Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic.
– Thomas Szasz, The Second Sin (1973) “Science and Scientism”

In follow up, I asked the question:

The quote was from 1973. So here we are in 2010, what happen when both science and religion are strong? Guess my answer :)

My friend is very nice and played along with me:

Awww… this is like a quiz at school!>.<

Ummmm ...
.... Religience or Sciligion as inter-disciplinary research?
.... The (Wonderful) Wizarding World of Harry Potter?
.... We think we know everything but we know nothing?

did I get it?
I want a prize if I got it right!

The last answer came very close, so I promised my friend half a price when we meet next :) The answer I had in mind was…

In 21st century, when both science and religion are strong…
…men mistake themselves for God.

Note: God meaning the omnipotent, omniscient grand father figure in the sky, not God as in the Tao, or Brahman or what not.

In just about all of our current events, it is demonstrated that where whenever something had gone wrong in our society, we exclaim the need for new law and regulation.

Belief in Law Leads to Evil Act?

That is to say, law stands for the last defense line of morals and virtues. Our set of laws is not the definition of justice. Law should have been the last resort as defensive mechanism against harmful behaviors within a community.

Instead, we had made it the first and ultimate weapon against each other. We made law the definition of what is good and bad.

So here we have it, a majority of corporates and businessmen are always treading the fine line of law, to cleverly [and wickedly?] steal and rob from others and each other. Financial goals are defined first, THEN lawyers, accountants and what not are hired to find loopholes to circumvent law… for the glory of financial success and economic growth.

As long as we “don’t break the law”, we are good human beings, right? Riiiiiiight…

Belief in Law vs. Belief in Virtue

Mind you, I am not blaming anyone. I am not saying we need to do without law. It is clear that some form of law is necessary for a stable society. I am making observation on a cultural trend.

It is easy to observe that common people have more morals and virtues demonstrated through their everyday conduct and kindness than the law can ever defined. All results in our behaviors ultimately fall back on the integrity and responsibility of the person making the decision.

True virtue needs not to be enforced. This is especially if you had chosen to believe in goodness in the human heart and positivity because it is already meant implicitly that we are utlimately evil if we have to be forced to be good. Thus, putting our ultimate belief in law is basically a pessimistic outlook and very insecure attitude with ourselves and our fellow human beings.

Law on Top of Law on Top of Law

The greatest fallacy in our great belief in law is that more laws can always be written.

Nature is of infinite possibility. Human nature belongs to the same source and thus is immensely creative. Our creativity cannot be denied and that means we can always act differently than what we previously known to do, even within the constraint social and cultural paradigm.

This is as opposed to the fact that law is written to prevent a known act from happening again. Law prevents only a subset of infinite possiblt patterns. Consequently, using law to prevent “bad action” from happening will always fail. Or if one believe that law will ultimately triumphs, one is really believing that humans have no creativity what so ever.

Additionally, to the amount of law that is written, to the degree that we will be unable to act and move without filling all sorts paper and forms. It is already happening. We are completely bogged down with our legal and democratic system!

Leave Law Alone… Find Intention

There you have it. My views with law as I see it now. Law is necessary in a community setting but no system can ever be perfect. I believe the ultimate result of our action, and if we genuinely desire to improve things from how they are, will always lie in the most original and most basic intention that drives that action.

If we want better results than we are seeing today, forget changing laws, forget changing policy, forget implementing new system. Find our intention first. Sounds easy but simple thing is always the hardest.

So, what are the intentions that drive our society?

I had said before that when I read current events that I do not focus so much on the specifics of THE event where instead, my desire is to observe the underlying trend of the present time. Here I share the observed trends in the before and aftermath that are common in our culture and society now revealed in the BP “oil rush”.

Trend in the Before — Rushing to “the End”

Beyond all the investigation and quips and quibbles coming out of people’s mouth, the bottom line is so clear that these executives and businessmen have their eyes only on the money at the end. Thus, I shall say with almost 100% certaintay that — they had rushed the construction and drilling of at the oil rig, where processes and workers efforts are rushed and skipped to finish NOW to get the rig drilling.

A rushing mentality can only mean that things are never done right. If I am to build an oil rig like that with such potential disaster, I’d be damn sure to have 5, 10 safety locks and backups to prevent disasters, if not 50. These BP guys put ONE safety mechanism in, and it does not even work. That speaks a lot by itself. Yeah yeah?

And they rush for what? Profit of course. And indeed, they are not alone. This rushing mentality to get things done NOW (for the sake of profits) is pervasive even in all other fields, software, financial, manufacturing, etc. No, and indeed no, no one strives for quality, and so no one seems to do things right (without unintended consequence because intention is off from the very beginning!).

And Of course, we are on a quest to destroy the distance and continuance of time and space in order to instantly satisfy ourselves of all desires… but most the time, for sake of money :)

Trend in the After — Inability to Take Responsibility

Nope, I do not mean this in the sense that someone needs to come out and accept the consequence for this “oil rush”, though it would be nice.

I mean taking responsibility in that we humans all involved have yet collectively come together to do everything, and I mean EVERYTHING to stop further damage to natural habitats from day one. BP what with all their effort labeled with dumb names — top hat, hot tap, top kill, junk shot, etc. — and even dumber results, and also the government is taking their good time. Further, these people seem to spend more time shedding blame and pointing fingers and calculating economic damage than REALLY getting this whole thing fixed.

And so this is the age we have come to. An age where monetary growth trumps all. An age where humans bathe in the glamor and glory of technology. As if gold plated, but only to be slowly rotting from the inside out. I would like to coin the term the Golden Dark Age.

After all, there is one more trend, and that comes from the echo that claims we need to have more regulations for deep sea drilling, and all other things including regulations on the financial industry.

Such naivete for us to have such trust in laws and having more of them. I shall elaborate next time.

My good friend D was accusing me of being not very good at making myself known or heard. Yes, I said. So maybe I should not use the word accusing, but on the other hand, I behave my way not because I don’t want to be known or heard.

Here’s what I do if I shall ever feel enticed or am asked to give advice or suggestion.

– I will say it once.
– I will repeat it.
– I will not say it thrice, unless the other person changes his attitude and shows a damn good display of genuine interest as to why I say what I did, which never happens.

Two things are apparent by the time I said the same thing twice (perhaps paraphrased and presented differently).
– My idea is simply out of the person’s grasp at that moment in time.
– The other person simply does not agree and/or wants to hear what I have to say.

Now the real reason to not repeat myself thrice is this — Let fools persist in their folly and they may become wise.

In other words, let people make mistakes and hopefully they will learn. And because we know that people often DON’T learn from their mistakes, sometimes the necessary evil is, to trick and nudge people into making more mistakes and hopefully they will learn… eventually.

Or in martial arts term, instead of directly resisting an opponent’s attack, one redirects the opponent’s force against himself.

Therefore sometimes, instead of saying what I want to say or what I had said, I instead advise the person simply with what he wants to hear.

Applying this idea in a grandiose scale, we — some humans? — may just have the responsibility to nudge the human civilization into further catastrophe before we will ever learn. Learn about what? Eh, maybe another’s day topic.

And I end my post today promoting — MORE consumption, MORE easy credit, MORE oil drilling, MORE technology, MORE medical drugs, MORE wars, More MOre MOrE~~~~!

Our attitude and perspective in turn have a direct influence on our behaviors, our relationships with all things exist, and our ability to react to situations in life.

In other words, capability to see from a high level of perspective allow for balanced human behaviors, harmonic relationships with all things exist, and appropriate reaction to situations in life.

An analogy for the effect of difference in perspective can be the comparison of the view of a caterpillar and the view of a butterfly metamorphized from the caterpillar stage. If you ask a caterpillar to talk about the view of a butterfly, he will not have a single clue.

In regards to perspective for mankind, I find it silly that we have neglected our potentiality for ages. In fact, we undermine it more and more. By that I mean, we are free and capable to adopt many levels of perspective, unlike cartepillar and butterfly and many other insects and animals, and yet we fail to develop it for our own good for the reasons stated above. Our education system does nothing in terms of developing perspective and enforces mere teachings and memorizations of patterns.

A possible break up and definitions of the levels of perspective could be:
Individual — Family/Friends — Local community — State — National — Multi-national — World human population — Earth level (including all organism) — Planetary — Cosmic

The difficulty in communication is that when someone is stuck in a lower level of perspective, good luck trying to tell him about ideas from the higher perspective. You can also have a blast boring the hell out of someone if you try to convey an idea, say, in the national level, when they only allow themselves to see in individual level.

The emphasis is on “they only allow themselves to see” from whatever perspective they want. You cannot force someone to understand unless that person wants to see from a different perspective.

Now, I sincerely believe, for us to get anywhere in solving any world issue, we need a good chunk of people, at least the ones in power, with the understanding and capable of seeing from the “world human population” level at least. The answers will be apparent to those. Until then…

It is very apparent that currently, most people with power and influence at best can see from the “multi-national” level on occasion. Let alone the fact that many of these people and many others are operating for the benefits for the individual level at a high frequency.

I offer no solution to make people see with higher level of perspective. Like I said, you cannot make them. It can only happen when they genuinely seek to see and understand on their own. The trick lies in the foregoing of the belief and ideas from the previous level of perspective before you rise to the next.

So the initial question maybe, how far and wide do we let ourselves see?

The real question, what belief and ideas are we willing to abandon? (abandon not meaning to condemn and forget completely but instead, meaning not letting it to restrict)

People who seek spirituality and enlightenment are really seeking the cosmic perspective with an indescribable understanding that in so far as interconnectedness and relationship goes, there universe is everything including us and thus we are also the universe. To get it, you basically abandon all ideas, including the words that may lead you to get it. Truth is, when a person is restricted by no idea, he is free to see all ideas.

The Chinese goes,

For academic learning, you gain each day.
For understanding Tao, you discard each day.

Another saying we have is that “true love can save the world.”

Now I say, true love arises out of the knowing (allowed by high levels of perspective) that another organism is a part of me as much as my heart is a part of me because our hearts exist as a part of us as much as we are a part of our hearts.

That is because, do you think we can walk around without our hearts?

It is my observation and feeling that the original intention of many religious and even philosophical frameworks — beyond their defined constitution, policy, and dogma — are tools to point us, or vehicles to get us to the essence of life and reality. Set aside what I think as “the essence of life and reality” for another day, let’s consider a boat analogy.

Various kinds of religions are different boats on a river. Let say we begin life on one side, and the other side is the land with the essence of life and reality.

My observation in present time is that…

Some people don’t see or simply ignore the boats.

Some people spend time just looking at the different boats and analyze the boats from the shore.

Some people got put on the boats.

Many people merely follow others onto the boats.

Many people feel the need to belong to a boat.

Majority of people think the boats are IT — the place to be.

Now, when people think their corresponding boat is IT, they just sit on the boat. They spend time remodeling, upgrading, making the boats more attractive for more people to hope on the boat because they believe the boat is the place to be, with well intention, I suppose.

But, there being so many boats (oh, so many ITs) that we are consciously or subconsciously all insecure and so then we get busy trying to convince each other that my boat is better than yours!

In worse case, we take the attitude that if you don’t agree and come on to our boat, we will F-in sink yours!

MEANWHILE, we forget that all boats share the same purpose and are truly useful in that they can carry you across the river… and only if you choose to use the boat for that intended purpose. (While I suppose we may lead an interesting discussion on how well each boat is made and whether they may sink… haha, anyways…)

As such, floating on this boat is never going to get us what we want when what we want is on the other side of the water. So we are eternally lost, forever dissatisfied, always feel like we are struggling and thus a need to fight. Doesn’t that describe how most people act and feel and how things are now?

Incidentally, unbeknownst to most, the meaning of “sin” from its Greek root is “to miss the point,” versus how we use it to mean violating some predefined moral conducts.

We seem to be missing the point of the boats.

Now, a great flaw lies within the boat analogy. The flaw in the analogy is the description of our life as a pursuit. The real pursuit when we finally get to the bottom of it, if one bothers to get to the bottom of it, is the opposite of pursuit.

To pursue is what we are taught and know and always do in life — which is an agenda mentality to move from point A to point B, whatever it takes.

The way I see is — peace, contentment, compassion, courage shall never bear fruits, except in pretense, in such pursuit.

In this world that is yet dictated by 19th centry Newtonian mechanics and Freudian psychological concept of libido, this powerful and refreshing excerpt from a lecture given by Carl Jung to a group of clergy provides hints.

Note: not answers.

Something to think about before launching a war (with drugs and psycho-analysis) against your own “libido” or some “wild unconsciousness”.
Something to think about before calling a fight against something “evil” out there from some “moral high ground”.
Something to think about before trying to save the world.

“People forget that even doctors have moral scruples and that certain patients’ confessions are hard even for a doctor to swallow. Yet the patient does not feel himself accepted unless the very worst in him is accepted too. No one can bring this about by mere words, it comes only through reflexion and through the doctors attitude towards himself and his own dark side.

If the doctor wants to guide another or even accompany him a step of the way, he must feel with that person’s psyche. He never feels it when he passes judgment. wether he puts his judgment into words or keeps them to himself makes not the slightest difference. To take the opposite position and to agree with the patient off-hand is also of no use, but estranges him as much as condemnation. This feeling comes only through unprejudiced objectivity.

This sounds almost like a scientific precept and it could be confused with a purely intellectual abstract attitude of mind, but what I mean is something quite different.

It is a human quality, a kind of deep respect for the facts, for the man who suffers from them, and for the riddle of such a man’s life. The truly religious person has this attitude: he knows that god has brought all sorts of strange and inconceivable things to pass and seeks in the most curious of ways to enter a mans heart. He therefore senses in everything the unseen presence of the divine will. This is what I mean by unprejudiced objectivity, it is a moral achievement on the part of the doctor, who ought not to be repelled by sickness and corruption.

We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses and I am the oppressor of the person I condemn, not his friend and fellow sufferer. I do not in the least mean to say that we must never pass judgment when we desire to help and improve, but if the doctor wishes to help a human being he must be able to accept him as he is, and he can do this in reality only when he has already seen and accepted himself as he is.

Perhaps this sounds very simple, but simple things are always the most difficult.

In actual life it requires the greatest art to be simple, and so acceptance of one’s self is the essence of the moral problem and the acid test of one’s whole outlook on life. That I feed the beggar, that I forgive an insult, that I love my enemy in the name of Christ; all these are undoubtedly great virtues. What I do unto the least of my brethren, that I do unto Christ.

But what if I should discover that the least amongst them all, the poorest of all beggars, the most imputed of all offenders, yay that the very fiend himself, that these are within me, and that I myself stand in need of my own kindness, that I myself am the enemy who must be loved, what then?

Then, as a rule, the whole truth of Christianity is reversed. there is then no more talk of love and long-suffering. We say to the brother within us: “raka!” and condemn and rage against ourselves. We hide him from the world, we deny ever having met this least of the lowly in ourselves, and had it been God himself who drew near to us in this despicable form, we should have denied him a thousand times before a single cock had crowed.”

Beyond hacking, beyond privacy, beyond other social issues, I find there is a bigger underlying trend that needs to be look at — the amount of feedback we receive because of all these inventions.

Let’s define feedback first. Feedback is an evaluative reaction or response to an originating process or activity.

We know feedback is useful for us to improve in whatever we are doing. Complicated machinary would always have a feedback system to adjust, adapt, and correct a subsequent action from the prior one.

Individually speaking, we have parents, friends, relatives, co-workers doing that.

But we are living in a modern world of technology, and in this society through the Internet and various other technology, we can get as many different feedback as there are people out there in the entire world. Thus an enormous amount of feedback.

That causes two perceivable problems.

1st one has to do with the amount of feedback rendering all the feedback completely useless. Just remember what happens when you put a microhpone to the speaker that its sound is coming out of. You get this unbearbly sharp, squealing sound becase you have created in infinite feedback loop. Our brilliant Internet and social networks can precisely create such a loop, and having too much feedback and having too much options are the same, where one gets completely confused.

2nd problem has to do with the quality of feedback. Feedback allows us to improve in so far that it is a constructive response. When one has as many response as there is Internet users out there, the quality naturally goes down the drain. Worse yet, when one takes them seriously, one likely becomes immobile because when someone who has many judges watching his every moves and beat him with a stick when he does wrong, he simply cannot move. Or, he can only move when everyone approves and we know that’s nearly impossible.

Applying the above perceivable problems that are currently affect every facets of our modern life — the individual, social, cultural, national, and finally global level — we have a world that is mostly confused and thus chaotic, and also a human social entity that is mostly unadaptive and unable to do what it needs to do.

I mentioned the above 2 problems without mentioning a key… issue. The media companies. Wherein if you add their “selling of drama through exaggeration and twisting of the facts” — be it news or TV programs — that serves to amplify the two said problems, it is only natural that the world is as absurd as it is now.

And we cannot blame the media companies either, because they do what they do only because it DOES sells.

One last observation is how we seem to find truth in only what has feedback coming from the news/media and the majority population connected by the Internet and technology. What has little to no feedback from those places, what cannot become famous, has no meaning and is not important. Is that truth?

Here ends my rant of the day :)

This post is more or less just an observation but is very much related to three posts from the past. You read and connect the dots :P

• Facing Solitute
• The Art of Doing Nothing
• Meditation is not about Meditation