Odin's happy dance here*

However while some may think they know what that means, we won't know for sure until that transformation occurs... and for those who make the transformation before the rest of us... I'd be careful of when they decide to make a "visit".

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#29 at 04-09-2012 02:02 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-09-2012, 02:02 PM #29
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Tussilago View Post
I don't understand the poll. How are you supposed to pick causes for human problems that are undefined?
Because we know (almost ad nauseum) what the problems are.
Nature lacks both morals as well as foresight. That's just the way it is.
Conventional scientific opinion today doesn't really (entirely) know "the way it is." Humans (at least) are supposed to have these things, in addition to natural instincts. To the extent we don't, might fit under one or more of the poll categories.

Some people say Nature has these things too, to some extent. The romantics and transcendentalists like Ruskin and Wordsworth said so, and I somewhat agree. Living beings have the ability to help and cooperate within themselves, and with other species. Foresight may not be focused and articulated, but evolution consists of more than Darwinian natural selection, but also of the aspiration and motivation within life to develop, improve and become more conscious, leading eventually to ourselves and beyond. Although it's true most of this motivation among other species consists of the drive to survive, and the ability to adapt to changes (sometimes very fast and sudden ones).
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-09-2012 at 03:27 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#30 at 04-09-2012 06:36 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
04-09-2012, 06:36 PM #30
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

Of course, being betwixt and between would be consistent with the Grey Badger's comment that we live in a transition period.







Post#31 at 04-09-2012 06:51 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-09-2012, 06:51 PM #31
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Some people say Nature has these things too, to some extent. The romantics and transcendentalists like Ruskin and Wordsworth said so, and I somewhat agree.
One does not have to be a romantic or a transcendentalist to observe that any ability of human beings exists in nature, as we are a part of nature. All qualities of human intelligence, including value judgments, must exist at least in potential in life, if they are to be able to emerge in us. Also, all qualities of life must exist in potential in non-life if they are to be able to emerge in life.

Of course, that does not mean that any particular moral choice is dictated by nature; that would be an unwarranted conclusion from this evidence.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#32 at 04-09-2012 06:54 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
04-09-2012, 06:54 PM #32
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

Seems to me that we were playing out a version of the Classical Paradign through the Early Modern period, and into the 19th century. Then we got the Industrial Revolution, heralding change even as the Classical Paradign became exhausted. I suspect that there will be key turning points in the future, but these are very speculative.







Post#33 at 04-09-2012 07:40 PM by B Butler [at joined Nov 2011 #posts 2,329]
---
04-09-2012, 07:40 PM #33
Join Date
Nov 2011
Posts
2,329

Left Arrow

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Sounds like yet another unacknowledged vote for "technology."
One could look at it this way, but I would prefer to keep the focus on human nature and cultures rather than the machines. We understand the technology, if not all the consequences. We are absurdly stubborn about refusing to understand ourselves.

Bob Butler 54







Post#34 at 04-09-2012 08:02 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
04-09-2012, 08:02 PM #34
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by B Butler View Post
One could look at it this way, but I would prefer to keep the focus on human nature and cultures rather than the machines. We understand the technology, if not all the consequences. We are absurdly stubborn about refusing to understand ourselves.

Bob Butler 54
Bravo! Very profound statement.

It appears that pointing to ourselves as having the enemy within is a very difficult wagging of the finger.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#35 at 04-09-2012 08:12 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-09-2012, 08:12 PM #35
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
Bravo! Very profound statement.

It appears that pointing to ourselves as having the enemy within is a very difficult wagging of the finger.
I agree (as you'll see....)
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#36 at 04-09-2012 08:13 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-09-2012, 08:13 PM #36
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
One does not have to be a romantic or a transcendentalist to observe that any ability of human beings exists in nature, as we are a part of nature. All qualities of human intelligence, including value judgments, must exist at least in potential in life, if they are to be able to emerge in us. Also, all qualities of life must exist in potential in non-life if they are to be able to emerge in life.

Of course, that does not mean that any particular moral choice is dictated by nature; that would be an unwarranted conclusion from this evidence.
Thumbs up
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#37 at 04-09-2012 08:15 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-09-2012, 08:15 PM #37
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by TimWalker View Post
Seems to me that we were playing out a version of the Classical Paradign through the Early Modern period, and into the 19th century. Then we got the Industrial Revolution, heralding change even as the Classical Paradign became exhausted. I suspect that there will be key turning points in the future, but these are very speculative.
Although I have a pretty good (and well-verified) means of speculating.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#38 at 04-09-2012 08:22 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
04-09-2012, 08:22 PM #38
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

If society is betwixt and between, does that mean that society can show traits of more than one era?







Post#39 at 04-09-2012 08:23 PM by summer in the fall [at joined Jul 2011 #posts 1,540]
---
04-09-2012, 08:23 PM #39
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
1,540

Red face

Quote Originally Posted by TimWalker View Post
Of course, being betwixt and between would be consistent with the Grey Badger's comment that we live in a transition period.
We're never not in a transition period.

(But that comment appears to not be on this thread.)


Quote Originally Posted by TimWalker View Post
If society is betwixt and between, does that mean that society can show traits of more than one era?
That should be obvious...In actuality, there's evidence that traits from every era are always still present.

Cheers.
Last edited by summer in the fall; 04-09-2012 at 09:14 PM.







Post#40 at 04-09-2012 09:11 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
04-09-2012, 09:11 PM #40
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Because we know (almost ad nauseum) what the problems are.

Conventional scientific opinion today doesn't really (entirely) know "the way it is." Humans (at least) are supposed to have these things, in addition to natural instincts. To the extent we don't, might fit under one or more of the poll categories.

Some people say Nature has these things too, to some extent. The romantics and transcendentalists like Ruskin and Wordsworth said so, and I somewhat agree. Living beings have the ability to help and cooperate within themselves, and with other species. Foresight may not be focused and articulated, but evolution consists of more than Darwinian natural selection, but also of the aspiration and motivation within life to develop, improve and become more conscious, leading eventually to ourselves and beyond. Although it's true most of this motivation among other species consists of the drive to survive, and the ability to adapt to changes (sometimes very fast and sudden ones).
IMO to believe that the universe outside of human social reality has any inherent purpose and meaning is a supreme act of hubris and arrogance. It is an attempt to force-fit the universe into human social reality, it is a kind of intellectual smallness Carl Sagan often criticized. The Existentialist notion that the universe has no inherent meaning is the intellectually and philosophically humble position.

There is a quote from an RPG video game I am playing, by the primary villain who is a nihilistic psychopath, that always haunts me:

Why do you build, knowing that destruction is inevitable?
Why do you yearn to live, when all things must die?
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#41 at 04-09-2012 11:36 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
04-09-2012, 11:36 PM #41
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
This is not the first time that technology has outpaced morality. We are undergoing a transformation similar in both nature and magnitude to what our ancestors went through when they adopted farming and built the first civilizations. Then, too, they had a set of values and institutions that worked perfectly well for a pre-civilized, hunter-forager human community, but proved inadequate for the numbers, complexity, and way of life that farming entailed.
Science offers no moral lessons. The Ten Commandments give very clear instructions on how to live as a monotheist with some morals. The prohibitions against murder, theft, perjury, envy, fraudulent oath-taking, and disloyalty to parents are essential to the smooth operation of a healthy society. The requirement of a Sabbath is as much a prohibition of working to exhaustion as it is giving a day to a specific God. Prohibitions against having other gods, against creating graven images as idols, and against worshiping those idols define the Mosaic community and its descendants as monotheists. I question whether it is possible to be a polytheist and have a consistent moral philosophy or have a rational approach to science unless one pushes aside the multiple gods. Before someone suggests Buddhism -- Buddhism seems to to treat any Divinity as irrelevant. Science can tell us that if we put carbon and nitrogen together with a triple bond and connect the fourth bond of several carbon atoms with iron atoms in a certain way we can make a very good and safe ink. It can also tell us that that carbon-nitrogen bond when so weakly connected to other atoms creates an easily-released ion that when ingested or inhaled by a vertebrate quickly puts an end to respiration. Science cannot tell us that it is wrong force people for whom a political leader has great enmity to breathe cyanide compounds. "Thou shalt not kill!" is the simplest method of deciding whether to murder or not murder people.

Technology is also amoral. The same video technology that allows one to view something so magnificent as a full recording of The Magic Flute or such harmless drivel as reruns of Gilligan's Island (aesthetics have rarely been a moral issue) can also play back child pornography. We fault the persons who make the play-by-play of child sexual abuse and those who buy such inexcusable stuff.

Where technology changes things is when it offers a new form of power that offers both more capacity to get things done -- and dangers. So it is even with the technology (the printing press) that neatly divides the modern from the pre-modern; the same printing press that can yield the score of the string quintet of Franz Schubert can also offer Mein Kampf. So it was with electrical power and motor vehicles. With contraception, the new technology takes away some of the consequences of behavior that people used to avoid by avoiding sex. We know what some of the more obvious consequences are. Of course it is terribly immoral to fornicate in such a way that the sex can lead to a pregnancy that leaves an unwelcome child likely to be abandoned or abused even if kept. But to fornicate without the risk of such happening? Such isn't so clearly immoral. A community inculcates a moral compass as a norm to be adhered to with few ill consequences or it commits economic or even military suicide. Nazi Germany died of its own immorality even more than from superior force; contrast the benign Finnish Republic that ended up on the same side. Moral law is real even if it needs no God as its enforcer.

Why? Because an agricultural community is a settled community, with the potential for much larger numbers living in a given land area, able to free a larger percentage of the population from the work of food production, and in sharper conflict with its neighbors. That kind of life was no more suited to our genes than what we have today. And yet our ancestors were able to adapt to it and create social and political structures and values regimes that worked. We may not much LIKE those values and institutions from today's perspective, but they worked.
Much of what was horrifically immoral in a hunter-gatherer society and in turn an early agrarian society remains terribly immoral. Life us precious or it is meaningless. Suicide rates in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union were astronomical. Where scarcity remains a reality (and there always will remain scarcity for some items) security of property is a necessity for enticing people to do what creates, preserves, and gives meaning to wealth that creates the means of survival for many. Jury trials depend upon the credibility of witnesses; convictions based upon outright lies are travesties of justice that tear at the credibility of the legal system. People who exploit the gullibility of the devout to fleece such people are obvious abominations. It is best that there be some certitude that the elderly will get support from able-bodied people. Working people to exhaustion was one way to waste assets in the ante-bellum South... but in Hitlerland such was an effective way in which to destroy "inconvenient" people.

On the way, institutions and values different from pre-civilized life but also different from what ultimately became the classical civilized paradigm (as I term it) were temporarily adopted. Communal farming was tried repeatedly. Various types of republic or democracy were created in a number of places. Tribal governments replaced the informal governing structures of pre-civilized life, before ultimately giving way to aristocratic monarchy which was the universal form. We can see in the New World at the time the Europeans arrived a snapshot of the transition from pre-civilized to classical civilized life. A few tribes in the Amazon, California, the Arctic, and the Pacific Northwest still lived a full-fledged pre-civilized life by foraging and hunting. Most of the peoples of North America were in one stage or another of transition, practicing farming but not yet gathered in cities, and governed by values and institutions betwixt and between. The civilized peoples of Mexico and Central America and also the Inca had developed the classical paradigm full-on, complete with kings, nobles, slaves, state religion, and written language.
Technology, culture, and social organization give people means of doing more things, doing them better, or doing them on a bigger scale. Such is true even in a society so sick as the Roman Empire. The Romans weren't far from full-blown modernity. Just imagine them with some of the critical inventions of modernity -- the printing press, and the mechanical reaper. Of course they had some nasty superstitions and some questionable entertainments.

I have toyed with alternative history. I wonder at times what America would be like had the Vikings been successful in colonizing the New World (a hint: the topography of the eastern half of North America has peculiar resemblances to Russia, most notably some long rivers), if the Aztecs had met French or Irish priests instead of Spanish priests, if the Chinese had reached the New World before the West or had met the Norse in the Great Plains (a hint: the site of San Francisco would be a Chinese "town" with a Chinese name rarely translated from "Golden Gate" instead of having a Chinatown)... but for such an effort to have any coherence it takes some understanding of the basic laws of human reality.

We are, and have been since about the 15th century (through all the modern saeculum, in other words), undergoing a similar transition, and it isn't complete yet. Exactly where we're going remains to be seen. But unless we actually destroy ourselves and either become extinct or revert to a pre-civilized existence, we will not proceed in the "wrong direction." It's impossible to do that very far; such things are self-correcting.
Civilization has its attractions. It is much more entertaining than barbarity. It's hard to imagine anyone not being in awe of the contents of the Art Institute of Chicago, and I question whether one can listen to the Eighth Symphony of Bruckner without amazement. There is only so much bear-baiting that anyone could tolerate.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#42 at 04-09-2012 11:42 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-09-2012, 11:42 PM #42
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

The answer is (drum roll....)

unmindfulness, restless thoughts and passions

Most of us are walking around with a chatter going on all the time. We aren't even aware of what we're thinking, let alone feeling, sensing and intuiting.

If we aren't aware, we can't control or decide.

We are really walking cripples.

Buddha was the all time greatest psychologist. His diagnosis of human suffering was craving or attachment (the second noble truth); in other words, thoughts, passions and sensations that take over our consciousness and reality, and run us, instead of we running them.

The cure for this craving is mindfulness. We are not trained to be mindful in school. Instead, in reading class we are taught to talk to ourselves. But if we can speed read, as some people learn to do by not talking while reading, we can also speed think. We don't need the chatter, although it is deeply ingrained in most of us, at least from about 10 years old onward.

Many of these thoughts and feelings are internalized from society's demands on us. It is mostly because we are programmed to believe we have to justify our statements and opinions to other people. And the thoughts are just the huge first layer of the impulses that possess us. The others are evolutionary leftovers from the "panic button," the stage in which we had to depend on survival instincts like fear to respond to threats. As we become more conscious beings, we less and less need to rely on unconscious impulses like fear.

I don't think talk about a "transformation" means diddly-squat until it becomes standard in our culture to learn methods of concentration and meditation. It's been over 2500 years since we got the word on this from Siddartha Gautama. It's more than about time we learned to take the cure for our troubles. Imagine how life and society would improve if we were not sleepwalking all the time. We are robots, and we need to become human beings.

The other inner or psychological causes listed on the poll-- violent communication, selfishness, rebellion against old values or spirituality (which are also cultural), and greed (which is also economic)-- depend on this one. They are all forms of unmindfulness that allow uncontrolled thought and passion to govern us. If instead we have the power to choose, because we take back our own minds, so we are no longer possessed by our demons, we will choose correctly, because our nature is to seek the good.

I can't go with "egotism" as the root cause, because a degree of selfishness is essential. If we don't care about our own lives and agenda, of what use is living, and how can we care about others? Bad selfishness and greed are a matter of allowing our fears and indulgences to get the better of us.

Cultural and political/economic causes are very important to consider too. But ultimately, society is made up of people. The root causes for our misbehavior are found within us, and so are the cures and the virtues.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#43 at 04-10-2012 09:16 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-10-2012, 09:16 AM #43
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

It strikes me that the thread question needs better definition. Is it a temporal or an eternal question? That is to say: does it mean, what are the roots of the particular problems that the human species is facing now, during this time of transition (either the 4th Turning or, according to my own views, the longer-scale process of transition of which the saeculum is merely a quirk or wrinkly, like English on a billiard ball)? Or does it mean, what are the roots of the problems that we, as human beings, always face, and always have since the beginning of our species?

The answers will be different depending on which question we ask.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#44 at 04-10-2012 02:58 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
04-10-2012, 02:58 PM #44
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

According to the Bible, the answer to the question is sin. Some of the things you listed are sins, some are not.







Post#45 at 04-10-2012 03:28 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-10-2012, 03:28 PM #45
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
According to the Bible, the answer to the question is sin. Some of the things you listed are sins, some are not.
So what is the Bible based on? On what basis do you determine that the Bible has the answer to root causes of human problems?

Sin just means making a mistake, or missing the mark. Any mistake is a sin.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#46 at 04-10-2012 03:32 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-10-2012, 03:32 PM #46
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
It strikes me that the thread question needs better definition. Is it a temporal or an eternal question? That is to say: does it mean, what are the roots of the particular problems that the human species is facing now, during this time of transition (either the 4th Turning or, according to my own views, the longer-scale process of transition of which the saeculum is merely a quirk or wrinkly, like English on a billiard ball)? Or does it mean, what are the roots of the problems that we, as human beings, always face, and always have since the beginning of our species?

The answers will be different depending on which question we ask.
It's more the latter. If the Buddha gave us the root cause, then things haven't changed much in this respect for 2500 years at least. The long-term root causes we face, are the root causes of all particular problems. Current problems are just the new ways in which perennial root causes play out.

Of course, many people don't look at the long-term when considering this thread question. So what they consider "root causes" will differ. It is up to the people answering, how far and deep they wish to look for root causes.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-10-2012 at 04:22 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#47 at 04-10-2012 05:24 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
04-10-2012, 05:24 PM #47
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
According to the Bible, the answer to the question is sin. Some of the things you listed are sins, some are not.
"Sin" is so much a portmanteau that it is meaningless. It includes misconduct from minor indulgences to the most horrific crimes imaginable. People can be so repressed that they consider any good feeling evidence of 'sin'. Thus one restaurant chain in the Dallas area that I remember 20 years ago (I haven't been there for twenty years) spells "cinnamon roll" with an "S".

Perpetrating genocide, establishing a slave trade, or initiating aggressive warfare is also sin, but I would consider neither of those horrific crimes on par with gobbling a cinnamon roll. Besides, some controversy exists on what is a 'sin' and what isn't. I am sure that Moammar Qaddafi saw any trace of rebellion as a horrible crime against what he saw as the great reality (his divine right to rule without even the semblance of democracy). For those who rebelled against him, anything that might tend to dislodge the rule of Qaddafi would be a good thing to the extent of its success. No, you can't say that history is the ultimate judge. The clique around Stauffenberg was right, and Hitler was simply to get an undeserved reprieve of ten months while wrecking the world even more.

If it is wrong to kill, then it is also very wrong to put people in pointless danger of being killed or maimed. If it is wrong to steal, then it is likewise wrong to exploit people who have no alternatives.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 04-11-2012 at 01:38 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#48 at 04-10-2012 05:28 PM by M Acorne [at SF Bay Area joined Apr 2012 #posts 17]
---
04-10-2012, 05:28 PM #48
Join Date
Apr 2012
Location
SF Bay Area
Posts
17

It would be interesting to set up the poll based on Dante's Comedia. Especially the underappricated Purgatorio.

Starting with the base "sin" (evil) which supports the Mountain of Purgatory, you would have the ascending order:

The Proud
The Envious
The Wrathful
The Slothful (see Kathleen Norris "Acedia"
The Avericious and Prodigal
The Gluttonous
The Lustful

For Dante and much of the midevals, Pride was the basis of all other failures. Adam and Eve thinking they could be equal to God. For those who wish to pursue this, the Teaching Company/Great Courses has a 36 lecture course on Why Evil Exists. No final answers but much food for thought.

Mike A







Post#49 at 04-10-2012 07:22 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
04-10-2012, 07:22 PM #49
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by M Acorne View Post
It would be interesting to set up the poll based on Dante's Comedia. Especially the underappricated Purgatorio.

Starting with the base "sin" (evil) which supports the Mountain of Purgatory, you would have the ascending order:

The Proud
The Envious
The Wrathful
The Slothful (see Kathleen Norris "Acedia"
The Avericious and Prodigal
The Gluttonous
The Lustful

For Dante and much of the midevals, Pride was the basis of all other failures. Adam and Eve thinking they could be equal to God. For those who wish to pursue this, the Teaching Company/Great Courses has a 36 lecture course on Why Evil Exists. No final answers but much food for thought.

Mike A
Yes. Hubris is the root of the worst of all evil. The 'sin'namon roll is mere gluttony. Possibly not even that, though at today's portion sizes, it's the way to bet.

So you step into this church and there in the back is the guy who owns the road house and represents the drinking and the gambling and the loose ladies and all, and up front is the guy who would never dream of breaking any of society's rules. And the guy up front is thinking "Thank the Lord I am not like these sinners around town" and the guy in back is praying "Oh, Lord, have mercy on me." Precise outcome of this scenario to be found in one of four interrelated books in the Modern Era's all-time best seller.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#50 at 04-11-2012 02:11 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-11-2012, 02:11 AM #50
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
Yes. Hubris is the root of the worst of all evil.
It's merely a form of unmindful possession.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece
-----------------------------------------