The 14 Worst Corporatations

farfromglorified · July 2006

angelica wrote:

We can integrate good and evil and have the truth and information with which to make informed, healthy, empowered decisions from. Enlightenment is about doing so--it is about going beyond being polarised between sides and to being realistically informed and understanding in each moment.

Dwight_Eisenhower wrote:

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

It is through the "integration" of evil that security and liberty become at odds with one another.

angelica · July 2006

surferdude wrote:

It sounds like all you've done is switched to a matriarchal power base. Then acted like it has solved all your problems. I'd suggest moving to a human power base where the sex of the person doesn't matter.

First of all, if you have a patriarchal society, there is going to be it's opposite pole within said society as a natural balance mechanism. The yin and yang contain seeds of one another.

I paid many a price for being raised in my matriarchal family, especially in the patriarchal world where men want to be at the top of the pecking order. In the male hierarchal structure, men seek the top of the pecking order over men--they sure get all power-imbalanced when a woman comes along and can intellectually challenge that power. I don't claim my matriarchal background was "healthy" or balanced at all. It was, though, my personal saving grace for strength ultimately, because despite my problems I've known I could do as well as any male intellectually, or in a debate, or whatever. I'm not intimidated by male power structures at all, and actually, I have a strong competitive nature--stronger than many males I know. I was taught to be logical as a kid, and to discard my emotions, so I was taught how to operate in a "man's world".

Rather than accept the natural move towards male domination in my relationships, my strength has forced the males I've known to treat me equally. Much like happens on this board. I do not seek to dominate--I seek the even playing field. It is the power that is willing to be highly potent but voluntarily meet in the middle that will solve the worlds problems. The hierarchal-dominate energy is continually causing the unsolvability of our problems. Silly us, we believe the past few thousand years history indicates certain things to us, when the reality is that it teaches us a thing or two about what good patriarchy gets us: namely war, separation and imbalance.

I agree that balanced humanity is the goal. I know it will be achieved when the unempowered stop accepting a lack of power and meet the hierarchical structure in the middle, and refuse to back down. As I have done. Balance will not be achieved continuing hierarchy. And continuing hierarchy and patriarchy will continue to spawn it's opposites to rise up in battle.

My boyfriend's sister-in-law is a chemical engineer. Her husband received 2nd top marks in his class and she got 3rd top when they graduated. However, she was unable to find a job in the field for over a decade after graduation. She had also been raised to believe in her power, and was a gifted student as a child. However, her potential contribution was shoved aside for years while she figured out how to achieve equal power in a male dominated world--one that is often threatened by allowing women to hold the power, and especially when women tend to come with emotional and intutitive intelligences the male power structure finds scary, and alien. Men are taught to subdue such intelligences in their own selves, so when women appear on the scene with these intelligences they find the compelling need to pathologise them, or to somehow find a minimised view to define them by.

mammasan · July 2006

I have always found these discussions about racial and even gender equality to be interesting. The problem really is two fold. On one hand there still is an unlevel playing field in this country and wether you acknowledge it or not white males have the advantage. The second part of the problem is that a portion of the minorities in this country have this feeling of entitlement. That just because they are a minority they feel that society owes them something. Unfortunetly that is the farthest thing from the truth. Women and minorities can achieve anything in this country but unfortunetly they have to work harder at it. A poor black kid from the ghetto starts off at a disadvantage than say his white counterpart in an affluent neighborhood. The white child will have a far greater opportunity to receive a better education simply because the school he attends will have better qualified teachers and more funding. That child may not have to face the hardships of living in poverty or in a high crime neighborhood, which can be a huge distraction to a child's education. The child who lives in the ghetto will have to work twice as hard to accomplish what his/her counter part does. Now this doesn't mean that they can't. Minorities, especially the one's who have this feeling of entitlement, need to realize that life is not easy and just because the government may be willing to support you doesn't mean that everyone else in life will hand you what you want on a silver platter. You have to work for it and chances are you will have to work even harder than most people. I grew up one of 5 children. My parents where Cuban immigrants who came to this country without a pot to piss in. I grew up in a shitty section of Newark, NJ. I faced hardship, I faced discrimination, but not untill I attended a private high school in a predominetly white neighborhood, but I still strived. I was the first in my family to attend and graduate college. Minorities need to realize that hardwork is the only way you will lift yourself up. You can voice your displeasure with the inequalities within the system, try to fix them, but don't just sit back and expect life to offer you up a freebie simply because that inequality exists.

angelica · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

It is through the "integration" of evil that security and liberty become at odds with one another.

I see you put the word integration in quotes.

When something is at odds with another thing, we do not have integration--we still have separation, not synthesis and wholeness. We only come to understand integration when we learn what it truly is. That is beyond knowing intellectually--it is about KNOWing experientially, therefore truly knowing. When we fully integrate good and evil, and have understanding, we'll know it.

AND THIS PROCESS BEGINS WITH ALERTING AND INFORMING THE CITIZENRY.

angelica · July 2006

surferdude wrote:

It sounds like all you've done is switched to a matriarchal power base. Then acted like it has solved all your problems. I'd suggest moving to a human power base where the sex of the person doesn't matter.

I would like to point out that you thought I meant being raised in a matriarchal fashion solved all my problems. Did you miss the post about my unempowered life?

Notice that you figured that because I was literally equal to the normal patriarchal structures that generally exist in life due to a matriarchal background, that you felt I had it made. When all it really did is give me the same equal footing you have in life. It certainly didn't pave any roads for me. And quite frankly, I've very fortunate I had that equal footing when attempting to deal with the male society that raped and abused me numerous times. Now imagine the women who do not have the sense of equal footing to begin with--the majority of women. If you automatically falsely assumed, despite what I've said about my past, that my problems were solved based on my family power structure and the dominant role of women, by that logic, you must surely understand how the average woman is at a distinct disadvantage to men who have the patriarchy advantage in our society.

surferdude · July 2006

angelica wrote:

I would like to point out that you thought I meant being raised in a matriarchal fashion solved all my problems. Did you miss the post about my unempowered life?

Notice that you figured that because I was literally equal to the normal patriarchal structures that generally exist in life due to a matriarchal background, that you felt I had it made. When all it really did is give me the same equal footing you have in life. It certainly didn't pave any roads for me. And quite frankly, I've very fortunate I had that equal footing when attempting to deal with the male society that raped and abused me numerous times. Now imagine the women who do not have the sense of equal footing to begin with--the majority of women. If you automatically falsely assumed, despite what I've said about my past, that my problems were solved based on my family power structure and the dominant role of women, by that logic, you must surely understand how the average woman is at a distinct disadvantage to men who have the patriarchy advantage in our society.

There is hugely higher proportion of violence towards male in the world than women. But we just discount the violence towards men, seemingly because it is largely done by men. In a world where equality is the goal we have accepted that a man hitting a man is almost okay, but a man hitting a woman is unacceptable. We mostly seem to excuse a woman hitting a man, or severely discount this act.
Imagine what it's like being raped, abused and assaulted numerous times then being told you are part of an overly advantaged, domineering group.

farfromglorified · July 2006

angelica wrote:

I see you put the word integration in quotes.

When something is at odds with another thing, we do not have integration--we still have separation, not synthesis and wholeness. We only come to understand integration when we learn what it truly is. That is beyond knowing intellectually--it is about KNOWing experientially, therefore truly knowing. When we fully integrate good and evil, and have understanding, we'll know it.

Yes...and the original quote my statement was in response to suggested that security and liberty are at odds. Hence my response.

AND THIS PROCESS BEGINS WITH ALERTING AND INFORMING THE CITIZENRY.

Yes it does. Fully.

angelica · July 2006

surferdude wrote:

There is hugely higher proportion of violence towards male in the world than women. But we just discount the violence towards men, seemingly because it is largely done by men. In a world where equality is the goal we have accepted that a man hitting a man is almost okay, but a man hitting a woman is unacceptable. We mostly seem to excuse a woman hitting a man, or severely discount this act.
Imagine what it's like being raped, abused and assaulted numerous times then being told you are part of an overly advantaged, domineering group.

You didn't acknowledge the point I made: that if you assumed because I was raised martriarchally, it gave me an advantage, when really it puts me somewhat equal against the average man, then what does that say to the average woman who is raised to play woman to the dominant man and his dominating ideas?

I realise men have a ton of problems. The main one that comes to mind is by squashing their emotions and intuitive intelligence, they end up losing balance in the system to the degree of dying much younger than women counterparts! That's huge, not to mention the day to day existence of squashing major parts of one--I know, it is very draining--it sucks the life from you. I realise it is very few men who uncover authentic power, and it's not people like farfromglorified who run businesses. I may be wrong, but from what know, he's not the filthy rich and a real power broker.

I don't discount the abuses towards men. I do realise society does. It makes me ill when I see men continually conditioned to squash their own emotions, experiences etc. I do not do that to my own son. I teach him about balance. In the big view, it is a huge imbalance and men are also victims of this patriarchal society.

Like came up in Abook's other thread the other day--men are taught to be logical and discount their intuition (or inner spirit) and then are held accountable for all the abuses such power structures perpetuate. In this life and the one beyond.

angelica · July 2006

Yes it does. Fully.

Sorry, I don't buy this. Each person has their part of the puzzle. Ultimately, life is sythesised and a group effort. Each person will take up their own piece. Abook is not responsible for knowing all of reality when she starts this thread, and neither is El Kabong when he posts. Rather each are responsible for their own specialty--what they see that they interpret needs being said and done. It's called free will. You cannot speak for what their vision needs to be.

When you do, it sounds like a lack of boundary, whereupon you see your own contribution and confuse things, assuming it "should" be their "missing pieces".

farfromglorified · July 2006

angelica wrote:

Sorry, I don't buy this. Each person has their part of the puzzle. Ultimately, life is sythesised and a group effort. Each person will take up their own piece. Abook is not responsible for knowing all of reality when she starts this thread, and neither is El Kabong when he posts. Rather each are responsible for their own specialty--what they see that they interpret needs being said and done. It's called free will. You cannot speak for what their vision needs to be.

I don't speak for what anyone's vision needs to be. I expect them to tell me what their vision is. When they do, I simply hold their own words to their own vision. If there's a disconnect, I'm going to question either the vision or the words.

When you do, it sounds like a lack of boundary, whereupon you see your own contribution and confuse things, assuming it "should" be their "missing pieces".

My apologies for confusing anything.

angelica · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes...and the original quote my statement was in response to suggested that security and liberty are at odds. Hence my response.

Here is the quote:

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Here are your responses: "You cannot "mesh" good and evil, friend, without ending up with evil." ... "It is through the "integration" of evil that security and liberty become at odds with one another."

It looks like the original quote suggested that information and knowledge integrates security and liberty that they may prosper together.

It appears you believe that such ideas of integration leave you with conflict. I assert that is because you don't understand integration because you are still fighting for separation.

angelica · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

I don't speak for what anyone's vision needs to be. I expect them to tell me what their vision is. When they do, I simply hold their own words to their own vision. If there's a disconnect, I'm going to question either the vision or the words.

My apologies for confusing anything.

No apologies necessary, and yet I appreciate the sentiment.

From my view, it sometimes looks like you are holding them to your idea of what their vision is, because sometimes I see that you are not getting their vision. That is not to say that we all don't have flaws, inconsistencies. Of course, call people out when you see a "flaw".... I see different communication/personality styles underlying some of these lacks in understanding, for the most part and not as much "flaws".

farfromglorified · July 2006

angelica wrote:

Here is the quote:

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Here are your responses: "You cannot "mesh" good and evil, friend, without ending up with evil." ... "It is through the "integration" of evil that security and liberty become at odds with one another."

It looks like the original quote suggested that information and knowledge integrates security and liberty that they may prosper together.

It looks like the original quotes suggests that the "huge industrial military machinery of defense" can lead to liberty. It cannot. The "huge industrial military machinery of defense" is a weapon. And the use of a weapon involves someone holding it, and someone facing it. The "integration" of those truths creates one man with security, the other without. The "integration" of those truths creates one man with liberty, the other without. The machinery of defense is the machinery of oppression and of death. Oppression and death cannot mean liberty, cannot mean security for those who are oppressed and those who die. Do you understand this?

It appears you believe that such ideas of integration leave you with conflict. I assert that is because you don't understand integration because you are still fighting for separation.

You may assert whatever you wish. Perhaps if you could explain, then you might match your own vision.

farfromglorified · July 2006

angelica wrote:

From my view, it sometimes looks like you are holding them to your idea of what their vision is,

This is true. I do hold others to what my idea of their vision is. I have no other choice. It is my hope that my idea of their vision and their actual vision are consistent.

because sometimes I see that you are not getting their vision. That is not to say that we all don't have flaws, inconsistencies. Of course, call people out when you see a "flaw".... I see different communication/personality styles underlying some of these lacks in understanding, for the most part and not as much "flaws".

Fair enough.

angelica · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

It looks like the original quotes suggests that the "huge industrial military machinery of defense" can lead to liberty. It cannot. The "huge industrial military machinery of defense" is a weapon. And the use of a weapon involves someone holding it, and someone facing it. The "integration" of those truths creates one man with security, the other without. The "integration" of those truths creates one man with liberty, the other without. The machinery of defense is the machinery of oppression and of death. Oppression and death cannot mean liberty, cannot mean security for those who are oppressed and those who die. Do you understand this?

I agree with the basics of what you are saying and I agree with that spirit wholeheartedly. I also understand that there is a prevalant idea in the consciousness of humankind which says at the very least, "if I am in danger, I will defend myself". (that concept might be familiar to you.....)

I think this base idea creates a lot of chaos and illusionary power struggles, including fake reasons for war (Iraq)

I don't have all the answers, myself, but I understand that looking to get rid of the poles of left/right, American/other, good/evil, we can demystify what our hidden emotions have distorted and move to true understanding of life--reconnection with what is real and natural. We can then see the big picture. I happen to know true integration is about entirely Love. Period. And about life in flow. When we integrate to that level of undertanding our dichotomies resolve themselves. We find ourselves left with no choice but to align to love in each moment.

You may assert whatever you wish. Perhaps if you could explain, then you might match your own vision.

You constantly argue for the basics of the dichotomies, for example self vs. other. While it is entirely relevent to do so, and someone has to, it is still arguing in the details, rather than operating from commitment to the integrated whole. By doing so, you have a factual point of view, however it is different than learning to become savvy with integration and resolution. You pride yourself on your "self-centeredness" and lack of integrating the whole. As one of my favourite authors says: Whatever we focus on expands. If you focus on the conflicting opposites, you are not focussing on the perfection of the integrated opposites. It's as natural to your personality as breathing. What would be a mistake would be to have a pygmalion complex and to believe that such a way should be for everyone. And I'm not saying you do so, it's just that we humans often scoff at what is different and what we don't understand. Worse yet is when we think we are "right" over that which we do not understand.

Anyway, with the quote, you honed in on the details and the part aobut separation and you don't seem to have a clue what true integration might be excepting maybe some "imaginary, pie-in-the-sky-"unrealistic" ideal. But, I'll accept that, because you do bring your valid logic around and you show a reasonable amount of Love and goodwill towards us "flaky, unrealistic" types, and really, in the end, it's quite clear you are one of us and part of the whole. Like if this were the real world, we're all obviously "hanging out" together.

angelica · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

This is true. I do hold others to what my idea of their vision is. I have no other choice. It is my hope that my idea of their vision and their actual vision are consistent.

Sometimes I see that with 5 or 10 hours of logical debate, you might be allowed a peek into what these kinds of agendas are really about. You and I have resolved some of those opposites. I know if you understood, you'd be behind them 100%. I also appreciate that you are wired upside-down and backwards to how we are, and I trust it is for a perfect reason we are each different. And I hope we can all come to trust more, the real purposes to these debates.

farfromglorified · July 2006

angelica wrote:

I agree with the basics of what you are saying and I agree with that spirit wholeheartedly. I also understand that there is a prevalant idea in the consciousness of humankind which says at the very least, "if I am in danger, I will defend myself". (that concept might be familiar to you.....)

Every person who loves life has a moral obligation to defend their life in the face of direct aggression. But to defend your own life does not grant you the right to destroy another. And to define aggression as defense is the greatest moral mistake a government can make.

Liberty is the measure of a man's freedom from the state. You cannot increase that man's liberty by obligating him to the defense of others nor can you increase that man's liberty by pointing your weapons of "defense" at him for actions free of aggression. Furthermore, you decrease that man's liberty by assigning to him the state's "methods and goals", even if those "methods and goals" contradict his own.

Security is the measure of a man's freedom from aggression. You cannot increase that man's security by pitting him against his neighbors nor can you increase that man's security by subjecting him to the very aggression you pretend to reject.

I think this base idea creates a lot of chaos and illusionary power struggles, including fake reasons for war (Iraq)

YES!!!

I don't have all the answers, myself, but I understand that looking to get rid of the poles of left/right, American/other, good/evil, we can demystify what our hidden emotions have distorted and move to true understanding of life--reconnection with what is real and natural. We can then see the big picture. I happen to know true integration is about entirely Love. Period. And about life in flow. When we integrate to that level of undertanding our dichotomies resolve themselves. We find ourselves left with no choice but to align to love in each moment.

You constantly argue for the basics of the dichotomies, for example self vs. other. While it is entirely relevent to do so, and someone has to, it is still arguing in the details, rather than operating from commitment to the integrated whole. By doing so, you have a factual point of view, however it is different than learning to become savvy with integration and resolution. You pride yourself on your "self-centeredness" and lack of integrating the whole. As one of my favourite authors says: Whatever we focus on expands. If you focus on the conflicting opposites, you are not focussing on the perfection of the integrated opposites. It's as natural to your personality as breathing. What would be a mistake would be to have a pygmalion complex and to believe that such a way should be for everyone. And I'm not saying you do so, it's just that we humans often scoff at what is different and what we don't understand. Worse yet is when we think we are "right" over that which we do not understand.

Anyway, with the quote, you honed in on the details and the part aobut separation and you don't seem to have a clue what true integration might be excepting maybe some "imaginary, pie-in-the-sky-"unrealistic" ideal. But, I'll accept that, because you do bring your valid logic around and you show a reasonable amount of Love and goodwill towards us "flaky, unrealistic" types, and really, in the end, it's quite clear you are one of us and part of the whole. Like if this were the real world, we're all obviously "hanging out" together.

This is all good.

angelica · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Every person who loves life has a moral obligation to defend their life in the face of direct aggression. But to defend your own life does not grant you the right to destroy another. And to define aggression as defense is the greatest moral mistake a government can make.

Liberty is the measure of a man's freedom from the state. You cannot increase that man's liberty by obligating him to the defense of others nor can you increase that man's liberty by pointing your weapons of "defense" at him for actions free of aggression. Furthermore, you decrease that man's liberty by assigning to him the state's "methods and goals", even if those "methods and goals" contradict his own.

Security is the measure of a man's freedom from aggression. You cannot increase that man's security by pitting him against his neighbors nor can you increase that man's security by subjecting him to the very aggression you pretend to reject.

It looks like you've got your personal perspective worked out. To me it's all just details.

YES!!!

"I think this base idea creates a lot of chaos and illusionary power struggles, including fake reasons for war (Iraq)"

I feel this way about the vibe you carry when you carry a gun as well. Our subconscious info hangs all around us to connect with the subconsciouses of others--we connect via those subconscious contracts. Beware self-fulfilling prophecies. Oh, and this goes for fighting for separation, too. Fighting for anything is still fighting. What was this thread about again???

farfromglorified · July 2006

angelica wrote:

It looks like you've got your personal perspective worked out. To me it's all just details.

It is all just details. The "industrial military machinery of defense" is also just a detail. Sometimes details kill you.

"I think this base idea creates a lot of chaos and illusionary power struggles, including fake reasons for war (Iraq)"

I feel this way about the vibe you carry when you carry a gun as well. Our subconscious info hangs all around us to connect with the subconsciouses of others--we connect via those subconscious contracts. Beware self-fulfilling prophecies. Oh, and this goes for fighting for separation, too. Fighting for anything is still fighting. What was this thread about again???

Fighting for anything is still fighting! The gun I carry is an acceptance of that fact, not a rejection of it. Understand why I carry a gun yet? Understand what I meant by this statement yet:

farfromglorified wrote:

I own a gun. Why? To defend myself in the situation where my choice is simple: my life or my mind. My gun is not a tool of fear. It has no purpose in the face of another. It has only the purpose to defend my life, in and only in the event that it is necessary.

El_Kabong · July 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes it does. Fully.

i thought you said before that would be impossible?

The 14 Worst Corporatations

Comments

Categories