Essay: It Hurts.

[GoodPersonEffed]

There's something that's bothering me and it's going to keep bothering me until I write about it. I feel hurt inside over this, and anger, and a deep offendedness, and hopelessness, and just wanting to give up over humanity while also wanting to hold it and make it better, but I can't, and that's what defeats me.

It has to do with manipulation and lying, and with the profane.

The first thing that recently bothered me was reading Bill Clinton's claim that he reads the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius once a year.

If you've never read any of the Meditations, they were the journals of the last great Roman emperor, a Stoic philosopher, as reminders to himself to remain in his ethics no matter how great the tempetations or challenges he faced. His greatest interest as an emperor was in his work regarding justice.

I admit I'm on a high horse and pointing down with a sneer and an accusatory finger in judgment when I say I am disgusted by Clinton. He's so slick, he almost slides uphill. He is manipulative, wormy, all about the appearance, and whatever substance he has is overshadowed by his sleazy criminality and baseness.

I wonder if he even reads the Meditations, and if he does, why? They were the personal ethical guidelines of a great leader who made conscious and continuous effort to keep his ego in check and to put others first, the exact opposite of Clinton. So why make such a claim? Is it virtue signaling? Is it just another element to his facade? Does he get off on the profanity of the claim? Does he read the Meditations to study how ethical people function so that he can find their weak points and exploit them? Because manipulators do that.

I am almost viscerally disgusted by this. Another Stoic philosopher, Seneca, said, "One who roams through the universe will never weary of the truth; it is the false things that will bring on disgust." Being scapgoated and gaslighted from my earliest years, I have never stopped being shocked at what is false, have increasingly loved the truth, and am at a point where the false seems to be so rampantly, blatantly overrunning society that I can't stand it. As I read Stoic writings and other historical works and works of historical fiction, I recognize that it always has. I thought humans would have evolved further than that, yet I think this is perhaps the most disgusting, lowest point in history. Even organizations that are meant to help seem to be fronts for abusive social engineering. I feel like there is nowhere to escape to anywhere on the planet.

The second thing that recently bothered me has to do with the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who was a political prisoner under house arrest for 15 years in Burma, now Myanmar. She eventually was released and became the equivalent of prime minister.

This week, I read a collection of her writings, published while she was still under house arrest the same year she won the Nobel, titled Freedom From Fear and Other Writings.

I highlighted so much of that book! I loved her wisdom. I appreciated how she embraced the UN Declaration of Human Rights, even as I have serious doubts and criticisms of the UN. I also learned a few new things about Buddhism, which is a foundation of her ethics. But as I was on an ethical high, something didn't sit right with me.

She wrote that in her country, women and men had always been social equals -- women could have property and receive inheritances, and while not many held political positions, women were not blocked from doing so. She said that because women could not become Buddhas but men could, that women lovingly indulged men in the home out of choice, but that they were otherwise equals.

After I finished the book, I researched domestic violence in Myanmar.

It turns out that many human rights organizations are well aware that domestic violence perpetrated against women in Myanmar is rampant and virtually unchecked. Police don't protect women, let alone believe them. Women's own families don't believe them. The reports I read filled me with disgust, sadness, and overwhelming hopelessness. One woman, while being interviewed about the domestic violence she experienced, was interrupted by her brother. He said, "I don't believe her. And what about men's rights? Why all this talk about women's rights?"

Suu told the world about and fought for the need for democracy and the end of military control in Burma, yet she also painted this lovely and utterly false picture of a peaceful Buddhist nation where men and women were equal.

While there is much I've learned from and value about Buddhist philosophy, I have also been disgusted by the religion, and disgusted by Guatama the Buddha himself, who did not stand up for women, who said that while they were as spiritually capable as men, could not be allowed in the community to be equals because society couldn't handle it, they could barely handle that he allowed women to be nuns. And so the highest nun was lower than the lowest, newest Buddhist novice monk. It has never changed. The sangha is rife with abuses by monks toward novices, toward nuns, and toward lay women. No one is allowed to criticize them because to criticize the sangha and the teachers is to end up in a hell realm. If someone is abusive, they are said to be helping the abused with their karma, and Gautama taught to not blame -- but he also did not teach accountability.

It goes all the way to the top, and I am disgusted by the Dali Lama, who escaped Tibet with funding by the CIA, supposedly organized without his knowledge by those below him, and who has a collection of Rolex watches he has received as gifts. A monk is restricted to a very small number of specific possessions and articles of clothing, and a timepiece is not among them. He calls himself, first and foremost, a simple Buddhist monk, yet he owns Rolexes and other expensive timepieces, and has courted celebrities and famous world leaders. He has a certain public persona, yet he admits he has a temper, and I don't believe the public persona is representative of who he really is. I sit on my high horse and point down at him and Gautama, too. I admit it.

Suu, I don't point down at, I'm just stunned and ask, "Why?" I am not so much disgusted by her, but I am disgusted by her charade and her outright lying. So yes, I have an issue with abusive men and I admit that, but I also acknowledge to myself that I am disgusted by the actions, and when men are the perpetrators, I am also disgusted with the men. But there is also much I admire about men, so it's not all men. It's complicated. Certain women I also feel disgust toward, usually politicians who I feel have abused their power, such as Hilary Rodham Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps if I knew more about Suu, I'd feel disgust for her too. I might be hurt and offended that, like Bill Clinton claiming to read the Meditations, that the beautiful and inspiring ethics she claims are only her talk and not her walk, only what I aspire to walk, and if that were true, I would indeed be disgusted.

Has there been in the past two hundred years a genuinely ethical leader who walked their talk, who put others' well-being first, who didn't belong to secret societies or make backroom deals or give in to temptations, who was aware of their vulnerability and fallibility and had others to help them see themselves when they could not and be accountable? I realize there is no perfect human and all have their failings, who do great things in spite of their failings and foibles. But fuck. Just...fuck. There are so few people at the top or at the bottom who can say, "I made a mistake. I'm learning from this and, moving forward, I want to do better and I commit to doing better. Please help me be accountable. Please help me to help and not harm others."

I feel overwhelmed by what is disgusting in the world. I feel hopeless that men will ever stop abusing and start respecting women. I live in Mexico and I lived in Guatemala, I see how women are treated and driven utterly nuts by the machismo, paternalistic men. I lived in the States, I've known the players and the man-boys. I've known plenty of women, as well, who have shit on other women and on men, too, who have been abusive, who have been unwilling to let go of their pride and their false public personas. There is so much fear in power and in being the one overpowered, I learned this from reading Suu's book.

"It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it...corruption...is deviation from the right path."

There is so much corruption of spirit nearly everywhere.

I see Donald Trump and I see people who actually root for him and think he's doing great things, when he is an obvious liar and doesn't even try to hide it, as well as a racist, a mafia-style criminal, and a misogynistic abuser. I see Joe Biden who has also abused women and is just another slick piece of shit. I see third-world countries where women and children are horribly abused and have no rights or power. I see celebrities playing the victim by whining about cancel culture when they get caught out. I am sick and I am fed up. I swear, even those I point down at and am disgusted by, I want to climb down and talk to them face to face and help them overcome whatever it is that created such ways of interacting with other humans and with themselves. I want to advise those who have power and little to no ethics. I want to save those who need to be saved. I want children to have safe and stable homes so that they can grow up and have a safe and stable world. And there's not a fucking thing I can do. I have so much ability, intelligence, talent, skill, and ethics, and I can't even save myself.

It hurts.

Two small words, along with disgust and hopelessness and impotence, that cannot begin to encompass what I feel, want to express, what motivates me to love and to want to make a difference for people, even those who harm, so that we all can be safe and thrive and meet our own incredible potentials. I want those who suffer to have healing. I hurt. I will be just another person who died and couldn't make a difference. The only thing that seems to be able to make an enduring impact on and in the world is the profane.

 

[BitterlyAlive]

Love reading your posts. This was another good one. Hard to read because it's full of the truth, but good nonetheless.

Has there been in the past two hundred years a genuinely ethical leader who walked their talk, who put others' well-being first, who didn't belong to secret societies or make backroom deals or give in to temptations, who was aware of their vulnerability and fallibility and had others to help them see themselves when they could not and be accountable?

I don't think so. I think to get so far up, you have to lose something. Although it sounds dramatic, I think you have to in a sense "sell your soul" to someone, something.
I want to write more, but my brain just kind of fogged out on me. Maybe later. But I wanted to let you know that I understand how you feel and that I read your essay.
Thank you for posting.

 

[Good4Nothing]

I think Dwight D. Eisenhour was an ethical leader. Of course, he did say "the only good German is a dead German"... But after the war was over he put his anger behind him and helped Germany recover and rebuild.

 

[puppy9]

The buddhist monk part is true. I'm shocked to see monks in my country living in luxury. Like wtf is happening here. They even grovel to rich temple goers for donations.There's even a retreat just for this rich people. VVIP parking space at places of worship but lack of space for the disability. It's utterly disgusting. Au Sung Su Kyi (Myanmar) just keeps silence on the Rohingya plights. Don't get me started with Mother Teresa, and there are lots of fools who still thinks she's a saint. It pisses me off. Thanks for highlighting on Gautama Buddha's dirt.

Nice read @GoodPersonEffed

 

[Grav]

I think you have to in a sense "sell your soul" to someone,

Sadly I think this is how it works and always will. Those that are willing to sell more can get more, at least my opinion of US life. It seems to have gotten worse in recent years though. I generally avoid news now as it just reinforces my reasons not to be here.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@puppy9, thanks for your reply. I really value it because I don't have any practical knowledge, only what I read. I'm shocked about the monks and yet I'm not. Do you have an opinion about Suu, other than the plights? And can you remind me what they are? I think I've come across them but am not sure, I haven't delved too deeply into Myanmar. Also, do you have an opinion as to whether her father was really as good and ethical of a person as she and others make him out to be?

I want to get you started on Mother Teresa! I know very little about her. I know she wrote that she struggled with her faith and never really felt God but remained a nun and kept doing the work anyway. Also, I read that it was a challenge for her to even walk to the car, that she was constantly inundated by people begging and wheedling for help, and that she had to keep boundaries and not get played, yet maintain compassion. What's the real story?

P.S. I think Gautama was an egomaniac and did a lot of mental gymnastics. I would not have liked him as a person, but I'm a woman, therefore I have karma issues.

 

[BitterlyAlive]

Sadly I think this is how it works and always will. Those that are willing to sell more can get more, at least my opinion of US life. It seems to have gotten worse in recent years though. I generally avoid news now as it just reinforces my reasons not to be here.

Yeah, the news isn't worth it. They all have their own agendas anyway. I'm tired of being told what to believe, who I should be angry at today.

 

[puppy9]

@GoodPersonEffed I don't know much about Sung. Silence by someone as influential as her is enough to implicate her with the Rohingya genocide. The is no centrism on this issue.

I will share some that I know about Mother Teresa. She got no iota of compassion in her. Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ali produced a documentary; Hells Angel. Hithcens even published a book that resonate the documentary. These aforementioned material were based on Chaterjee (who works with Teresa) , who investigated the financial and other practices under Teresa's order. She's a fraud. The world needed a mythical hero, so they bestowed her the Nobel Peace Prize.

Her home for the dying is abysmal. The home was in horrible condition, confirmed by qualified medical doctor who visited. There's no distinction between curable and incurable illnesses, so the one that can be treated with proper medical care were left to suffer and die. They even reused the needles till it became blunt with no sterilization in between use. She responded to the criticism with here I quote "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it with Christ's passion. The world gains much from their suffering."
There was no pain management to alleviate the needless pain while they died. She even promoted this kind of suffering as it was a benefit to suffer in this world for a better life in heaven. She once told a patient who was dying in pain "you are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you". He screamed back, in pain and distressed "tell your Jesus to stop kissing me."

But with her own medical treatment, she received only the best. She passed to meet her maker with the best medical facilities. She made public shows of declining free high quality medical treatment, she nevertheless had no guilt about secretly accepting medical care from some of the best institutions in the world including having cataract surgery and having a pace maker installed.

Mother Teresa's organization received and receives extensive donations which would enable them to transform the homes for the dying into modern, clean hospices that provide a decent level of palliative care. Mother Teresa was not, interested in mitigating suffering so much as celebrating it. Instead she used that money to open lots of that hell hole rather that focusing on a few quality one. It's for optics I guess, to milk the cow (donations).

She baptized the dying without their permission.Their head covered in a wet cloth and the formula for adult baptism repeated very quietly. To shove religion down their dying throat is not the actions of a saint.

Mother Teresa was happy to accept donations from a con-man. She received significant donations from Charles Keating, a leading American catholic and anti-pornography protestor who was convicted and imprisoned for fraud when his Savings and Loan Association collapsed leaving investors with worthless bonds and from Robert Maxwell who stole 450 million from the pension fund of his employees. Although it appears that she was not aware of their activities prior to the scandals association with the men she showed little concern for the suffering their actions caused; she believed that the donation of funds could clear the conscious of those who donated them.
Mother Teresa wrote to the judge requesting leniency for Keating because he had made donations to the Missionaries of Charity. The Deputy District Attorney wrote to her explaining exactly what Keating had done in defrauding small investors of their life savings. Mother Teresa did not reply to that letter.

Mother Teresa was an admirer of the Duvalier regime in Haiti. The rule of "Papa" and "Baby" Doc Duvalier was known, worldwide; incredibly cruel and opressive to the people of the impoverished country. Both were known to live a lavish lifestyle at the expense of the people of Haiti, to allow the torture and murder of their detractors and to be involved in the underground trade in both in drugs and body parts. Nevertheless Mother Teresa had no guilt about accepting an award from Baby Doc and to say that the Duvaliers "love their poor and their love was reciprocated."

Mother Teresa did not believe in supporting those deciding whether or not they had to terminate their pregnancies – she wanted only to condemn them whatever their circumstances. When she accepted her Nobel Prize for Peace she said "Abortion is the worst evil and the greatest enemy of peace..If a mother can kill her own child, what will prevent us from killing ourselves or one another? Nothing."

In 1971 the Indo-Pakistan War led to many atrocities including the rape of over 450,000 Hindu women by Pakistani soldiers.Rather than supporting them in coming to terms with the abuse they had suffered or condemning the atrocities perpetrated against them she chose to speak only on the question of abortion. For Mother Teresa felt that there should be no choice of whether or not to keep the babies of such a crime she called, very publicly for the victims to keep the babies. She held to this belief strongly her entire life; in 1993 she condemned a 14 year old rape victim in Ireland for seeking an abortion. When her close friend Indira Ghandi imposed a state of emergency in India, suspending the constitution and instituting a reign of terror against her detractors, Mother Teresa publicly supported her. This support did not waiver even when Indira Ghandi's regime started a campaign for the forced sterilization of the poor.

Mother Teresa was as passionately anti divorce as she was anti-abortion. She believed that marriages were sanctified by God. At the time the country was considering legalizing divorce Mother Teresa wrote to them that "If a father and mother are not willing to give until it hurts to be faithful to each other, and to their children they are not showing their children what it means to love..These children will grow up to be spiritually poor". However, when her good friend Princess Diana obtained her divorce from Prince Charles Mother Teresa praised the divorce as a good thing because the love had left the marriage."

Mother Teresa helped only a fraction of the people she claimed to have taken from the streets of Calcutta. She liked to be seen to be present at huge disasters. When the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal became the site of the largest ever industrial accident in the world Mother Teresa lost no time in flying down there to be photographed.
When the 1993 earthquake of Latur killed 8,000 people and left 5 millions people homeless Mother Teresa failed to direct any of her Missionaries of Charity nun or volunteers to help nor did she make any funds available for re-building although many other charities in India, of many religious denominations and non, did participate in the relief effort. Nevertheless she had no difficulty in posing for photos, showing her presenting the deeds of new houses to some of the people of Latur .In 1994 India struck with an outbreak of Bubonic Plague. Despite having no involvement in treating the victims Mother Teresa was photographed entering quarantine on arrival in Rome, the photographs were then sent worldwide to promote the belief that she had been struggling to help deal with the outbreak.

I'm sorry that I lack the capability to type everything with my own words. I just search and paste what I read online. My cognitive abilities is not as good as it were. Teresa's dirt came into my knowledge from listening to HItchens few years ago. I grew up believing all the beautiful lies orchestrated by her and the church.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@puppy9 thank you for sharing! I had no idea about any of that!

I didn't know about the genocide in Rohingya, I thought that location had to do with something else I'd read, I definitely would have remembered genocide.

Mother Teresa sounds like a jerk as well as a front for the Roman Catholic church.

I got that feeling of sick, hopeless disgust again reading about the Duvaliers. This world is so fucked up with wars and human rights atrocities. Also Mother Teresa's acts of baptisms without permission and especially saying Jesus was kissing those who suffered make me sick. I love that guy's response to her.

Humanity is just so fucked. Even in supposedly free and wealthy Western countries, the corruption is rampant and the people may have easier lives, but they are so manipulated and not aware of how shaky are the foundations they stand on. I don't understand why humanity hasn't evolved. There were periods where the whole species grew, whether with the invention of tools or technologies like farming, or philosophies that sprung up that seem to me to all point to the basic necessary values for both survival and flourishing, whether in Greece, Rome, India or China, they seem to recognize the same Golden Rule, the same need for others and to get along, and the same basics of not stealing, killing or coveting. But in general, no one appreciates a boundary and they don't like being told to not do something.

It would have been so much easier to have not had a conscience or empathy. It seems such things are necessary for society, and yet they do not flourish. What flourishes is abuse of all forms.

I've come to really dislike the Nobel prize system, and if I were ever nominated, I would turn it down.

I'm glad so little about Marcus Aurelius is known, because if I were to find out that the he didn't walk much of his talk, I would lose the only person who's come close to being a hero. I already know there were reforms he didn't make and abuses he allowed, and certain attitudes he held that occasionally show up in his Meditations, but to know details like I do about Gandhi's weird no-touch sexual abuse of his nieces or the shitty things Mother Teresa did would be too much.

It bothers me that throughout history there are so many excellent writings of virtues to strive for, yet it seems no on attains them. Benjamin Franklin is an example, he was actually quite a jerk, cheated on his wife, was a member of secret societies -- and yet there is at least something to admire, something he overcame -- he released his slaves and denounced the practice. This is something I can look up to that gives me hope, this is something I respect and wish for all humans: to recognize harm, to do better, and to exhort others to do the same. This is what I love most about humanity, a kind of highest ideal for me, because we all start out with illusions, we all have things to break free of so that we can reach that higher potential. That is what is in my heart and was there when I wrote the OP.

Thank you for making the effort to gather all that information about Mother Teresa. I didn't particularly admire her, but I'm glad to know about the shams and the hypocrisy. There's just so much troubling stuff there.

 

[Good4Nothing]

This is why I hate "Man of Steel", the 21st century take on Superman. I know he's fictional, but Superman was intended as a role model for children - a good man to aspire to grow into. Sure, you'll never be bullet-proof, but you can do good for the sake of good. Now he's angsty and conflicted, instead of pure of heart and intention, and who do children have to look up to now? The world is so confused currently... I'd hate to be a child growing up today. Everything is so bleak.

 

[Soul]

@puppy9, thank you for all that insight. I always knew there was something wrong about that woman. x

 

[puppy9]

@Soul yeah man her face gives me the creeps. Thanks for reading.

If someone is idolize to be a saint, I always have doubts. They need to be so manipulative to be able to orchestrate this myth about them. It's like selling a product. It's shit but people still buy it because they market it well. When we come out to expose dirt on them their cult followers would go to extremes to defend em. Maybe George Carlin was right on...
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

@GoodPersonEffed thanks for the read. The Vatican (Catholics) openly endorse Hitler. When I told the Catholics they were cult like pissed and retorted by saying that HItler was an atheist.

Mother Teresa is to me what real evil is. I thought evil was displayed in an open way but the most evil is done in a subtle manner. People still hangs her picture in their offices and home because of this subtle evil. Tv Series and movies still uses her name to deliver messages of empathy. This subtle evil leads to many genocides. Even genocides needs a marketing plan to make it effective, to market a product of for us to hate and channel our anger so that we dehumanize them to justify mass killing, torture, and rape. Rape is often use as a weapon even now, to demoralize their enemy.

Thanksgiving is a holiday for families to get together to celebrate their blessings. This holiday should be gone because of its history. I'm sad seeing children happy whilst celebrating this.
Imagine having dinners with family to celebrate the Holocaust and it's justified with good won over evil (most antisemitic ideas carries this message of good vs evil).

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@puppy9, I get what you're saying about Thanksgiving, but in fact the first Thanksgiving was a celebration shared by the pilgrims and natives. The mistreatment hadn't started yet. Lincoln made it a national holiday. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me. But I do get how things got shitty later, how the colonists betrayed the native Americans, and how native Americans could look back at the earliest celebrations and say, fuck you, you backstabbers.

Many have protested Columbus Day and I don't think it should be a holiday anymore.



I've been doing some reading up on the Rohingya. Whoa. I saw that Edinburgh took back the peace prize they gave to Suu Kyi, and the UN and others have been on her ass and she's not budging from the narrative that it's not genocide. Her world reputation is fucked.

Also did some reading on Mother Teresa. I came across an old tv show, Penn & Teller: Bullshit! They did an episode on holy frauds, Mother Teresa (interviewed Hitchens and the other author you mentioned), the Dali Lama (more CIA involvement than I knew, and reflections of the inappropriate wealth, courting of the rich and lay mistreatment you talked about), and Gandhi (not only the sexual stuff, but I'd forgotten he was racist).

I loved the George Carlin quote, but it also makes me a little sad. All of this makes me sad and brings up feelings of hopelessness. I suppose that's better, though, than becoming a hard cynic. I listened to a Brené Brown interview today, she was talking about the correlation between being able to love and willingness to have one's heart broken. As long as I'm alive, I'm likely going to continue to love and continue to have my heart broken by these things. As long as I love truth, I'm going to be disgusted by what is false. I am vulnerable and tender, and yet I also have an incredible strength. I know the difference between right and wrong, and I have strong boundaries because truth has definite boundaries, and it's unfortunate that sometimes people can override even the strongest of boundaries. I've also found to be true in myself something else Brené says, she found in her research that the most boundaried people are also the most compassionate. The less shit I accept, the more compassion I have for the ones who deal it, because I keep a distance from it, I don't take it inside, and I can see how we humans get fucked up and in turn fuck others up as well as ourselves. It's the acts that disgust me, and the sickness that gets inside of a human, as well as illusions. I do have a kind of armor, for my spirit and my heart, or maybe it's a combination of salve and protection. This darkness doesn't take away my light, I just wish my light had power to shine further in the darkness. Which reminds me of something I highlighted in the Suu Kyi book I read:

"It is true that even the smallest light cannot be extinguished by all the darkness in the world because darkness is wholly negative. It is merely an absence of light. But a small light cannot dispel acres of encircling gloom. It needs to grow stronger, to shed its brightness further and further. And people need to accustom their eyes to the light to see it as a benediction rather than a pain, to learn to love it."

 

[Soul]

@puppy9, I get what you're saying about Thanksgiving, but in fact the first Thanksgiving was a celebration shared by the pilgrims and natives.

My understanding is that the Indigenous people started teaching the colonists how to grow things, forage and prepare edible indigenous plants to stop them from stealing and eating the offerings that the Indigenous people put out for their ancestors.

I try to imagine my current society's reaction if we found strange-looking newcomers pilfering stuff from graveyards to survive.

 

[puppy9]

@GoodPersonEffed I'm not an American so I'm probably ignorant about it. The protest against Columbus Day is a very positive milestone for humanity. Congrats on that.

I just started listening to Brenee Brown's podcast. Episode one I guess where she did her podcast in a closet or something. I love her compassionate voice, and all of her advice resonates me very well. And I heard it's backed by research too. Correct me if I'm wrong?


"It is true that even the smallest light cannot be extinguished by all the darkness in the world because darkness is wholly negative. It is merely an absence of light. But a small light cannot dispel acres of encircling gloom. It needs to grow stronger, to shed its brightness further and further. And people need to accustom their eyes to the light to see it as a benediction rather than a pain, to learn to love it."

Su Kyi's word is beautiful if without the blood on her hands. The quote from her book is like an art. Art is subjective, I guess this quote can apply to the genocide too by viewing one's superiority (light) dispel acres of encircling gloom
(the genocide victims). And it applies well too because they even burn the villages with people inside. This is the mythical heroes that I'm afraid off.

 

[Deleted member 17949]

Didn't read because low attention span but based on most of the other stuff you write it was probably intelligent and thought provoking, so very cool

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@puppy9, that quote was from a lecture titled "Towards a True Refuge," and it was my favorite part of the book. Everything that's been done to the Rohingya goes against Suu Kyi's words in the lecture. Like this, just a bit before that quote:

Developed and developing nations alike suffer as a result of policies removed from a framework of values which uphold minimum standards of justice and tolerance. The rapidity with which the old Soviet Union splintered into new states, many of them stamped with a fierce racial assertiveness, illustrates that decades of authoritarian rule may have achieved uniformity and obedience but could not achieve long-term harmony or stability. Nor did the material benefits enjoyed under the relatively successful post-totalitarian state of Yugoslavia succeed in dissipating the psychological impress of brooding historical experience that has now led to some of the worst religious and ethnic violence the Balkans have ever witnessed. Peace, stability and unity cannot be bought or coerced; they have to be nurtured by promoting a sensitivity to human needs and respect for the rights and opinions of others. Diversity and dissent need not inhibit the emergence of strong, stable societies, but inflexibility, narrowness and unadulterated materialism can prevent healthy growth. And when attitudes have been allowed to harden to the point that otherness becomes a sufficient reason for nullifying a person's claim to be treated as a fellow human being, the trappings of modern civilization crumble with frightening speed.[...]​

​

Those who have worked with refugees are in the best position to know that when people have been stripped of all their material supports, there only remain to sustain them the values of their cultural and spiritual inheritance. A tradition of sharing instilled by age-old beliefs in the joy of giving and the sanctity of compassion will move a homeless destitute to press a portion of his meagre ration on strangers with all the grace and delight of one who has ample riches to dispense. On the other hand, predatory traits honed by a long-established habit of yielding to 'every urge of nature which made self-serving the essence of human life' will lead men to plunder fellow sufferers of their last pathetic possessions. And of course the great majority of the world's refugees are seeking sanctuary from situations rendered untenable by a dearth of humanity and wisdom. The dream of a society ruled by loving kindness, reason and justice is a dream as old as civilized man. Does it have to be an impossible dream? Karl Popper, explaining his abiding optimism in so troubled a world as ours, said that the darkness had always been there but the light was new. Because it is new it has to be tended with care and diligence.​

About Brené Brown, I have not listened to her podcasts, only her TED talks, and then several interviews. Yes, everything she talks about is based on her research. She's a qualitative social work researcher. She started out studying shame, which led to her understanding of vulnerability. I am hesitant about her because she's become so popular and is promoted by Oprah, but like Suu Kyi's writings, what she says rings true. I shared in Offtopic a tool from Brené Brown about evaluating relationships based on trust, it's an acronym called BRAVING, and I've found it really valuable in assessing and understanding what was wrong in many relationships I had, even with my parents, they literally are not people to entrust with my heart.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

 

[InterstateFlowers]

@GoodPersonEffed, you're an kind and loving soul. Your intentions uplift humanity and prove to me not all humans aren't bad. That there are people infused with love who want to help others who can't help themselves. That there's good in this world and I should savor it. You told me you strive for truth and now it's like a curtain has been lifted and you're seeing it everywhere.

If only every person on this Earth strived for the same ideals of truth. It's as if misinformation is one of the core reasons humanity is suffering. What happened to the tribe of caring people who took care of each other and loved one another, while enjoying the beauty and bounty of the land? People acting on information that isn't true. For example the Salem witch trials, the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the idea of Manifest Destiny, even religion in general. People hoarded resources, began hating other people, began attacking those who were different. People believed something that wasn't true and acted on it in a way that caused disconnection, schisms, war, torture, and murder. There are world leaders today who perpetuate misinformation, and it's not just politicians, but anyone with power and sway, from a celebrity on Instagram to a priest in a pulpit to a principal in a school, to a parent over a child. I truly believe the vast majority of humanity want to live in harmony and peace but it's always the people who have the opposite cause that have the strongest effect. We may not have the resources to determine if information is true or not with even news anchors following a political sway but I wish we could all act on information that brings us closer to love, not fear.

Watch out for vampires who feed off the life forces of genuine need and altruistic intentions. This is one of your quotes on your signature and I feel like it resonates with what you're saying right now. You have altruistic intentions and a good heart but it's like the vampires of misinformation, corruption, and heartlessness are everywhere. You have strength and resolve that I lack so it's hypocritical of me to say this but be careful of absorbing the negativity that misinformation follows. You're right, it hurts. It hurts seeing how far we've come and progressed as a species and yet it sometimes feels like we've lost the human directive to love and care for one. It hurts finding out people who you've admired for their words of wisdom and ethics didn't follow what they stood for. You have empathy and such tender kindness to love and care when you originated from a place of hardship and cruelty. You know what it's like to suffer more than anyone and I'm sure your experience and strength will bring so much to this world. I mean, you've brought amazing resilience to me in this community! I can't imagine the tender love and care you can provide for the wider, expansive world. It's so incredibly easy to fall into hopelessness, disgust, and sadness when hearing the stories of those that are suffering, of the women who doesn't have the same say as her husband and the child who can't recognize love when all they've experienced is darkness and fear. When you're helping with heart and soul, try not fall down to negativity and empathize to the point you can feel their pain. Be a stable pillar projecting your kindness to care.

 

[feast or famine]

So when it comes down to it, humans act like humans and they are notorious let downs regardless of who they are or their standing in society. At least this is my low level interpretation of your post.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

So when it comes down to it, humans act like humans and they are notorious let downs regardless of who they are or their standing in society. At least this is my low level interpretation of your post.

I'm having some cognitive dissonance with this, I think because it's too reductionistic, an oversimplification.

There is too much abuse, too much harm. Not everyone functions like this. There are, of course, ideologies that promote harming others as a higher good, so that's another layer to battle with. It is another type of profanity. I redirect the focus to the main thesis, that it was about the profane, and that I feel hurt by it.

Right now I'm reading Karl Popper, who made many brilliant and high-reaching assessments of society and humanity. He was to many a let down in his own ways, as those who intelligently and confidently reach for the highest ideals usually are, which is why I'm glad to have the inspiration of Marcus Aurelius without the full picture of his actions. There is the element of schadenfreude to contend with, a lower part of humanity. People love to see the best and most aspirational of anything get caught out in not being the best, and to fall. It is often a feeling stemming from feeling inadequate and getting false justification that even the highest are as low as them. I just read an article about Popper taken from an interview in which his foibles and paradoxical psychological/human limitations were made quite clear and he was a caricature of himself. I didn't get the sense it was presented with any underlying affection or respect, but more like catching out the old man in his most intimate space (his home) at his most vulnerable (92 years old, in declining health, and two years from death). It was as revelatory of the author's petty schadenfreude as it was of the man he punked. I haven't, however, yet read anything in which Popper actively acted outside of and quite below, even opposite to, his stated ideals, such as I found with Suu Kyi and, to a degree, Bill Clinton. It's early days, though.

Anyhow, maybe at the end of all my research and writing things out I'll come to your same conclusion. I'm still caught up in the complexity of my thoughts and feelings.

Horace Walpole (and others before him) made an assessment I find a little similar to yours in intellect and perhaps spirit: "Life is a tragedy to those who feel and a comedy to those who think." I get that your laughter was directed at yourself, not at me, though maybe your username implies such a perspective? I can't tell. I digress, though. My point is that I both deeply think and deeply feel. I often see comedy, and right now I'm in the depths of tragedy. I also recognize I myself can be a caricature. And I recognize that because I'm feeling cognitive dissonance in response to your comment, it's probably by there being truth in your assessment that I'm uncomfortable with seeing, or that I was subtly negated and minimized with the comment, or perhaps a mixture of both. An effective minimization or negation usually employs enough of the truth to cause a shift from the original focus, which was about the power of the profane and about the fact I am hurting. I don't mean that you had ill intentions and am pointing an accusatory finger, I just felt subtly knocked down, and as such that felt uncomfortable.

 

[feast or famine]

I'm having some cognitive dissonance with this, I think because it's too reductionistic, an oversimplification.

There is too much abuse, too much harm. Not everyone functions like this. There are, of course, ideologies that promote harming others as a higher good, so that's another layer to battle with. It is another type of profanity. I redirect the focus to the main thesis, that it was about the profane, and that I feel hurt by it.

Right now I'm reading Karl Popper, who made many brilliant and high-reaching assessments of society and humanity. He was to many a let down in his own ways, as those who intelligently and confidently reach for the highest ideals usually are, which is why I'm glad to have the inspiration of Marcus Aurelius without the full picture of his actions. There is the element of schadenfreude to contend with, a lower part of humanity. People love to see the best and most aspirational of anything get caught out in not being the best, and to fall. It is often a feeling stemming from feeling inadequate and getting false justification that even the highest are as low as them. I just read an article about Popper taken from an interview in which his foibles and paradoxical psychological/human limitations were made quite clear and he was a caricature of himself. I didn't get the sense it was presented with any underlying affection or respect, but more like catching out the old man in his most intimate space (his home) at his most vulnerable (92 years old, in declining health, and two years from death). It was as revelatory of the author's petty schadenfreude as it was of the man he punked. I haven't, however, yet read anything in which Popper actively acted outside of and quite below, even opposite to, his stated ideals, such as I found with Suu Kyi and, to a degree, Bill Clinton. It's early days, though.

Anyhow, maybe at the end of all my research and writing things out I'll come to your same conclusion. I'm still caught up in the complexity of my thoughts and feelings.

Horace Walpole (and others before him) made an assessment I find a little similar to yours in intellect and perhaps spirit: "Life is a tragedy to those who feel and a comedy to those who think." I get that your laughter was directed at yourself, not at me, though maybe your username implies such a perspective? I can't tell. I digress, though. My point is that I both deeply think and deeply feel. I often see comedy, and right now I'm in the depths of tragedy. I also recognize I myself can be a caricature. And I recognize that because I'm feeling cognitive dissonance in response to your comment, it's probably by there being truth in your assessment that I'm uncomfortable with seeing, or that I was subtly negated and minimized with the comment, or perhaps a mixture of both. An effective minimization or negation usually employs enough of the truth to cause a shift from the original focus, which was about the power of the profane and about the fact I am hurting. I don't mean that you had I'll intentions and am pointing an accusatory finger, I just felt subtly knocked down, and as such that felt uncomfortable.

You're right in saying that my comment was an oversimplification (a gross one at that) of the greater picture or point(s) you were making, which I did note by the last part of my comment when I referred to it as being a "low level interpretation". That was both truthful and also a little self deprecating towards myself, but eh, a little self deprecation never hurt anyone. I was definitely poking fun at myself, not you.

I do employ humor and/or sarcasm as a way to effectively, or maybe not so effectively, deal with the depths of tragedy that life so kindly slaps us in the face with. In all honesty, I'll admittedly classify myself as someone who is all too cynical in nature which I just can't seem to help sometimes, damn me! The downside of that is that it can translate unkindly which is never my intent.

In any case, I did enjoy reading your post and all of the thought provoking content it consisted of. Maybe I'll look into these individuals myself to have a greater understanding of it, so I can contribute more than just an offhanded comment in the future. I never want to minimize someone's thoughts or feelings, so for that I do apologize if you took it as such.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

You're right in saying that my comment was an oversimplification (a gross one at that) of the greater picture or point(s) you were making, which I did note by the last part of my comment when I referred to it as being a "low level interpretation". That was both truthful and also a little self deprecating towards myself, but eh, a little self deprecation never hurt anyone. I was definitely poking fun at myself, not you.

I do employ humor and/or sarcasm as a way to effectively, or maybe not so effectively deal with the depths of tragedy that life so kindly slaps us in the face with. In all honesty, I'll admittedly classify myself as someone who is all too cynical in nature which I just can't seem to help sometimes, damn me! The downside of that is that it can translate unkindly which is never my intent.

In any case, I did enjoy reading your post and all of the thought provoking content it consisted of. Maybe I'll look into these individuals myself to have a greater understanding of it, so I can contribute more than just an offhanded comment in the future. I never want to minimize someone's thoughts or feelings, so for that I do apologize if you took it as such.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. We cool.

 

[Wisdom3_1-9]

I think Dwight D. Eisenhour was an ethical leader. Of course, he did say "the only good German is a dead German"... But after the war was over he put his anger behind him and helped Germany recover and rebuild.

"[White Southerners] are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big overgrown Negroes." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

@puppy9
Mother Teresa sounds like a jerk as well as a front for the Roman Catholic church.

She was a notorious hard-ass and the nuns who worked with her had a very difficult time.

MLK and JFK were womanizers. Woodrow Wilson was unapologetically racist. So many of the US presidents were slaveowners. Barack Obama deported more immigrants than anyone and championed drone warfare even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize. There are countless stories of our heroes engaging in undesirable or even despicable behavior.

But that is humanity. If we expect perfection (or divinity) from our human idols then we are bound to be disappointed. We all have light and dark within us. We all know that we should strive to obey the light more often, but we all fail. What matters is that we try as best as we can to be true to our ideals and to not hurt others in the process. Our heroes are all flawed. The fact that they are still able to champion the causes of justice, equality, and peace — in spite of their flaws — is what I believe makes them heroic and inspirational.

If I can only put my faith in people I deem perfect and pure, 1) I will have very few models, and 2) I will never be able to see myself in them, and likely never try to achieve something like they did. I am not saying that we have to forgive or accept transgressions. I think we have to acknowledge them and point them out as such. It doesn't mean that the good work they've done must be discredited.

This is different than those whose success has come at the expense of others. Columbus's mark on history was made possible by the atrocity of genocide. History needs to acknowledge that. But I don't think we should expect perfection from our heroes. Every great figure in history has a dark side, whether we know about it or not. You don't get to have an influence on society that great without some dubious activities along the way.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@Wisdom3_1-9, I read and took in your comment. I don't want to argue with you here in my response but rather clarify my position, and I appreciate the exercise. It's long (of course!), but it's because I'm working this out as I write, which is what I usually do.

I don't expect perfection from anyone, including heroes. What my position is based on is values and virtues, neither of which has any value until they are put to the test. Both are meant to be guides and, in the words of Epictetus, for life to flow more smoothly. This is also the purpose of the Five Precepts of Buddhism, to give safety (freedom from fear, hostility and oppression) to others with whom we share the same social order: don't kill them, don't lie to them, don't steal from them, don't have sex with them without mutual consent or if they're already in a committed socio-sexual relationship, and don't use intoxicants, because they lower the protective inhibitions of the precepts so that one would be more likely to harm others in such ways or to be harmed in such ways. Values and virtues are inibitions against our baser, selfish, myopic nature.

I'd like to provide the example of someone whose actions in walking his talk I respect, and for me this topic is very much about respect along with other things. I don't like everything about him, I don't agree with all of his beliefs and stances, but what was put to the test for him were the virtues and values of Stoicism as taught by Epictetus (also my least favoriet Stoic philosopher). Admiral James Stockdale started studying Epictetus three years before he went to Vietnam and was shot down. He knew when he was shot down that he would be the leading officer in prison and took on the role and all responsibilities. Stoicism guided his perceptions, his leadership and his actions. It personally supported him in the darkest times as well. During torture, he was not able to stick by all of his virtues, he was overpowered, but as soon as the torture was over, he was able to use the same ethics to support and to be supported for having been overcome, to continue to fight in whatever ways possible, to make the most ethical choices possible all along the way, and to be worthy of the leadership position he was in, and in which he actually served others for the well-being of all. The philosophy stood the test, and made life flow more smoothly for him and for those he led in a horrible, years-long situation. I respect him. He was honorable. He called himself to task every time he was forced to override a value to determine where he was responsible and accountable, and to try each time to do a little better if at all possible. It gave him strength and personal power in doing this.

If a leader is not honorable and does not earn respect by walking their high talk, then it's not only a letdown, in the case of Suu Kyi it is to me pretty close to an abominiation because of how others for whom she became responsible would be served by the high ethics and moral guidelines she proclaimed, that is, women and the Rohingya, yet did not work to apply to them for their benefit. I benefit from reading her words. I apply them in my own life. I use them for guidance. Therefore, I'm not throwing out a valuable baby with the dirty bathwater of her subsequent actions. The truth is not altered by her actions. But she won numerous peace prizes and won her political position because of her rhetoric, and because of her previous unwillingness to let go of her values by being under house arrest for fifteen years in spite of not being able to see her husband or sons. Once she got in a position of not just leadership but authority, she no longer walked her talk, and in fact, some of her talk was already suspect when she said that women in Myanmar are equal to men and serve them out of loving indulgence.

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, I believe, for his rhetoric in The Audacity of Hope. Am I wrong about this? Please correct me if I am. Yet when he was in office, he did not adhere to his values, virtues, and ideals. He didn't walk his talk, and that talk was what convinced people to elect him. It was a bait and switch, and therefore a manipulation to serve someone or something other than those he claimed he was focused on serving. He very much talked the talk of an elected official being a public servant. So do the Clintons.

I myself am definitely not perfect. But I go back to values and virtues being proven in not just talking them but applying them. I recognize that there are overpowering situations, such as torture, poverty, and oppression, and I have and do experience overpowering situations. My sense of conscience is that I feel badly when I have to do something outside of my ethics and my personal responsibility, and that aligns with Admiral Stockdale's experience as a prisoner of war. While it is uncomfortable to feel badly, it also keeps me from sinking into being okay with acting outside of my ethics and just throwing them all away, and urges me to review them to see if they are proven even in my not having followed them; how would the situation have changed if I had? One example is lying to protect myself. Another is about stealing, actually two examples.

In one example, I took a pinch of weed from someone without their explicit permission, and I talked myself into doing it because she'd shared it, left it out, and it was at the time the only antidote to awful feelings. However, I knew I was crossing a boundary. It didn't matter that if the situation had been reversed, I would have been okay with it, and though I would have noticed the boundary had been crossed, I would have blamed myself for leaving it out if I didn't want to share any more, but really I would have been okay with sharing a small amount, I was always generous about sharing my weed when I was a toker. But I didn't know her feelings about it, and I didn't ask, and she was offended, and didn't say anything to me but talked shit about me. I learned from that experience. It was not a huge deal, but my ethics are a huge deal to me, and I had to struggle with a battle of my ego being defensive and wanting to make it okay, wanting to minimize her magnification of the offense, and my conscience magnifying to myself the offense to the point of practically standing at the edge of hell for not making amends with her later, which would have been an unwise move (no need to go into why, but maintaining no contact was the wisest choice).

In the other example, I got put in a bad situation outside of my control. I was staying in a hostel and had paid up to a certain time, but the next night I would have nowhere to stay (unless I went to a homeless shelter), and I wouldn't get paid until the following day. I figured out how to stay that extra night without getting caught. Even if it did no harm because the bed wasn't sold to someone else, it was still stealing. But it was a situation I did not create, and I had to act outside of my ethics in order to be safe. I was a nervous wreck the whole time, too! But I won't do mental gymnastics to say that was my punishment. I also struggled with whether or not to send money to the hostel later, but the situation I was in was another's doing with intent to cause me harm, and I did not want to take responsibility for that because I am not a saint or a martyr, so after much journaling and consideration of my ethics and the entire situation, and because it was not an indivdual who was impacted by my actions and the hostel did not experience an actual loss, I chose to accept the discomfort of my actions and the discomfort of the situation, and I chose to not deplete my financial resources to cover what is actually the debt of the one who forced me into the situation.

In both cases, what I respect about myself is that I did a lot of work to work out what had happened, to use the guidance of my values and virtues, to not give up on them when I'd been in error or been overcome, but to keep striving, refining, and recommitting to them. And by admitting these things, which I've never had reason to before, I also give an example of how to walk the talk and how values and virtues are not only guides but tools. If I were a leader, I would feel my leadership was made more legitimate by admitting my errors and showing how I continue to try to apply the values so that I am accountable. I am my own leader, though, so it's good that I legitimize to myself my worthiness of my leadership and authority over myself, and hold myself accountable.

Admirable Stockdale was accountable to those he led. He served them. That is also what Marcus Aurelius did. It is my belief that leaders should always be accountable, and that they are servants to those they lead, otherwise they cause fear, hostility, and oppression. It is not just a privilige to serve, it is also a burden and a hardship. I think it takes worthiness to be a leader, and if one does not walk their talk, and does not serve those they lead, then I don't think they're worthy. Unfortunately, those being led rarely have the power to do anything about it. And so life flows less smoothly. For the leaders, it may feel smooth, but they have to do gymnastics and make efforts to maintain their positions, and as you mentioned, they give things up. They lose themselves. I've come to believe that we are our values and virtues, and we are diminshed when we lose them, because we lose ourselves. That's one reason why poverty is so debasing and dehumanizing, because one doesn't have the power to act with honor and also to survive or to help their families survive. In the book Boundaries, in the advice for considering whether or not to set a boundary and what the cost will be, the authors bring up the words of Jesus, "What does a man benefit if he gains the whole world but loses his very self?" I use that to guide my decisions as well.

Finally, I'm not trying to shut down you or your position with this. As I said, I'm clarifying my position. If you or anyone wants to continue discussing this, as it's not the first time the ideas of human imperfection and heroes have come up in the thread, I welcome that.

 

[Wisdom3_1-9]

Thank you, @GoodPersonEffed, for a very thorough response. I certainly understand your position. I'm still torn about a few things, and these are my own philosophical struggles. It mostly has to deal with the idea of "how much can a person stray" and still be considered "virtuous."

Take Obama, for example, as discussed above. He was awarded for his hopeful rhetoric and writings, and for the cultural change he mobilized. There are several things, particularly on the issue of warfare, with which I have substantial grievances with him. Still, I admire him. I still view him as a man of honor; as someone who worked exceptionally hard to benefit his people. I guess the "line" is different for different people, and that in itself is a curious experiment — what factors influence where the line is for different individuals.

For example, I am well aware of the stories about Mother Theresa but I view her, her mission, and her work, with the greatest admiration. Her benefit to our world and to the people she served (at least, in my opinion) far surpasses and outweighs the less desirable aspects of her nature. I believe her to be as close to "saintly" as anyone else I've experienced in my lifetime. Clearly, as expressed by others in this thread, that is not everyone's assessment.

Suu Kyi is a very sad case, indeed. I see her the way I tend to see most politicians — ultimately corruptible, and subject to the whims of popularity over principle. Her inaction against the genocide of the Rohingya and her unyielding defense of said inaction is inexcusable as far as I'm concerned.

So why do I have a better opinion of Barack Obama than I do her? I'm not sure. After all, I can admit that they've both betrayed their principles in some form while yielding political power. Perhaps my assessment of Suu Kyi's "net effect" on the world is more negative. And of course, this is all subjective.

I do think of this is broader terms as well. I remember watching the documentary on Michael Jackson on HBO and thinking to myself, how do you measure the light against the darkness? On one hand, his music inspired so many people, boosted the economy, created jobs, and influenced so many other musicians. On the other hand, he frequently and systematically used children for sexual gratification. The latter is so horrid that it seems to wipe out the former. But how do we come to that assessment? Truth be told, I still value his art. When I taught music, I even had my middle school students sing songs that he wrote. Is that even okay?! At what point does the darkness overshadow the light? And if we give value to the light, do we give license for some to commit horrible acts simply because they've done significant good? Even Elie Wiesel was accused of sexual misconduct. Shall we erase his contributions as well? It's all so complicated. I'm not sure there are simple answers.

Thoughts?

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Thoughts?

Hmm.

Your post brings up something for me that I've struggled with. I'll start by saying that if the words one speaks resonate with truth, then the words do not lose their value. An author/speaker cannot be separated from the words, though, so the words are put in jepoardy if they are, as you say, of the light, while the speaker is darkened. I still value Suu Kyi's words. What I take particular issue with is leadership. I was not aware of the accusation against Elie Wiesel, I just now got caught up on it, and such an accusation does run the risk of tainting his legacy as a leader, but it does not change the truth of his words. However, it can be difficult for some to separate the two, especially if one uses them to support an argument. This has to do with ethos, and in academic writing, one has to address the logos, the pathos, and the ethos of an supportive text and its author because when standing on the shoulders of giants, the foundation can crumble. For example, the taint on medical scholarship from experiments that were performed by the Nazis in concentrations camps. The practical value is there, but how it was obtained leaves cracks that weaken the foundation. Ethics are important. Something that was supported by abuse has weak support. Michael Jackson's and R. Kelly's art will always have weak support because neither man made the effort to overcome their human corruptions and subsequent human errors, missteps, sins, perversions, profanities, whatever one wants to call them. The word sin means to miss the mark, and they certainly strayed from the ethical mark.

There are two particular French philosophers who have greatly influenced me, Michel Foucault and Roland Barthes. Both "spoke truth to" power structures and means of social control. Both were gay. Later I learned that Barthes had sexual relations with underage males, and both philosophers were two of many inflential academics who in the 1970s signed a document urging the French government to legalize pedophilia. Agh! Yet knowing this does not at all taint the incredible learning experience I had reading their works, nor change the fact that I still use them as frameworks of analysis and ethics regarding social influence and control. I liken this to your thoughts about Michael Jackson's art. In his songs and in the philosophers' influential theoretical writings, deviance was not introduced into the texts of his songs, not that I know of. He exhorted acceptance and understanding, but he didn't exhort acceptance and understanding of pedophilia, and nor did the influential academic texts of Barthes and Foucault. If all of their works were to survive for milennia but not the history of their actions, wherever there was truth and value, there would be no stain, and they would inspire without, ahem, inhibition.

Now a personal anecdote, that brings it back to leadership. When I was in the military, I was still a Christian, and my unit's chaplain was a close mentor. I looked up to him. I saw him for counseling. I was emotionally and spiritually vulnerable to him. He was charismatic and so am I, and our personalities and humor sparked. Years later, I stopped being a Christian, and years after that, I reconnected with the chaplain after sporadic contact over the course of a decade. He was newly out of the chaplaincy, he'd returned to a city nearby, and we went to dinner. He told me that in the past his wife had thought I was interested in him, when in fact I had a crush on him as a person, as someone I admired and really liked, but there there was nothing sexual about it. At the end of the dinner, he told me that he and his wife had an open relationship and he wanted to hook up with me. Agh! I was so caught off guard! He'd been in a position of power over me. I'd confided in him, looked up to him, admired him. He'd been my spiritual advisor and psychological counselor. At that moment, though, in being caught off guard, I wasn't offended, just not interested, and I was kind when I turned him down. Soon after, he sent me an email full of venom and ad hominem attacks. My hero fell from his pedestal, crashed and burned. He showed his true colors, and he had thoroughly misrepresented himself and had not been worthy of my trust and therefore to lead me. However, had I still been a Christian, it would not have made me doubt Christianity, perhaps because he was not the one who introduced me to the faith, and he didn't write the Bible. Moreover, any benefit I got from his counseling was still valid. But he did not have a right to be my ethical leader nor to receive my admiration as such. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing. It took a long time to not feel the stain of that. But if I related it to my original post, the stain I feel is because of a perversion of the spirituality and the ethics that underpinned by following him as a mentor and guide.

I return to why I'm glad there is not enough in the historical record about Marcus Aurelius that would provide evidence to taint my admiration for him, and it is tied in with his writings, a journal to remind himself to act ethically. At least there is abundant evidence that he did not go drunk with power, that he did walk his talk in many ways. He was the last of five ethical emperors, and with his loss, under the leadership of his son who did not share those ethics, the empire began to crumble. I read in one ancient historian's account that Aurelius's Stoic tutor, once he was in power, used to exhort him to take a vacation as he was so caught up in his judicial work, he took his burdens so seriously. I admire that he did not want to be emperor, he wanted to be a philosopher, but he sucked it up, did his duty, and incorporated philosophy into his rule so that he would not become drunk with power.

That said, in his writings there is evidence of some moral values that I disagree with, based on the mores of that time, and like Gautama, I can get frustrated with that because it furthered the oppression of women and slaves. Like you, I am forgiving of him whereas I am not of Guatama.Gautama's treatement of women was revolutionary at the time, but he didn't go all the way with it, he said because he feared it would cause too much social unrest, and throughout Buddhist culture, women are still oppressed and devalued in the sangha and in Asian cultures based on a social system of over two milennia ago. But I'm also offended by his mental gymnastics with regard to his teachings and his own actions. I find him megalomaniacal and self-deluded. I would say he had narcissistic traits. I do not find that in the writings of Marcus Aurelius; instead, I find someone who was trying to remind himself to rise above such things and be the best he could for the good of others as well as his own well-being.

And that's perhaps key as I reflect on my initial post: I don't see the other leaders I wrote about making that effort to keep improving and to work to stay true to their ethics and to return to them when they humanly stray or are in error. Perhaps Obama does that, I don't know. Personally, I think he is a diplomat, and that his values do not underpin his actions as a leader, I think they are more of a long-term hope rather than an immediate and practical foundation for his actions. But I do not see any evidence of the effort I mentioned in Suu Kyi, in Clinton, in the Dalai Lama, nor, in fundamental ways, in Guatama. They were/are leaders, they have stated foundational ethical values and virtues, and they do not walk their talk. As I write all this, I realize: to follow a leader, one can follow their talk, but when their walk diverges, it causes cognitive dissonance and one has to choose whether to keep following them, away from the foundation, or remain on the path of the foundation, away from their leadership.


I'm really enjoying this conversation and the whole thread. I haven't had much spiritual-intellectual stimulation like this since grad school. I used to occasionally host Sunday morning brunches at my apartment, and invite fellow students. We talked about mundane things and joked around, but we always had talks like this as well. That was a good time in my life, one of the most fulfilling.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

My actual problem is that when I give, I give abundantly.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Still working through what's bothering me so much.

First, Brené Brown's definition of integrity: choosing to do what's right over what's fun, easy, or convenient. (@Wisdom3_1-9, this goes for Obama, too. He was quite firm about what's right. Maybe once he got into office, he learned privileged information about the "need" for Guantanamo that for him superceded his prior assessment of right. Could it then be the same for Suu Kyi? Are the values of human rights therefore subjective rather than objective? Was there something more right that outweighed them?)

Second, I recognize that in my pain there is hate mixed in, and anger, such that I get on my high horse, point down, and say, "J'accuse!" Thanks to the following quote I able to discern that my hate stems from feelings of injustice and powerlessness and gives me a sense of power.

"Acts of hate are attempts to distract oneself from feelings such as helplessness, powerlessness, injustice, inadequacy, and shame. Hate is grounded in some sense of perceived threat. It is an attitude that can give rise to hostility and aggression toward individuals or groups. Like much of anger, it is a reaction to and distraction from some form of inner pain. The individual consumed by hate may believe that the only way to gain some sense of power over his or her pain is to preemptively strike out at others. In this context, each moment of hate is a temporary reprieve from inner suffering."

- Bernard Golden

 

[woxihuanni]

Excellent points on buddhism and other things. I doubt clinton can actually read, but if he read a single word of that, it'd be to laugh at people who aspire at ethics and know where precisely to kick them better.

I have been told by a buddhist whore that children who get raped deserved it because of previous life karma.