Thursday, July 19, 2012

There is nothing either good or bad ...

There is nothing either good or bad, thinking makes it so. 
(Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II, Scene II)


My former student, Jeff, wrote that he disagreed with William, saying that harming another is bad, especially when there is murder (my words). At the same time, another former student, from my days teaching in Dallas, wrote about virtuous capitalism. He imagines a bunch of business men who forego profits to give more to their employees and public than need be. Of course, the net result might actually not be so good for some. The shareholders might need to tell their kids that they can't go to college, and their competitors might go out of business because they can't compete with a company that gives away bread. Is this really virtue? (For a much more articulate expression of the social responsibility of business see: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005373.html).

I like to think about what morality would be like if there are no humans on Earth. Most people would agree that there would be no good and bad. There is only be ecosystems. One animal eats another, who then eats another and so on. They are usually wired to protect their own and to survive by taking advantage of those smaller or weaker than themselves.

Enter humans onto Earth who make judgments galore. And then they make judgments on others making judgments. Hitler decides that "X" could make his country better. Then someone else decides that Hitler is evil. A cycle is started that produces strife and war. Even two people who love each other have a tough time at getting along.

Buddha wrote (though not with Shakespeare's conciseness),
Do not form views in the world through either knowledge, virtuous conduct, or religious observances; likewise, avoid thinking of oneself as being either superior, inferior, or equal to others. The wise let go of the “self” and being free of attachments they depend not on knowledge. Nor do they dispute opinions or settle into any view. For those who have no wishes for either extremes of becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, there is no settling into the views held by others. Nor do they form the least notion in regard to views seen, heard, or thought out. How could one influence those wise ones who do not grasp at any views. —from the Sutta nipata





Monday, July 2, 2012

Jasper's Excusion

Jasper and I, on his last day in Austin this year, went on a excursion to the Bullock museum to see the Flying Monsters Imax movie. Excursions with me always end up more elaborate, and the plans change by the moment. We went to the art museum first, but it was closed. Then to the Ramson Center to see the Bibles and the first photo, but it was closed except for the Gutenberg Bible. Then to Bullock, where I refused to buy him $4.75 junk popcorn (he took it like a cool dude, but later his mom thought it was abuse). Anyway, it was a great trip, reminding me of the trips with my kids when they were that age. Click on the pictures to see them enlarged.

Scale

Flight jacket at gift store.

Gutenberg Bible, 2012

Don't Mess with Texas!

Big football, little boy.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Before Abraham was I am (John 8:58)


My favorite Zen riddle is "who were you before you were born?" This question stumped a star student who thought he knew everything. He went and faced the wall of a cave for a number of years to find the answer. When he returned to give the answer to his teacher, he asked why the teacher had not just given him the answer. "You would have hated me if I did," the teacher answered.

Nothing is permanent. And everything is eternal. That to me is what the mystic John is saying.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

The shadow of death

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.
— 23rd Psalm


Friday, June 15, 2012

Food is a necessity.

Friend raised a lot of questions on my recent blog. I'll just deal with one at a time.

She wrote: Food is not a right. . .  It’s a necessity. Housing is a necessity. Education has to happen if you want to survive. It doesn’t matter if the constitution or the delectation of human rights considers them ‘rights’. . . Without food, you die. Without water, you die. Without housing, you are exposed to the elements and have no real security . . .  and you will probably not live long. So there is what do people deserve and what people need in order to live.

No doubt that food is a necessity. Even Buddha discovered as much when he almost died on his diet of 1/2 of a grain of rice a day.

Some people have too little food to eat. Some of this is unnecessary. We have stockpiles of food that are being kept off the market to prevent prices from falling. Distribution of this food to the peoples of the world should be an important initiative.

Going back to the fact that some people have too little, we have a number of alternatives. One is do nothing, another is to have the government give them food (or teach them to fish), and a third is rely on charity to feed (or teach) those unable to feed themselves.

Doing nothing is not a good option. Just from a selfish standpoint, I or my children could be without food at some point in our lives. I would not want to live in a society where help was not available. The libertarian asks whether this is a role of government or whether private citizens (most charity comes from individuals, not businesses) could take care of the hungry.

1 in 3 Americans helped charities in 2005, giving 260.3 billion dollars. I understand that when we had less welfare than we do now, an even greater percentage of our income went to charity. A good way to wean the government off the feeding of the hungry is to have an option on our taxes to get a tax credit (not a deduction) when we give to charity. That way the charities could compete for dollars. Those with the best record for giving (most of their money goes to the hungry, not to administration) could get the most dollars to give.

This is not a simple or easy problem. Sometimes not giving is the best gift. But sometimes it is not. What I don't think we need is coercive taxing to feed the hungry. Through voluntary giving we not only solve the problem but we create a world village.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Charlie at 10 days old.

Short time with Charlie in the car while my daughter went into the drug store. But we got lots done. Took about 30 pictures. We worked on the vowels. I associated each vowel with a finger, as if we were counting with sounds. He tried to say some of them and was really interested (it made him stop crying (he was hungry)). We also counted and went to 5 instead of 4. I'm fascinated with the fact that we can count different elements in the same group and form a relationship that didn't exist (like 4 fingers and 4 apples). Oh, we also talked about fingers being part of the hand and the hand being part of the body and the body being part of the world. He's not quite ready for that, but it will be old hat by the time he is. Oh, I introduced up and down, a totally confusing concept that can't be explained unless you already understand it (like most concepts). Not bad for ten minutes in the back seat of a car!


What do we deserve?

One of the seemingly disagreements between the political parties seem to be about this question. I hope to point out that it may not be so much about what we deserve but rather how we might achieve that which we deserve.

The Declaration of Independence stated that we have the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The latter was

"...one of the "unalienable rights" of people enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, along with "life" and "liberty." "The right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment." Butchers' Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757, (1884.)"

Some say that we have the right to education, to food, to healthcare, and to housing. Though these are not specifically guaranteed by the constitution, one could argue that they are necessities for the pursuit of happiness and therefore also unalienable rights mentioned in the declaration of independence.

One means to achieve these "rights" is to redistribute wealth. This will work to the extent that there is enough to go around and that the powers-to-be have sufficient strength to make such a distribution.

There may be some consequences to redistribution. The "haves" might lose their incentive to accumulate. The "income" of the wealthy is a small part of their wealth. So in addition to high taxes, we would have to distribute their investments. Which may mean that companies that produce goods and services might become impoverished. The "have nots" might lost their incentive as well, having all that they need for their good life.

I love the saying, "give a man a fish and he has food for a day. Teach him to fish and he has food for life." It suggests a libertarian view of providing a better life for all. The ultimate outcome of a prosperous society will be happiness. That happiness will mean that more have the quality of life that they wish.

I believe both of the presidential contenders want the best for their citizens. The question is how that might be achieved.

Who's in the world?

Xiushan said, "What can you do about the world?" Dizang said, "What do you call the world?"