teachers vs diy

I had a Skype lesson/session yesterday for the first time in a very long time. It was nice to get what I would call "validation" from someone who's been there, done that.
It was online, and it was good
Mike, I'm gonna come see you face to face in two weeks. Last time we met I was struck by how much you were just like "you," which is the you I know here online. I felt the same way meeting Tom a few weeks ago, and Kenneth Folk, and Vince Horn, and Gozen, and Hokai Sobol, and so on, and on. Some people are irresistibly drawn to creating characters and false personas in this online realm. Others are just who they are and that's one thing that's different about 99% of the folks in the online dharma scene. There is far less persona nonsense and a lot more gennuine-ness.

-cmarti

Yes, I felt the same way meeting you and then meeting Tom. The only surprise was that there was no surprise.

You raise some interesting points. I know I grew up in a lefty-hippie town where "don't tell me what to do" and "stick it to the man" and "free to be" were the mantras of the adults.

-ona

I was struck by this as I can't think of an entire town that has a consistent political point of view from person to person. Except maybe Bolinas, or Berkeley? Or is there some town on the east coast like that? Woodstock? Please reveal the town unless it violates your privacy.

I grew up in Orange County, CA and have always been shocked to here the entire county described as "right wing," and "conservative" when most of my friends growing up and their parents were center or liberal democrats. However, if you look at who the voters in the county over the years have sent to congress, then, okay, it seems pretty right wing.

I would love to meet with you guys! Too bad you're all crunchy west-coasters.

I would love to meet with you guys! Too bad you're all crunchy west-coasters.

-cruxdestruct

What does "crunchy" mean?



And, I'm in California, and I think Kate is as well, and then Ian and Jackson are in Portland. But Chris is in Chicago and I think Jake is in the midwest as well, and Florian is in Europe I'm pretty sure, Tomo is in wonderful Canada, Ona I have no idea, Michael is in New Mexico, Eran I don't know, Shargrol I don't know. Khara - Idaho.

Jake: "They will look back on our politicians arguing about the best way to "create jobs" and laugh in perplexity as we look back on scholastics arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."Chris: Why?

-cmarti

Gozen: There is more and more talk around the periphery of the economic debate about delinking jobs from work and work from overvall economic productivity due to automation and other factors. Some would argue that unemployment has become a structural feature of the high-tech economy and it will never go down to the "natural" 4% due to job-switching and temporary unemployment in an otherwise "full-employment" economy.

Here are a couple of links to check out:

Rushkoff on work without jobs:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/are-jobs-obsolete

Ford's book that addresses these questions: "Where will advancing technology, job automation, outsourcing and globalization lead? Is it possible that accelerating computer technology was a primary cause of the current global economic crisis—and that even more disruptive impacts lie ahead?"
http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/

What does "crunchy" mean? [image]And, I'm in California, and I think Kate is as well, and then Ian and Jackson are in Portland. But Chris is in Chicago and I think Jake is in the midwest as well, and Florian is in Europe I'm pretty sure, Tomo is in wonderful Canada, Ona I have no idea, Michael is in New Mexico, Eran I don't know, Shargrol I don't know. Khara - Idaho.

-michaelmonson

We should all meet in Boulder, CO next year for the 2012 Buddhist Geeks Conference!
Chris and Tomo and Vince and Kenneth and Hokai and Ron and I (did I forget anyone?) had a great time at the 2011 B-Geeks Conference. So next year, y'all come!

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/650602931/buddhist-geeks-conference-2012?ref=card

After watching that video, I think the main reason that I was never able to really connect with the pragmatic movement is that I can't stand the BG theme song.

"They will look back on our politicians arguing about the best way to "create jobs" and laugh in perplexity as we look back on scholastics arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Why?




-cmarti

Because creating jobs is a political point that all politicians agree about, only debating the how. But this is absurd considering that in terms of our actual, factual situation, we will always be losing work (at least, work as we currently know it) as long as technology continues to unfold naturally, which it seems to be doing despite our best efforts to control it.

There is and will continue to be less and less work needed to achieve more and more results; that's what technology IS. As the inventor, geometer, engineer and thinker Buckminster Fuller put it, technology IS "doing more with less". I think stepping back and looking at how technology has unfolded since emerging widely at the beginning of the industrial revolution shows this pretty clearly. So it follows (and is observable in long term trends) that while we can and should, as a society, foster the emergence of work that is purposeful, meaningful and beneficial to all concerned, we need to also acknowledge that there will be less and less of what we consider "work" now as time goes on, which means either fewer jobs or less time in the work week.
A simple example of how our cultural perspectives on work (including the cultures of economists and politicians) are... well.... ahem... superstitious and taboo ridden! ---

we interpret surplus as scarcity. having more than enough to survive on is interpreted in basic economic theory as 'scarcity'.

manifesting an economy which is driven by this delusion and its consequent obsession with "growth" for the past few hundreds of years, we have actually begun (with the waste from this process of obsessive growth based on a neurotic mis-reading of surplus as scarcity) to render what were once simply the natural, stable background processes of our ecological activity (fresh water and fresh air, open spaces, rich soils, healthy herds of animals) threatened! So now people are beginning to have to pay for fresh air, for example, in places like Mexico City.

This is all happening because surplus IS surplus, not scarcity, and although having more than the bare necessities does mean we need a way to distribute those surpluses in a fair way, it will be difficult for us to even begin to consider what "fair" might mean while we're saddled with this basic delusion (that more than enough = scarcity, and hence, we need to have even more of enough (growth) forever.)

So this is why i said that in the future, these topics which seem to be "serious" to our current culture-- how to create "jobs" being a central concern-- in the future these topics will be seen in the way that we look at scholastic theological arguments, as debates about metaphysics, debates about ideological visions, riddled with taboos, superstitions, and dogma and yet in their own time, appearing to be sensible and even crucial topics. In their own time, seen as to do with objective actualities, but in retrospect, seen to be to do with fantasies and strong feelings, habits of identity, and patterns of mythic culture giving shape to societies.

Does that make any more sense now?

"Because creating jobs is a political point that all politicians agree
about, only debating the how. But this is absurd considering that in
terms of our actual, factual situation, we will always be losing work
(at least, work as we currently know it) as long as technology continues
to unfold naturally, which it seems to be doing despite our best
efforts to control it."

Keep in mind that sometimes there is a perception that there is less work needed because of technology, when in fact the "work" has simply been moved to an unseen location.

For example if I mow my lawn with a machete, the "work" involved includes the metallurgy and labor to create the machete and ship it to me; the work needed to earn the $14 for the machete; my calories burned, fueled by the food I eat.

If I mow my lawn with a power mower, the "work" includes the labor and materials to manufacture and ship the mower; the collection, refinement and shipping of the gasoline/oil to run it; the work I had to do to earn the money to pay the hundreds of dollars for the mower; and so forth. I don't have to work as hard personally, but the work is still being done, just out of my sight.

Further on economics -- the notion of a "happiness based society" is all well and good and a great long term goal in my opinion. Problem is, in this country most people think it's just more hippie, leftist, greenie bullshit and have no intention of ever heading in that direction or, worse, voting to get us there. So the real issue is how the f*ck do we get out of this box?

-cmarti

I think you've put your finger on the central problem, Chris. The sorts of changes that would need to happen in order to switch over our economic system to something both sustainable and happiness/healthful, are massive and totally opposite the current mode of thinking in the mainstream. No political party of any note is advocating for this. No political figure of any note outside of any political party is calling for it either. There are a few, small, leftie organizations that do, but they are so far outside the mass media mainstream as to be invisible, such as U.S. Big which advocates a basic income guarantee url=http://www.usbig.net/index.php]http://www.usbig.net/index.php[/url and YES magainze url=http://www.yesmagazine.org/]http://www.yesmagazine.org/[/url.

If I can just add one other note. I'm living in Brazil right now. There are millions of things done here every day that are "green" that are "reduce/reuse/recycle". Why? Because that's all people can afford. The bus driver hanging a newspaper from his sun-shade to improve the shade. The guy trimming a hedge with hand shears. The woman hanging laundry to dry in the sun. The farmer eating a home-grown chicken. The cook putting leftovers in a reusable metal container instead of disposable plastic. People walking from the grocery store...not because it's "eco-friendly" or they want the exercise; because they can't afford the bus and don't own a car.

So ironically when we have plenty, we are happy to talk about how good it would be to have less and how romantic to live more simply. When we don't have much - when poverty is not a choice - we wish we could have all those time saving devices, gadgets, tools and fun, pretty things the rich have.

Even my grandparents saved and reused - jam jars got used for drinking glasses or storage, rubber bands were saved for reuse, clothing was patched and handed down.

Would you send your kids to school in patched handed down clothes? Or is that too embarrassing? There are towns in the US where you actually are not allowed to hang your clothes out to dry or put an old sofa on the front porch, because it looks poor.

Our relationship to money, stuff, wealth, poverty, etc. is really really complicated.

Wow... this conversation really exploded while I was at the Vet! hahaha
okay, I'll read over all your interesting comments before i jump back in with anything else. Sorry I didn't see all those posts that hadn't updated in my browser before my last post.

Let me just add, that while this is an interesting tangent, I didn't think my point would be all that controversial, and I saw it as just one component of a response to some stuff you were saying, Zach and Mike, which i found interesting. I only mentioned it because it seems directly, intimately related to the way in which we westerners are assimilating dharma. And as the globe is being westernized, the issue of how western/modern humans assimilate and transmit dharma is pretty freakin important methinks.

". I think stepping back and looking at how technology has unfolded since emerging widely at the beginning of the industrial revolution shows this pretty clearly."

At what point does this huge transition occur, and at what cost? It won't just "happen" magically one day. It will be accompanied by massive upheaval, methinks.


-cmarti

What do you mean? I'm confused; isn't it evident from what i've already written that I'm saying this transition is ALREADY HAPPENING and has been for a few hundred years?

And at what cost is it occuring? I woulld say that the way we are navigating these changes is incurring massive costs in the form of human suffering world-around. We need to collectively meet the challenge with new ideas and new practices and new formulations of meaning, and yet mainstream politicians fall back on platitudes about creating jobs and debate whether that's better accomplished by the private or public sector instead of looking at how to generally increase quality of life and meaningful relationships and life activity.

Zach, your response to my post was more or less what I expected, like: "oh yeah, that makes sense-- 'culture lag', right." I'll need to carefully look at some of the other responses so I can understand the ways in which my position is being interpreted as it seems that more and different is being read into it than I intended.

The key concept I presented is that many of the themes of mainstream politics such as "creating jobs" are examples of culture lag. Practices, meanings and experiences that once made sense no longer track to what's actually happening, and consequently decision makers (whether voters or their representatives) are making decisions and debating options in a way that's fundamentally disconnected from actual things that are happening. Predictably, this has bad results

So ironically when we have plenty, we are happy to talk about how good it would be to have less and how romantic to live more simply. When we don't have much - when poverty is not a choice - we wish we could have all those time saving devices, gadgets, tools and fun, pretty things the rich have.
Even my grandparents saved and reused - jam jars got used for drinking glasses or storage, rubber bands were saved for reuse, clothing was patched and handed down.



-ona

Well, maybe. i actually would like to simplify my consumption though and not for romantic reasons. And I'm drinking water out of what was once a pickle jar right now, and my son is wearing hand me downs For that matter fifty percent of my clothes are used, and not from fancy used clothes boutiques for hipsters (not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Yeah, no problem! I'm at the mercy of these processes too. I live in Vermont and there is a small population in our state. People have strong old fashioned values and or a lot of baby-boomer-hippy types; in both cases, these sorts of folks tend to hold onto jobs, so there's low unemployment but very very few opportunities.

For the record, I think that government has a huge roll to play in this process, I just think you've nailed it in referencing the "information gap" which is blocking good collective decision making amongst voters and our representatives alike. Government by and for the people is only effective and beneficial when the people are well informed, reasonable, and willing to do what it takes.

I work with blue collar people everyday. Yes, they watch a lot of fox news and cnn and hence are pretty poorly informed. But the reasonableness is there in most folks, as is the willingness. The basic issue is information I think. Finding ways to spread information and create new ways of making meaning, new practices, and so on in non-threatening ways.

For example there's a guy I work with who is pretty outspoken in his anti-liberalism. I had a few conversation with him last year in a non-threatening way, talking about ecology, sociology and economics in down to earth terms that he could relate too-- in other words, in relation to his everyday desires and fears. I was trying to illuminate how those everyday cares of his related to a bigger picture by taking out the political BS that emanates from both sides of the spectrum and just sharing information without ideology. This spring he proudly informed me that he sold his old snowmobile and purchased a new one which gets far better gas mileage although it is a bit less powerful, explaining that he didn't really need the power and that saving a few gallons of gas here and there was a benefit to his wallet and the planet.

I notice he assiduously uses the recycling containers now at work too, something he used to make fun of people for doing as he pointedly disposed of everything in trash cans. It's funny because he used to be one of those "global warming is a conspiracy, we should burn more fossil fuels, wind power is for pussies" types, and seemed to love getting into "debates" with "liberals" (who generally seemed to love getting in "debates" with him). I don't like that sort of thing so i just gave my normal rap about how the big picture is a lot simpler than politicians make it out to be and the way they frame debates doesn't make much sense when seen in the big picture, and although their rhetoric plays on our hopes and fears, it doesn't address our situation pragmatically. Of course, I don't know that our conversation had this effect on him. But somehow he changed his behaviors and the way he believes life works, and perhaps our interaction was a small part of that.

Well, maybe. i actually would like to simplify my consumption though and not for romantic reasons. And I'm drinking water out of what was once a pickle jar right now, and my son is wearing hand me downs For that matter fifty percent of my clothes are used, and not from fancy used clothes boutiques for hipsters (not that there's anything wrong with that.)



-jake

My point being though, that your attitude towards that is that you are making choices to simplify your consumption, rather than not having any choice, right? Even the choice of how much you are happy earning is different when it's a choice (ie you come from a background that would allow you to get the education and a higher earning job if you wished to) versus what you are stuck with (because you can't read, never graduated high school, come from a minority that isn't allowed equal access in your region, or other reasons).

Yes. If you're just saying that in other parts of the world, or in other sub-cultures here in America, there are fewer options available, well yeah, of course! It's up to each one to try to balance their daily life with the big picture in a way that optimizes benefit for all, including themselves and their loved ones.

As it stands, it seems like those in developed countries must choose over the coming decades whether or not to simplify their lives and reclaim deep human values such as friendship, family, meaningful work, physical and spiritual health and well-being and so on while dropping the consumerist set of values and behaviors as best they can. In undeveloped countries (those which have traditionally been mere resource baskets for the original modern nations) the issue over the next several decades will be: how do we modernize? How do we emerge from poverty?

These two questions can even be answered together. I think many lucky to have been born in developed nations will find meaningful work helping developing nations to find their way into the 21st century and beyond in ways that make the most of current technologies and thus hopefully skip a lot of the awful dangers associated with fossil-fuel based growth, consumerist culture, and the damage to the ecological and cultural habitats that come from these (natural but) unnecessary quirks of western history.

Of course, there's no guarantees here; things will happen however they happen based on the choices individuals make which add up to history. I just think it's lovely how these two challenges-- the challenge finding meaning and integrity and simplicity facing Westerners, and the challenge rising out of poverty and the hangover of ten thousand years of subsistence agriculture and a few hundred years of ruthless colonial exploitation facing the developing nations-- how these two challenges could dovetail so nicely in a mutual move towards a better world for our grandchildren.

For a spiritual practice, Buddhist or not, the model of a central teacher(s) in a flesh and blood community functioning as "buddha dharma sangha" can and will probably still work for some people sometimes, though that community most of the time in order to be healthy and vital will have to be open to technology and information coming in and out in all kinds of modern/digital ways.
And, the hierarchy and organization better be healthy/egalitarian/proscribed/legal or it will just turn in against itself eventually. (Just go to the websites of two apparently vibrant communities -- SFZC and Spirit Rock and look at the rules and bylaws and checks and balances developed over the years)

As well, I think that there already is and will continue to be a model of humans with a committed home practice who get most of their instruction and sense of sangha/community from the internet and skype, etc. supplemented with intermittent in person meetings, attendance at retreats, etc. People can get very wise this way -- I've seen it and so have you.

And, any human can have original insights and develop great wisdom and compassion and intimacy with little or no interaction with a tradition, a teaching, a teacher, a community. Or just within a cultural/religious context -- some of the wisest, most compassionate people I know I met through being involved in various churches.

Now, as usual I haven't worked all this out yet, I'm thinking out loud in a way. My next point is newly forming --

I just don't think that most of us are really able any more to give ouselves over to the authority of a teacher or guru -- or even a specific tradition/institution for that matter. Sure, we may us people for the expertise and instruction they may provide. But I think we know too much about each other now. Humans and their products and inventions and activities have been deconstructed and are constantly being destructed right before our eyes. This isn't a bad thing, but it seems like it is what is happening. Instead of looking for a new version of Buddhism or Christianity or any religion/tradition, I think what we might need to embrace is the end of all that and the beginning of something (some things) that are completely new.

and, of course, I am certain that all of this is already being said (better) by other people all over the place