Talk:Buddhism and Peer to Peer

From P2P Foundation
Revision as of 14:37, 25 September 2011 by Mbauwens (talk | contribs) (Created page with " 2 contributions via Facebook: =Larry Ely= I salute the development, the insight, that finally appreciates the dead end that both capitalism and communism produce -- both seen ...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2 contributions via Facebook:

Larry Ely

I salute the development, the insight, that finally appreciates the dead end that both capitalism and communism produce -- both seen as materialistic philosophies or religions or ultimate explanations of value systems. But to jump into Budd...hism from the wrong mindset (as merely an economist) is not to step out of the materialism that has just been found to be a dead end. That just imports the very thing you are trying to be free of. Buddhism has its own implied sense of economics or social value system. So one cannot get into Buddhism from the outside, as it were, as if it were some smorgasbord item you put on your plate as you walked down the counter while choosing morsels. The problem is being an economist first and foremost, as that field, subject, and training ground has been tainted with an implicit and unrecognized materialistic pallor given the secular context in which it arose in the still unsettled wars of religion in Christianity and the still unsettled detente amongst Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. A full resolution of this detente is required to really come to an understanding of economics. That's because economics has to do with one of the six polarities in the zodiac, the Taurus the Bull opposed Scorpio the Stinger polarity. But it also has to do with its brother polarity at right angles to the Taurus-Scorpio polarity, namely the Leo-Aquarius polarity, the polarity of happiness, kindness, altruism, brotherhood that the writer of the piece above is searching for. And what this all means is that one must understand the zodiac in order to understand economics. At the very same time, understanding the zodiac is the solution to the unsettled detente amongst Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which unsettled detente is the cause of so much unhappiness due to all the misallocation of resources, the wars, the hurt pride, and the harbored resentments that flow from it. What will finally be realized, actually, is that going to Buddhism is going backwards to a spiritual frame that is devoid of the essential elements that the Abraham sequence introduced in potentiality. Making the Abraham sequence actually count for something in the world is the way forward, and the zodiac is the key to this going forwards, which also will produce a true science of economics at the same time.

Nicolas Mendoza

Hi Larry, I am 'the writer of the piece'. Now, I just want to clarify that 'the piece' is actually just an abstract. The thesis itself will be published soon thanks to the P2P Foundation; I think it would be wise to hold these debates until... it is published because it seems to me that you are arguing with the thesis you imagine I wrote but not with the thesis I actually wrote. In these circumstances it is really hard for me to debate at all.

I would also like to clarify that I am not an economist, nor the thesis adopts the framework, or the mindset, of economics. I come from the fields of Media Studies/Cultural Studies. The idea, far from being to engage in a sort of competition between religions, is to contribute to the P2P knowledge pool by looking at an interesting alternative production model, which takes place in Buddhist communities. Contributions from all traditions, I am sure, is what the P2P movement needs. We need more experiments, more diversity.

Finally, I will briefly reply to your final comments about how 'going to Buddhism is going backwards'. I can comment on that because it is a comment not on my text but a general normative comment. It is not only a statement that limits rather than encourage thought, but also (and more politically concerning) a statement that simply negates the history, culture, and the very existence of a large portion of the world's population. A portion that, by the way, happens to be rising vigorously while the West declines. If one believes in a single timeline that only moves forward, now is the moment to at least stop to check to make sure what is actually 'ahead'. However, I don't think this linear view of man is useful to understand the world, and that we need to enjoy reality: multiple time, multiple divinity, multiple worlds.