Ahmed wrote:I have the impression that you do not perceive all that is positive in the negation ... Refusing to lock yourself in the approximate or the false directions is a prerequisite for lucidity and a possible action .
No not abstruse at all, it's not Ahmed who wrote ?!
I am not saying that we must start from false bases, I am saying: to tell someone that he starts from false bases without saying anything more is to ask himself a censor and that is all. At best it turns the person in front.
In short it does not advance the schmilblick.
Aside from glorifying yourself. (since you know yourself and especially not the other, that's all you give as information by acting in this way. Is this really the message you want to get across?)
For a positive outcome, it should be oriented towards what is true. The famous pedagogy…
If I go after your reasoning which is "identify the root of the problem before solving it" (which I subscribe intellectually but not absolutely in practice), as my friend Krishnamurti would say, there is no problem apart from me (from our self, for each of us).
The root of all evil on Earth is to subconsciously follow our desire for satisfaction (gain).
Satisfied, I am happy, unfulfilled, I suffer.
These desires, of every moment, are cultural, therefore learned, which is an important point. culture shapes the intimate behavior of the individual.
If I go through your reasoning and that of K, it is the ego which is the root of everything and that it must be "worked" * to solve any problem on Earth.
* perceive it at work, in consciousness which can be likened to a "work" but not a work in the current sense.
The common sense being to cultivate one's self, to be proud of having reached such a stage. Which is the exact opposite of right action.
This may be true, in any case I perceive it as such, I have been very interested in this subject of the self for 26 years ... and I have not reached a point of awakening, where the self is not no longer the master, and where there are no longer any (harmful) consequences that flow from it.
Do I have to say that any other approach is wrong?
Certainly they are, they are only compromises.
Any attempt to organize society is therefore false, inappropriate in relation to the root problem of all problems, the self.
Indeed, any rule constrains it and therefore strengthens and reinforces the root problem.
If I follow your reasoning, you shouldn't try to organize society. (since it's turning away from the real problem)
However, given my own experience of 26 years which did not lead to much (yet I was interested), and given the centers of interest of some of my fellows, I consider that we need a framework, necessarily binding, for channel all of these individual desires for satisfaction.
To make it worse, to avoid major destruction.
this is, moreover, what man has done for centuries with the laws.
It is however fundamentally a solution which I know to be false.
You have to be realistic, we still need zoo keepers in the human zoo.
In short, a compromise towards a positive advance is surely better * than an immobility awaiting perfection.
* By this compromise, the framework changes at the margin, the culture changes at the margin, all of this brings fundamental change closer. While in the alternative, we do nothing, we sink, we continue to destroy .... It is a strategy to understand but it is not mine.
This is what you advocate with your desire for absolute if not nothing.
