Capitalism is a relatively recent system, it hasn't had much time to evolve and adapt to the frantic pace at which technological and societal changes have been taking place. I do not advocate a capitalist kind of development, as I hope I have made clear so far, but I instead advocate a reflection on what capitalism has to offer and the ways in which we can make it evolve to allow for more diversity and freedom.
The question of development and capitalism is almost a philosophical one, it involves ethics and human nature. Capitalism is not natural, it is not something within us that we cannot escape. It is now part of culture and is very deeply ingrained in our way of life but it is also in a state of perpetual change. The domination of some humans over the rest might be something in our nature, it seems this has happened throughout our history. It boils down to the perpetual question of are we born evil or is it society that make us that way? It's Rousseau Vs. Original Sin or Hobbes' “war of all against all” all over again and by now we know that there is probably no truth concerning this question. However there are indications that we are able to move away from this tendency, we are able to think in terms other than I against you. Still, should we assume that it is something we should work with and assume will always occur periodically?
This, indeed, is troubling, especially when we know how naïve and exploitable humans can be. A glance at post independence Africa is enough to convince us of that. Otherwise how could we explain the quick rise to power of dictators that plunged their country in the depth of despair, often under the approving eyes of the former colonial powers? This poses yet another grave problem, is it possible to have equality and freedom at the same time? If we assume that someone will inherently rise above others and exploit them, wouldn't it take sever restrictions of freedoms to keep everyone equal, hence creating a vicious circle of exploitation? I have no answer to this dilemma but I think it does exist and that many chose to ignore it.
Going back in time is not an option. Tribal affiliation that were created by the colonial era now exist and will not easily be got rid of. The massive urban migration cannot be simply reversed, the contact to capitalism cannot be erased from the population. the cultural aspect of family is no longer viable in a different context. If a certain culture was conductive to large families it also was effective in controlling population growth, which was stable before 1945. Now what is the point of preserving traditional natalist policies in urban settings where it is simply impossible to maintain a large family and a large number of children has no advantages? Capitalism and development are interwoven, now the two cannot go without the other. This also means that the two need to influence each other and learn from each other, not try to dominate the other. As Amartya Sen rightly said economic development is not an end in itself but a means to achieve greater freedom. It is this freedom that is key to defining development because there is not such a thing as universal development. In conclusion, I think everyone can benefit from capitalism by reshaping it to serve one's goals and and values. however, that requires a massive amount of humility on the part of the western intellectual forces and an equal amount of open-mindedness on the part of the people who need to accept changes and sacrifices. Needless to say, the amount of optimism that is required to believe this can be achieved is still beyond anything I can reckon by.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Buddhadarma
Buddhadharma
-What is the essential meaning of buddhadharma?
Shitou replied, “No gaining, no knowing”
Daowu asked again, “Can you say anything further?”
Shitou answered, “The expansive sky does not obstruct the floating white clouds”
Dialogue between Chinese master Shitou Xiqian and disciple Tianhuang Daowu
Because our society is so focused around the individual we are led to believe that individual lives have no impact on society. As a consequence we do not worry about our impact, both positive and negative, and instead concentrate our efforts on satiating our endless desires and on our direct surroundings. But is that the reality of life? Kosho Uchiyama, I think, makes a very truthful observation, he wrote, “we are still children who want to play with toys, but are we willing to face the reality of life, live the true self, that is not compare ourselves to others.” This is tantamount to our way of life, so many things are geared toward the accumulation of new toys, that is, new cars, new phones, computers fashionable clothes the list is endless. The result is a society of over-consumption and of waste. what has come of the invaluable things, the have been relegated to a position of futility, or integrated to our pursuit of ever lasting play.
An indication of that is the commodification of an ever increasing number of things, we try to integrate the immaterial into worldly material. There is a saying that states the following, “gaining is delusion, losing is enlightenment.” This implies a lot, but it is fairly clear, we are not better off by accumulating things, we only build up our ego and boost our desires for more, instead when we lose we relieve this pressure, feel more liberated and in the end it does not feel like we've lost anything. When we lose something we become aware of something else that is ever present, by not focusing so much on the self we become more aware of the whole, we become closer to our true self represented by the enigmatic expression coined by Sawaki Roshi, “Self making the self out of the self.” No matter what your belief are, I believe this is something anyone can strive to come closer to.
When the quarrel over water
Reaches its peak
–a sudden rain
Now, this having been said there is a strong connection between this notion of the self and the issue I am concerned with here. “For us as bodhisattvas” wrote Uchiyama Roshi “all aspects of life, including the fate of humanity itself, live within us.” This can sound obvious or preposterous, but in the end it doesn't matter because we cannot deny that it is the aggregation of all our lives that shape our individual lives, so in other words my future is shaped by you and I shape yours. With respect to the poem above this uncovers an incredible potential that is found withing every one of us. We tend to fight over a lot of things, we want to appropriate them for ourselves, to satisfy our egocentric desires. This arises from our thinking in dichotomous terms, there is an “I” and a “you” that are fundamentally different, but as soon as we think in other terms, there is no “I” or “you” for we are one and the same then the problem solves itself immediately. Hence, people fight to get water for their plantation to secure their own good, but when the fight is at its peak with no possible reconciliation in view, rain pours and the problem disappears of itself, this means coming to the realization that there is not enough for everybody, but that everybody will be better off if we work together instead of working against each other. Isn't there some relevancy to the what we presently witness in our world?
-What is the essential meaning of buddhadharma?
Shitou replied, “No gaining, no knowing”
Daowu asked again, “Can you say anything further?”
Shitou answered, “The expansive sky does not obstruct the floating white clouds”
Dialogue between Chinese master Shitou Xiqian and disciple Tianhuang Daowu
Because our society is so focused around the individual we are led to believe that individual lives have no impact on society. As a consequence we do not worry about our impact, both positive and negative, and instead concentrate our efforts on satiating our endless desires and on our direct surroundings. But is that the reality of life? Kosho Uchiyama, I think, makes a very truthful observation, he wrote, “we are still children who want to play with toys, but are we willing to face the reality of life, live the true self, that is not compare ourselves to others.” This is tantamount to our way of life, so many things are geared toward the accumulation of new toys, that is, new cars, new phones, computers fashionable clothes the list is endless. The result is a society of over-consumption and of waste. what has come of the invaluable things, the have been relegated to a position of futility, or integrated to our pursuit of ever lasting play.
An indication of that is the commodification of an ever increasing number of things, we try to integrate the immaterial into worldly material. There is a saying that states the following, “gaining is delusion, losing is enlightenment.” This implies a lot, but it is fairly clear, we are not better off by accumulating things, we only build up our ego and boost our desires for more, instead when we lose we relieve this pressure, feel more liberated and in the end it does not feel like we've lost anything. When we lose something we become aware of something else that is ever present, by not focusing so much on the self we become more aware of the whole, we become closer to our true self represented by the enigmatic expression coined by Sawaki Roshi, “Self making the self out of the self.” No matter what your belief are, I believe this is something anyone can strive to come closer to.
When the quarrel over water
Reaches its peak
–a sudden rain
Now, this having been said there is a strong connection between this notion of the self and the issue I am concerned with here. “For us as bodhisattvas” wrote Uchiyama Roshi “all aspects of life, including the fate of humanity itself, live within us.” This can sound obvious or preposterous, but in the end it doesn't matter because we cannot deny that it is the aggregation of all our lives that shape our individual lives, so in other words my future is shaped by you and I shape yours. With respect to the poem above this uncovers an incredible potential that is found withing every one of us. We tend to fight over a lot of things, we want to appropriate them for ourselves, to satisfy our egocentric desires. This arises from our thinking in dichotomous terms, there is an “I” and a “you” that are fundamentally different, but as soon as we think in other terms, there is no “I” or “you” for we are one and the same then the problem solves itself immediately. Hence, people fight to get water for their plantation to secure their own good, but when the fight is at its peak with no possible reconciliation in view, rain pours and the problem disappears of itself, this means coming to the realization that there is not enough for everybody, but that everybody will be better off if we work together instead of working against each other. Isn't there some relevancy to the what we presently witness in our world?
Armchair Activist
Our world is in bad shape right now and though the prospects for improvements exist, they come at a high price and may not offset the deterioration of our future lives. There is simply no justification for not getting involved; everyone has a share of responsibility in our future and the future of the next generations, if they are to have one at all. I'm sure you've heard that numerous times, but has anything changed? Some things have changed, yes, because some people have heard the plight and taken action, but unfortunately it is slow moving. My question is “what does it take?” What does it take for us to take action, to make the necessary sacrifices, to change our values? We can examine the question under a different light. Is change exogenous or endogenous? By that I mean does the change come from within, and are triggered by our own volition or do they result from outside stimuli that force us to change? I'm sure this question has been asked since antiquity and that numerous answers, far more elaborate have been reached but it doesn't take the question away. Indeed, the current situation is alarming and forces the question. We are aware of what our future might be, we know about global warming and the worsening environment, we know about the anger and despair building up among the poorest of the poor around the world, in fact we are already experiencing many of the consequences of these problems. So what does it take for us to change? Do we need to have our freedom to change severely restrained before we do anything or can we actually look at future restrictions and act in a preventive manner? Of course it is unreasonable to think that we could act to prevent problems we are not yet aware of but is it that unreasonable to act to prevent problems that might arise? This poses a grave problem, it would imply in a certain sense that our progress has been dependent on our ability to create problems and solve them, and this would seem to hold true for many aspects of our history. But this also means that at some point we will create a problem that is beyond our resourcefulness; that is that humans are self-destructive by nature. But there are so many examples to refute that hypothesis as well. Anytime I step in an art museum and admire the capacity of humans to create art of such beauty, the capacity to create something that as no value because it is so intrinsically valuable. Whenever I read about the compassionate and selfless act of some fellow humans and the changes that have been implemented. This is what gives me hope.
Whether one can look no further than their own feet or one is as altruistic as Buddha there is a reason to do something. The scale does not matter, if everyone in the rich world gave $10 A YEAR, much could be achieved. I'm not here to make people feel guilty, I'm not going to talk about starving children and dying mothers that you can save by giving up two cups of coffee or two packets of cigarettes (I know I just did anyway). Instead look at the opportunity cost of not doing anything, how much better off do you think you would be if more people had access to the global market. Isn't the social structure, cultural uniqueness that is quickly being eroded by poverty worth preserving? Why do we hear about global warming every week in the news but scarcely hear about Botswana or Bangladesh when they will be the primary victims? Why when we hear about these places bereft by seemingly unsolvable problems do we focus our attention on how we need to change them when the change needs to start right here in the U.S. and the affluent countries of the world? I think there are three basic conditions for people to change: information, incentives and ease of change. As long as these conditions are neglected it is very unlikely that anything will change. There is a dire need for more information about the situation of the world but this alone will not be enough, if people do not have strong incentives to act on these problems it is more likely than not that they will go on with their lives. Finally if the required change is too hard to achieve then people will cower. I think that with the tools at our disposition today these three conditions can be met with much more ease than ever before but it will take a fourth condition, that is strong leadership to get people to work together. Today we see too many people doing their own thing, with the best intention certainly but how much more efficient could we be if we gathered our effort to make a better world for everyone. Yes that sounds idealistic but it is the best incentive as well in my opinion, every single one of us as something to gain from helping others. On the other hand I will leave to your imagination the task of depicting a future where the issues we see today accumulate on top of those we might see shortly, this is another incentive. We are good at solving problems but not very good at preventing problem, as Einstein said, it takes genius to prevent problems; well I believe there is a genius within everyone.
Whether one can look no further than their own feet or one is as altruistic as Buddha there is a reason to do something. The scale does not matter, if everyone in the rich world gave $10 A YEAR, much could be achieved. I'm not here to make people feel guilty, I'm not going to talk about starving children and dying mothers that you can save by giving up two cups of coffee or two packets of cigarettes (I know I just did anyway). Instead look at the opportunity cost of not doing anything, how much better off do you think you would be if more people had access to the global market. Isn't the social structure, cultural uniqueness that is quickly being eroded by poverty worth preserving? Why do we hear about global warming every week in the news but scarcely hear about Botswana or Bangladesh when they will be the primary victims? Why when we hear about these places bereft by seemingly unsolvable problems do we focus our attention on how we need to change them when the change needs to start right here in the U.S. and the affluent countries of the world? I think there are three basic conditions for people to change: information, incentives and ease of change. As long as these conditions are neglected it is very unlikely that anything will change. There is a dire need for more information about the situation of the world but this alone will not be enough, if people do not have strong incentives to act on these problems it is more likely than not that they will go on with their lives. Finally if the required change is too hard to achieve then people will cower. I think that with the tools at our disposition today these three conditions can be met with much more ease than ever before but it will take a fourth condition, that is strong leadership to get people to work together. Today we see too many people doing their own thing, with the best intention certainly but how much more efficient could we be if we gathered our effort to make a better world for everyone. Yes that sounds idealistic but it is the best incentive as well in my opinion, every single one of us as something to gain from helping others. On the other hand I will leave to your imagination the task of depicting a future where the issues we see today accumulate on top of those we might see shortly, this is another incentive. We are good at solving problems but not very good at preventing problem, as Einstein said, it takes genius to prevent problems; well I believe there is a genius within everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
