Us vs Them

[shiva2999]

Same thing I've been telling you for years.

This is a great read...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sara_rob_080403_two_kinds_of_america.htm

April 3, 2008 at 10:31:57

Two Kinds of Americans: Us Versus Them (Part I)

by Sara Robinson

The old joke goes that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't.

Funny thing is: it's not a joke. In fact, it turns out that this one oddly recursive fact can tell us a whole lot about any country's prospects for social order, political stability, and propensity for violence.

The premise is preposterously obvious and simple -- but all the more powerful for being so. Where people -- from families to nations -- see themselves as one unified group, where everyone's in the same boat together rowing toward a more-or-less agreed-upon future shore, and where there's enough mutual trust and respect to allow people to cooperate in achieving their common goals, the group tends to survive and thrive. The social contract holds. The economy grows. People are willing to invest in the common good. The group prospers.

However: the happy comity that allows us to function as social and political animals inevitably falls apart when one group pulls away from the collective whole and decides that there are in fact two kinds of people in the world -- a righteous Us, and a suspect Them -- and They aren't worthy of respect, cannot be trusted, and should rightly be purged from our midst for the good of the whole. Whenever the name of the political game becomes Us Versus Them, the resulting divisions can quickly shred any sense of shared identity or common future. Nobody wants to invest in anything. Infrastructure and economies fall apart. In short order, the escalating internal conflicts can tear apart families, communities, and nations far more effectively than any external enemy ever could.

Unfortunately, Us Versus Them thinking has become the political norm in America -- and it's gone on so long now that it's shattered our ability to deal effectively with any of the big challenges we're facing as a nation. If America is going to survive -- and especially, if we're going to bring about any kind of progressive order -- it's crucial that we understand how this split got so wide, the magnitude of the damage done, and what can be done to heal it.

...more...

[shiva2999]

So, anyone with the courage to comment?

[shiva2999]

This is the real heart of darkness.

As I've said many times, the problem with America isn't systemic, it's psychological.

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20061020.html

David Kuo's Book "Tempting Faith": The Author's Agenda, the Authoritarian Behavior He Reports, And the White House's Response
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Oct. 20, 2006

David Kuo, the former deputy-director of the Bush White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, recently published a book, Tempting Faith. The book's most controversial claim is that members of the Bush administration have been privately trashing some of the very Religious Right leaders who helped put them in power.

For example, Kuo told "60 Minutes" that he had heard people in the White House political affairs office, Karl Rove's operation, refer to Pat Robertson as "insane," call Jerry Falwell "ridiculous," and say that James Dobson "had to be controlled."



In this column, I'll consider claims that Kuo must have a hidden political agenda, analyze the implication of the badmouthing of the religious right by Rove's team, and consider the Administration's responses to Kuo.

What Is David Kuo's Hidden Political Agenda -- If He Has One?

First, let's consider the question of what Kuo's hidden agenda, if any, might be.

It's a question that's being asked by countless Republicans who want to know what prompted a former White House insider (in an administration that is highly intolerant of dissent, and adverse to giving outsiders an inside look) to write (and speak out) about the hypocrisy of Bush's political operatives -- especially just before the midterm election? In theory, Kuo, a committed Christian and a Republican, ought to seek to keep the Republicans in Congress, not to torpedo their chances come November.

When CBS News asked Kuo about his motives, he said he had been greatly disappointed with what he saw as the gap, recurring time and again, between what Bush promised his Evangelical Christian supporters and what he actually delivered. This disparity, Kuo said, had "been gnawing at both him and his wife since 2003, when [Kuo] learned he had a malignant brain tumor, and left politics for good."

When asked by "60 Minutes" about whether he anticipated his colleagues would attack him, Kuo responded, "Of course they will. I can hear the attacks, right? 'Oh, he's really a liberal.' or, 'Oh, maybe that brain tumor really messed up his head.' Or, you know, 'He's an idealist.'" Regardless, Kuo says, "I'm fine with it."

There's really no reason, then, to think Kuo has any hidden political agenda. He's admitted his disappointment in the Bush Administration. And he's sought out the best forum possible -- a book where he can set forth the details of how he believes Bush and his aides are politically manipulating Christians -- at the best time, to call attention to his inside knowledge to those who share his beliefs. His agenda seems to be the simple one he claims: To convey to his fellow Christians how much he feels the Bush White House has let them down.

Kuo notes that -- unlike the Bush White House, and the Republican National Committee -- he does not believe that Jesus should be reduced "to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy." But that, however, Kuo says, is exactly the Republicans' belief: "This message that has been sent out to Christians for a long time now: that Jesus came primarily for a political agenda, and recently primarily a right-wing political agenda -- as if this culture war is a war for God. And it's not a war for God, it's a war for politics. And that's a huge difference," says Kuo.

As these revelations by David Kuo were surfacing, I was exchanging emails with Bob Altemeyer, a social scientist who brings four decades of research to bear on understanding the behavior both of the Bush White House, as well as with Evangelicals who are being manipulated by Bush and his aides. Altemeyer was too unique a source to not probe him about these activities.

The Behavior Kuo Has Reported In the White House Is Typical of Authoritarians

Altemeyer is a Yale-trained social psychologist who teaches and pursues his research at the University of Manitoba. Altemeyer has studied authoritarianism for the past 40 years, and is considered by his peers to be a leading authority on the subject, not to mention a cutting-edge researcher in the field.

Those who have read my latest book, Conservatives Without Conscience, will be familiar with his work, and the fact that I have been encouraging him to write about his research for the general reader. (I also discussed the theory of authoritarian leadership, in conjunction with the Bush Administration, in a prior column.) Happily, Altemeyer has recently completed a book-length work, The Authoritarians, which provides a non-technical account of his findings, suitable for the general reader.

Based on my exchanges with Altemeyer, I have assembled the following Q & A:

Q: The Bush White House gave religious leaders smiles and hugs up front, but then called them "nuts," "ridiculous," "goofy," "out of control," and so on behind their backs. Does this surprise you?

A: No, not at all. In fact, I wrote about just such behavior in my manuscript for The Authoritarians. So it must be true.

Q: You predicted this very thing would happen?

A: Well, no. But one can reasonably predict that Bush Administration officials will have a low opinion of the people they so successfully manipulated into supporting them. Adolf Hitler -- a worst-case but textbook example -- showed the disdain of all authoritarian leaders for their supporters when he said, "What good fortune for those in power that people do not think."

Q: You're not saying the Bush administration is full of Nazis, so I am not sure I get the point?

A: I'm saying, as you have discovered, that it has a lot of people with authoritarian personalities. Let me explain for your readers, or those who have not read your new book. There are two kinds of authoritarians, whom researchers can identify by their answers to certain personality tests. There are people who become leaders in authoritarian movements, and there are their followers. The leaders have stronger drives for personal power and they are also pretty amoral. Compared with most folks, they admit, when answering surveys anonymously, that manipulating others, exploiting the gullible, intimidating, cheating, and being a hypocrite are all justified if they get you what you want. They say one of the best skills a person can develop is the ability to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly. They say the world is full of suckers who deserve to be "taken" because they are so stupid. All in all it sounds like the game plan for how Bush won Ohio in the last election.

Q: Democrats, of course, do these things too. Republicans don't have a monopoly on lying, cheating, and playing people for suckers.

A: Good point. No, they certainly don't. These power-hungry dominators will join anything and say they believe in anything to get what they want. But studies find that conservative politicians are much more likely to have this kind of personality than liberals are. Why? Because they usually have conservative economic and political beliefs. But more importantly, they head for the right because that's where the great majority of
authoritarian followers are concentrated, looking for a leader.

Q: Why on the right?

A: The followers have a great desire to submit to established authority. They're also highly conventional, and they have a lot of aggression in them, which studies show comes primarily from being fearful. One of the classic reactions to fear is to fight, and the followers will attack when their authorities tell them to. They love to feel part of a "great movement" in solidarity with others on the move. They are very zealous. They usually are also highly religious, in a fundamentalist sense at least, and studies show they lead the league in self-righteousness. As we have discussed in the past, while there may be such people on the left, they are pretty rare compared with the number we find on the right.

Q: Why do these authoritarians follow amoral, hypocritical, deceitful liars?

A: Because of one of their great vulnerabilities, which the manipulative dominators exploit. Authoritarian followers have basically copied the ideas of the authorities in their lives. They haven't thought about things to any great degree and then decided what they believe in. To maintain their beliefs in a world of challenging discoveries and conflicting beliefs, they associate as much as possible with others who agree with them. They travel in small circles, getting booster shots of faith from one another. They rely upon social support, rather than evidence or logic, to keep on believing what in many cases they've simply memorized. But this makes them quite vulnerable to manipulators who tell them what they want to hear. Experiments show that they're so glad to find another person who will tell them that they are right, that they don't consider that the newcomer might have ulterior motives. All you have to do to get into their "in-group" is tell them they are right, even if you don't believe a word of it. Since the in-group is made up of followers clinging to each other and looking for a leader, it's pretty easy for an unscrupulous person to take over-- provided he can outmaneuver the other dominators trying the same thing.

Q: So the followers are "suckers" -- so to speak?

A: Well, faith-healers and various enterprising evangelists have been playing them for suckers for a long time. Lately political strategists have seen how rich the takings are, and jumped in. They mobilized the Religious Right, which has become the most potent force in American politics. Its rank and file is very organized, very energetic, very devoted, and earnestly does what it is told by its authoritarian leaders.

Q: You're saying then that, ironically, if the Religious Right has its way, the White House and Congress will be filled with amoral people.

A: Yes, I am, although of course there would be exceptions. And I'd say the proof is already right in front of us. When did we ever have a president who insisted on having the "right" to torture people, or a Congress that voted for it? How often have we had an administration deciding it could suspend habeas corpus and other constitutional guarantees, and Congress going along? And you can see this amorality on the individual level. Look at the members of the House of Representatives who have been convicted of crimes lately. Or look at the list of the 20 most corrupt members of the House compiled by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. Every one of these lawmakers got high marks for his voting record from the James Dobson/Tony Perkins Family Research Council. That's not a coincidence. There's this remarkable, actually weird but understandable, connection between being corrupt and being elected by the Religious Right. The crooks head for the Religious Right. The gullible rank and file don't realize this. But they send far more than their fair share of bribe-taking, influence peddling, money laundering, lying scoundrels to executive mansions and legislatures election after election."

Q: Do you think that may change?

A: Maybe it will. Maybe books such as Mr. Kuo's will turn on the lights. But who comprises the bulk of that third of the American population who still think President Bush is doing a good job? We know from studies that authoritarian followers are incredibly dogmatic and quite capable of ignoring facts they don't like. So maybe someone can fool some of the people all of the time.

Reactions of the Authoritarians In the Bush White House To Kuo's Disclosures

Q: Based on our prior discussions, and your extensive research, I have a multi-part question: the Religious Right, and the various evangelical movements, are highly authoritarian. So (1) how are they likely to respond to being called nuts, insane, etc. by people in the White House they were working to help? And (2) what will they do to David Kuo -- thank him, or join the White House effort to discredit him?

A: Most authoritarian followers are not likely to find out that people in the White House talk about their religious leaders this way, unless the particular leaders make a big deal out of it. They're not likely to read Kuo's book, nor follow the news relating to his revelations. If they saw the segment on "60 Minutes," they might be troubled; but when followers get troubled, they don't typically investigate further, but instead look for reassurance from their authorities. It comes from being a follower.

The answer to the second question follows pretty directly. They're not going to thank David Kuo for his revelations, if they do hear about them. These are unpleasant revelations, and besides, Kuo has broken one of the basic norms of an authoritarian movement: group solidarity. As well, authoritarian followers are highly ethnocentric, and they would handle Kuo the same way they handled Tom DeLay, "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney, Thomas Foley, and so on. They will simply chip them off from their in-group: "They weren't really Us." If that seems impossible to you, remember that authoritarian followers are still likely to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and helped organize the 9/11 attacks.

Q: Finally, explain why your answers are not your opinions, but rather conclusions you draw from empirical research?

A: It's probably more accurate to say my answers are based on scientific studies that dealt with these issues in general. But yes, I and others have conducted many, many surveys and run lots of experiments to see how authoritarian leaders and authoritarian followers think and act in various situations. There really is a lot of agreement in all these studies, and they lead to some scary insights. What is coming to light in books such as Mr. Kuo's, and Mr. Woodward's State of Denial, and especially in your book, Conservatives Without Conscience, is a documentation of how relevant and "on the mark" these studies are. If the Democrats take control of the House after November, we're probably going to have a lot more confirmations from the investigations that will be undertaken.

[pmoon6]

So, anyone with the courage to comment?I can't say I disagree with the content in either post.

[35Pete]

From your article Shiva

The colonial Brits had a nasty habit of throwing national boundary lines around mutually antagonistic groups wherever they could, knowing that this arrangement guaranteed a level of permanent internal instability that would allow them to stay in perpetual control.

Sort of like the democrats and republicans, eh?

You, yourself have said that the real left in America does not exist.

Considering that the lineage of a lot of the money trust is from the colonial tories, and their roots with the British East India Co, I'd think that this would not surprise you.

[shiva2999]

From your article Shiva



Sort of like the democrats and republicans, eh?


Also exactly like what the right has done with Iraq and your country.

And although I have said there is no left in your country, I have never said that the two parties are equal partners in crime.

They are not and trying to equate them as equally evil is copping the St Paul Defense.

Read the Bob Altemeyer interview above.

[Meathead]

i dont like lumping all conservatives into the same corner but a lot of that rings completely true

i think thats what drove me so completely insane in the run up to the invasion and then especially the reelection of what we knew was a charade, that you could see it coming a mile away but you werent heard over the roar of empty chest beating nationalism

it made me very dis-illusionised (released from illusion) that we couldnt fall for this kind of thing yet again. but of course we did. well you people did and since youre my brothers i have to say we

well it appears weve finally learned the biggest and most painful lessons from that version of CrazyWorld - hopefully for good. but i thought that we had learned them before so perhaps we will need more iterations before it finally sinks in

sadly i dont think we are headed for stability any time soon. we are poised for either more of the mcsame - a likely less intense but reasonable facsimile of what we have endured the last eight years, or the completion of the wild pendulum swing to the far left i predicted five years ago. i cant see how either isnt going to continue our pattern of having to learn our lessons through painful means

[35Pete]

Also exactly like what the right has done with Iraq and your country.

And although I have said there is no left in your country, I have never said that the two parties are equal partners in crime.

They are not and trying to equate them as equally evil is copping the St Paul Defense.

Read the Bob Altemeyer interview above.

He wrote an excellent nearly iron-clad research article, actually a book with it being greater than 200 pages, and I thank you for the reference.

But, as I once stated to you. The one wart within the book is his almost myopic reference to fundamentalism. True, he talks for half a chapter on leftists being right-wing authoritarians (i,e, the soviets, Mao, Pol Pot, ect...) but then dedicates the rest of the book to (rightfully) slamming the hard American right. The difference between Bob and I is that I apply his research equally to observations of the American Left as well as Right. Are they equal in the evil that they perpetuate? No. As of now of course not.
But, considering the similar tactics used by both sides, I do not believe one is intrinsically less evil than the other. One is manifesting it's zeal at the moment. The other I believe it still quite capable of the same authoritarian nonsense but would use different vehicles to accomplish their objectives.

Might I remind you of FDR and the internments? That was a mere 60+ years ago.

Or Bill Clinton and Operation Echelon?

Sorry. I am not "neither nor" nor a nihlist. I seek other options (Jesus. How many negatives could I fit in that last sentence. LOL)

[uppy]

I'm sure there were people in the clinton white house that thought Al Sharption
was insane,that Jesse Jackson needed to be controled that"move on"was
ridiculous.That said I feel the reason we could be called "so divided" is
because there is no compromise on the left and they stand for nothing
they are just agianst the right.

[shiva2999]

Sorry. I am not "neither nor" nor a nihlist. I seek other options (Jesus. How many negatives could I fit in that last sentence. LOL)

It's called spinning when you get caught up in a whirlwind of negatives.

Altemeyer's research is straightforward and clinically reproducible.

It's the battle for the human soul Pete.

You can't get around it by shifting labels.

[35Pete]

It's called spinning when you get caught up in a whirlwind of negatives.

Altemeyer's research is straightforward and clinically reproducible.

It's the battle for the human soul Pete.

You can't get around it by shifting labels.

Really? That's puzzling. Please explain the logic behind that.

Why must one choose between door #1 and door #2?

Why can't one seek other options without being accused of spin?

If everyone here got out of the Us v Them mode then perhaps you guys could help me to find door #3. But while the shouting is towards #1 OR #2 I'll have to keep seeking on my own. :(

[shiva2999]

Why must one choose between door #1 and door #2?


Because that's the battle.

Good vs evil.

[35Pete]

Because that's the battle.

Good vs evil.

That's black and white.

I'd opine that reality suggests a continuim. More like from White to Black with shades of grey in between.

I think the color of doors 1 and 2 are varying shades of dark dark grey to black

You know that reject the binomial model that you suggest. Why toss it out there? Is that something that you wish to debate?

Perhaps dark grey is more appealing than pure black. But why not look for the white door instead?

[sukie]

The battle is NOT good vs evil it is one's perception of good is correct and the other one's perception differs therefore you are evil and wrong. You must be killed. Ponder that and discover the insane unconcsious madness of it all.

[35Pete]

The battle is NOT good vs evil it is one's perception of good is correct and the other one's perception differs therefore you are evil and wrong. You must be killed. Ponder that and discover the insane unconcsious madness of it all.

Small cup. Start in the toilet, fill to the dotted line. Hand to the nurse.

[sukie]

you are arguing that all conflicts aren't about right perception and differing therefore wrong perception?

[jimmifli]

I really enjoy sukie2.0.

I also enjoy Pete rejecting a black and white argument and lecturing shiva on gray.

Good thread.

[35Pete]

I really enjoy sukie2.0.

I also enjoy Pete rejecting a black and white argument and lecturing shiva on gray.

Good thread.

Ohh the irony. LOL

[Shama-Lama Ding Dong]

I'm sure there were people in the clinton white house that thought Al Sharption
was insane,that Jesse Jackson needed to be controled that"move on"was
ridiculous.That said I feel the reason we could be called "so divided" is
because there is no compromise on the left and they stand for nothing
they are just agianst the right.

So in a nutshell, the reason there is a division is because one side is against another.

I'm not sure if that is a tautology or just literally preposterous.

[35Pete]

So in a nutshell, the reason there is a division is because one side is against another.

I'm not sure if that is a tautology or just literally preposterous.

As confusing a simple truth as one can find. :D

[Mouldsie]

12 year old Mouldsie > Most people

[Green Lantern]

The battle is NOT good vs evil it is one's perception of good is correct and the other one's perception differs therefore you are evil and wrong. You must be killed. Ponder that and discover the insane unconcsious madness of it all.

Aren't you just taking the religiuosly loaded aspects out of your vocabulary and saying the same thing? Instead of good/evil, you have changed to right wrong. These are still only perceptions.

[sukie]

Aren't you just taking the religiuosly loaded aspects out of your vocabulary and saying the same thing? Instead of good/evil, you have changed to right wrong. These are still only perceptions.

Of course they are perceptions. Not reality.

[Green Lantern]

Of course they are perceptions. Not reality.

So you agree with Shiva. You merely change the descriptors so the words chosen do not offend you.

[sukie]

Why would anything in this thread offend me. Unconscious "I am right You are wrong" thinking transcends American belief structures and is the core af all conflict. Wether you label it as me agreeing or not.. It just is.

[Green Lantern]

Why would anything in this thread offend me. Unconscious "I am right You are wrong" thinking transcends American belief structures and is the core af all conflict. Wether you label it as me agreeing or not.. It just is.

Choose another word than offend then. You post that Shiva is WRONG, not good/evil, and then you go on to agree with him but using different words. There was something about the words, then, that you did not like or found inadequate or...whatever.

[sukie]

Good Evil Right Wrong is all a one sided dysfunctional label. It's the dysfunction that is the core of conflict.

[Green Lantern]

Good/Evil, Right/Wrong, Function/Dysfunction.

See what I mean?

[sukie]

never said function but... okay.

[Green Lantern]

never said function but... okay.

And you should be kinder with 'Dys', in my opinion. Go read Dante.

[sukie]

Human dysfunction based on unconscious thought especially in a collective group just is -unfortunately.

[shiva2999]

Human dysfunction based on unconscious thought especially in a collective group just is -unfortunately.

Sorry, but things aren't "just is".

As much as jimmi's entranced by sukie2.0, as far as I can see it's sukie1.0 + a thesaurus.

Sophistry is sophistry, whether it's uppy or Bill Buckley.

It just shows the level of hypocrisy sukie has ascended to that he can claim to be an atheist and thus believe in evolution and natural selection and still claim the human heart "just is".

Evil has it's own rationale.

[sukie]

To the unconscious collective ego yes it does.

I have become aware of the past labels I gave myself... Republican... Athiest... etc. They are insignificant. It's also quite liberating being free of them.

[shiva2999]

To the unconscious collective ego yes it does.

I have become aware of the past labels I gave myself... Republican... Athiest... etc. They are insignificant. It's also quite liberating being free of them.

Nah, you're just retreating into nihilism the way Pete's retreated to libertarianism.

Even though the two of you have lived the vast majority of your life enthusiaitically participating in "us vs them", now that the evidence of how destructive it's been is overwhelming, you go "hmmm, I used to believe that "us" were right and "them" were wrong, but now I see that "us" was wrong. BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T MEAN THAT "THEM" WERE RIGHT! After all, making an enormously stupid mistake about one thing doesn't mean my reasoning about another would be suspect. No sirree. So that means since there is empirical evidence that shows that "us" was wrong and there are my feelings that "them" are wrong, I must find a third way."

Textbook cognitive dissonance.

The world didn't end when I said it would. That must mean I made a mistake in my calculations.

[sukie]

My way is not political in nature... Rather a spiritual awakening. Be happy.

[shiva2999]

My way is not political in nature... Rather a spiritual awakening. Be happy.

Praise Jesus.

[sukie]

Not Jesus... He was merely an aware man.

[shiva2999]

Not Jesus... He was merely an aware man.

This guy thinks he's an aware guy too.

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/06/2007-06-26TomCruise.jpg

So, when are you going to tell us what book you've been reading?

[sukie]

if he "thinks" he is he is not.

[shiva2999]

if he "thinks" he is he is not.

Sez who?

[jimmifli]

This guy thinks he's an aware guy too.

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/06/2007-06-26TomCruise.jpg

So, when are you going to tell us what book you've been reading?
http://eckharttolle.com/files/Image/Books%20Pages/A%20New%20Earth/ANE_Book_Cover_OBC_LG.jpg

[Shama-Lama Ding Dong]

Sukie, this book appears to be a rip-off of Buddhism, specifically, Theravadan insight meditation.

More later.

[jimmifli]

Sukie, this book appears to be a rip-off of Buddhism, specifically, Theravadan insight meditation.

More later.
Ripoff is not fair. It pays homage where it's due, and strategically avoids labels when needed.

[sukie]

Yes indeed. Rip off ? No. Explains what was meant not only in buddhism but in Christ's words as well. Really rather simple yet profound.

[shiva2999]

Yes indeed. Rip off ? No. Explains what was meant not only in buddhism but in Christ's words as well. Really rather simple yet profound.

Lord Shiva is highly amused that you would take this bullshitter seriously.

WTF is wrong with you people?

Are you truly unable to see through this nonsense?

From Tolle's ridiculous tome...

By making peace with the present moment you become at peace. The present moment is the field on which the game of life happens. It cannot happen anywhere else. Once you have made peace with the present moment, you become one with life. Being one with life is being one with Now. You then realize that you don't live your life, but life lives you. Life is the dancer, and you are the dance (p. 115).

If there is such a thing as "my life," it follows that I and life are two separate things. If I and life are two, if I am separate from life, then I am separate from all things, all beings, all people. But how could I be separate from life? What "I" could there be apart from life, apart from Being? It is utterly impossible. So there is no such thing as "my life," and I don't have a life. I am life. I and life are one. So how could I lose my life? How can I lose something that I don't have in the first place? How can I lose something that I Am? It is impossible. We are therefore eternal (p. 127-128).

[Shama-Lama Ding Dong]

Lord Shiva is highly amused that you would take this bullshitter seriously.

WTF is wrong with you people?

Are you truly unable to see through this nonsense?

From Tolle's ridiculous tome...

By making peace with the present moment you become at peace. The present moment is the field on which the game of life happens. It cannot happen anywhere else. Once you have made peace with the present moment, you become one with life. Being one with life is being one with Now. You then realize that you don't live your life, but life lives you. Life is the dancer, and you are the dance (p. 115).

If there is such a thing as "my life," it follows that I and life are two separate things. If I and life are two, if I am separate from life, then I am separate from all things, all beings, all people. But how could I be separate from life? What "I" could there be apart from life, apart from Being? It is utterly impossible. So there is no such thing as "my life," and I don't have a life. I am life. I and life are one. So how could I lose my life? How can I lose something that I don't have in the first place? How can I lose something that I Am? It is impossible. We are therefore eternal (p. 127-128).

Some writers have done better with this concept than Tolle.

Throwing this idea into a western paradigm has a very low probablity of success. Witness your characterization: ridiculous.

The point is that self is a conditioned concept. Learning that, and working on having "non-self" experiences challenge that conditioning. Not easy.

[Green Lantern]

It all sounds as death-centric as Orientalism and Christianity, I'll give you that.

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

So, anyone with the courage to comment?

How can you really top the article?

It's balls on accurate.

The reality of the situation is that those who want to fight eachother are the most alike.

[sukie]

Lord Shiva is highly amused that you would take this bullshitter seriously.

WTF is wrong with you people?

Are you truly unable to see through this nonsense?

From Tolle's ridiculous tome...

By making peace with the present moment you become at peace. The present moment is the field on which the game of life happens. It cannot happen anywhere else. Once you have made peace with the present moment, you become one with life. Being one with life is being one with Now. You then realize that you don't live your life, but life lives you. Life is the dancer, and you are the dance (p. 115).

If there is such a thing as "my life," it follows that I and life are two separate things. If I and life are two, if I am separate from life, then I am separate from all things, all beings, all people. But how could I be separate from life? What "I" could there be apart from life, apart from Being? It is utterly impossible. So there is no such thing as "my life," and I don't have a life. I am life. I and life are one. So how could I lose my life? How can I lose something that I don't have in the first place? How can I lose something that I Am? It is impossible. We are therefore eternal (p. 127-128).

I am glad you are unconsciously amused.

[shiva2999]

I am glad you are unconsciously amused.

Consciously amused as well.

[35Pete]

Nah, you're just retreating into nihilism the way Pete's retreated to libertarianism.

Even though the two of you have lived the vast majority of your life enthusiaitically participating in "us vs them", now that the evidence of how destructive it's been is overwhelming, you go "hmmm, I used to believe that "us" were right and "them" were wrong, but now I see that "us" was wrong. BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T MEAN THAT "THEM" WERE RIGHT! After all, making an enormously stupid mistake about one thing doesn't mean my reasoning about another would be suspect. No sirree. So that means since there is empirical evidence that shows that "us" was wrong and there are my feelings that "them" are wrong, I must find a third way."

Textbook cognitive dissonance.

The world didn't end when I said it would. That must mean I made a mistake in my calculations.

Wrong.

Libertarianism was along the journey. I am traveling the path of the "third option".

Liberty, equality, fraternity.

Spoken, but never practiced by many.

[shiva2999]

Liberty, equality, fraternity.


LOL!

You're turning into a Frenchman.

[pmoon6]

LOL!

You're turning into a Frenchman.You might be onto somthing here.

He does remind me of Jacques Clouseau.:D