Logic and intuition, West and East, and the coming of Christ

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat."
(Rudyard Kipling: The Ballad of East and West)

Hello. Smile

This is going to be a long post but perhaps it will give an insight into the current global situation and into what's coming... I'd like to know what you think about the theory.

There seem to be two fundamental approaches to man's perception and creation of reality, and they are wired in the structure of the human brain. Both approaches, in the right balance, are necessary for harmonious life, whereas preferring one approach to the other leads to suffering.

The first approach focuses on differences and individuality. It is the logical/analytical approach (analysis = breaking up into components), which has its center in the left brain hemisphere and manifests as individualism in social life - freedom and independence of the individual. (The sense of one's individual self is located in the left hemisphere too.) This approach enables one to perceive and create structures, step by step (also by means of language), and to use individual free will. When used in excess though, it leads to being lost in details ("not seeing the forest for the trees"), losing the connection between oneself and others, lack of compassion, aggressiveness and neglect of the needy. This approach has been cultivated especially in the WEST, where it resulted in science, technology, democracy, and capitalism.

The second approach focuses on similarities and unity. It is the intuitive/holistic approach, which has its center in the right brain hemisphere and manifests as collectivism in social life - the individual is subjected to the collective. This approach enables one to see the connections and underlying unity of all things, immediately (intuitively), and thus creates harmony and coherence among differences, a compact whole. When used in excess though, it leads to lack of differentiation ("not seeing the trees"), loss of initiative, passivity, suppression of individual differences in political and ideological totalitarianism. This approach has been cultivated especially in the EAST, where it resulted in mysticism, religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism which emphasize the Oneness of all things, holistic medicine, yoga, and communist or socialist regimes.

In the age of globalization these two approaches interact and mix (which is unfortunately sometimes accompanied by fear and violence). And so in the West we can see the influence of Eastern religions (the New Age movement), growing socialist agenda, and growing liberalism that attempts to harmonize or ignore differences for the sake of unity and solidarity ("political correctness"). And in the East we can see the spread of technology, market economy and democracy. The two "brain hemispheres" of mankind are interacting like never before, and thinking becomes augmented and better integrated on the individual level too.

The key is the right balance between the logical/analytic perspective and the intuitive/holistic perspective. It means seeing both the detail and the whole, the individual and the collective, the microcosm in a macrovision. Such balance results in harmonious activity, while imbalance results in disharmonious activity (when analysis dominates) or in passivity (when holism dominates).

And finally, this balance may be critical for dealing successfully with the prophesied "outpouring of God's spirit", the coming of Christ, the Planetary Awakening. Why? Because if God's perspective encompasses the whole universe, we may experience His coming, the eschatological cataclysm, as A SUDDEN EXPANSION OF OUR AWARENESS, acquiring visionary/prophetic abilities. This seems similar to Carl Jung's process of "individuation", during which an individual reaches psychological maturity by integrating "the unconscious" into his/her conscious awareness. However, the individuation has its pitfalls; when the person is swamped by the unconscious material and fails to integrate it, the result can be neurosis or psychosis (see here). And as I see it, individuation could be a process during which a person receives information intuitively, via right brain, and makes sense of it by processing it in the analytical/logical left brain, so the two brain hemispheres must work in tandem for a successful individuation. Even if the unconscious material doesn't enter only through the right brain, the combination of the left brain perspective of details and the right brain perspective of a wider context may be necessary for processing this material. The integration of left brain and right brain thinking during globalization seems to make an appropriate setting for a successful absorption of a flood of unconscious material (the eschatological event).
The process of individuation also seems similar to the kundalini phenomenon (actually, Jung himself drew parallels between the two). Websites have cropped up that write about the kundalini syndrome - psychological and physiological symptoms and complications of kundalini awakening, which is said to happen even spontaneously in some cases (see for example here, here and here).

The bible says the following about the "end times":

"And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days." (Joel 2:28-29)

"[Jesus said:] I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." (John 16:12-13)

Christ's arrival would be the arrival of the Macrovision, like a lightning from the east (=perspective of the Whole) to the west (=limited perspective of the details in our everyday lives):

"For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man (=Christ)." (Matthew 24:27)

And this Macrovision will need to be integrated into our everyday microcosm, in a harmonious, constructive way. That's why the balance between the analytic left brain and the holistic right brain may be necessary. Christ's coming will be like the flood in the days of Noah, and the ark will be like a catamaran with the left and right brain hemispheres as its hulls.

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." (Matthew 24:37-39)

Those who deal with this successfully will experience heaven on earth. But many may also experience mental and nervous problems, possibly coupled with extraordinary abilities, and among them could be whom the bible calls "false Christs" and "false prophets".

"For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now - and never to be equaled again." (Matthew 24:21)

"For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect - if that were possible." (Matthew 24:24)

A possible biblical indication that we may be deceived when we lean too much either to the left brain logic or to the right brain intuition appears in this passage:

"So if anyone tells you, 'There he (Christ) is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it." (Matthew 24:26)

The outward perspective is oriented to the material world; it uses analysis and logic; it drives Western materialism. On the other hand, with the inward perspective one withdraws from the world, seeking unity with God; it's a yearning for holism and it uses intuition; it drives Eastern mysticism.
Confused prophets will try to steer people into materialism or away from the material world, but not into a harmonious balance. They will stroke your ego or will encourage you to throw away your ego.
And again, that biblical passage is followed by: "For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." Salvation requires both the inward AND outward perspective.

The idea of a Savior and of a collective spiritual transformation exists in other religions too (see here), and many contemporary New Age channelings claim that this event (often referred to as ascension or awakening) is impending or under way (see for example here or here).

And finally, it seems that urgent indications of the eschatological event can also be found in pop music:

Natalie Imbruglia: That Day
Moby: Lift Me Up
The Chemical Brothers: Galvanize
Depeche Mode: Enjoy the Silence

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000025G7A.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Pink Floyd's The Division Bell front cover

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,608 • Replies: 60

No top replies

If that is not a long post, one can only hope that you never do inflict a long post on this site.

In reference to the oleagenous mess with which you have regaled us--the mixing of many superstitions cannot axiomatically be said to produce a superior superstition, nor rescue superstition from the intellectual purgatory (i crack me up) which it rightfully inhabits.

0 Replies

I lost the will to live halfway through reading that post, which is quite an achievement, I must add.

You fail to recognise that Communism is actually a Western ideal created by a Western thinker. That it first took off in the East has nothing to do with thinking, but more to do with poverty and a sense of social justice that can be found even in Western thought.

Rethink your position.

0 Replies

Good morning, litewave, and welcome to the forum. You are obviously well read. Have a nice day.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

If that is not a long post, one can only hope that you never do inflict a long post on this site.

Who says it's not a long post?

Setanta wrote:

In reference to the oleagenous mess with which you have regaled us--the mixing of many superstitions cannot axiomatically be said to produce a superior superstition, nor rescue superstition from the intellectual purgatory (i crack me up) which it rightfully inhabits.

I can understand if you don't believe in religions or New Age but what about the stuff concerning brain science, differences between Western and Eastern cultures, and Jungian psychology?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You fail to recognise that Communism is actually a Western ideal created by a Western thinker. That it first took off in the East has nothing to do with thinking, but more to do with poverty and a sense of social justice that can be found even in Western thought.

I am aware that Marx and Engels were Germans (btw, East Germany later belonged to the communist bloc) and there were also other socialist/communist thinkers in the West, but a few people is not enough. I am pointing to a dominant mentality in masses. I suspect that the communist regimes in the East wouldn't have arisen or been maintained for decades if the populations hadn't had a relatively strong collectivistic mentality and a relatively weak sense of individualism - in comparison with those further to the west, where communism wasn't realized, although many people lived in poverty under capitalism.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Good morning, litewave, and welcome to the forum. You are obviously well read. Have a nice day.

Thank you. Nice day to you too. Smile

0 Replies

litewave wrote:

I am aware that Marx and Engels were Germans (btw, East Germany later belonged to the communist bloc) and there were also other socialist/communist thinkers in the West, but a few people is not enough.

The doctrine, however, is Western. You made it sound as if the Doctrine was Eastern in origin and in practice, which it was not and is not.

Quote:

I am pointing to a dominant mentality in masses.

You mean like fascism, which was popular in Western Europe during the 1930s? That was also down to strong collectivistic mentality, as is the American patriotism.

Once again, I must state that you rethink your position. Collective mentality is not a product of the East, as you stated. The New Age movement is not necessarily Eastern in origin. In fact, New Age tends to be Western, originating from Pagan ideals from Europe and a mish-mash of pseudo-science with Eastern ideals.

Your post is too simplistic and I find, ill-worded.

You fail to realise that many scientific developments occured in the East, but that much of the development has been stifled by poverty, a lack of education and the terror brought about by dictatorships that arose from the ruins of once propserous societies that were wrecked by meddling from the West.

Likewise, you fail to realise that the West's dominance in science, technology and democracy (I don't count Capitalism, because China and Japan are economic powerhouses) is not down to a mentality but due to relatively stable politics, good education and a lack of poverty.

Communism arose in the East, not just because of the promises of equality, but also due to a failure by the West to stem the tide.

In the West, any attempts at Communism were dealt with viciously. The Nazis rounded up Communists and had them executed. Even in Britain and the USA, Communists were maltreated. They weren't even allowed to speak during the McCarthy years, were persecuted, perhaps executed or exiled.

The inability of Communism to take hold in many of the Western nations was due to a political effort by the pro-Capitalistic Governments to suppress all attempts at rebellion.

Communism's rise is not down to collective mentality, but down to a failure of pro-Capitalistic forces to crack down on the Commies.

Politics is the major player, not mentality.

0 Replies

litewave wrote:

Who says it's not a long post?

You are absolutely correct, i misread that portion of your oleagenous mess.

Quote:

I can understand if you don't believe in religions or New Age but what about the stuff concerning brain science, differences between Western and Eastern cultures, and Jungian psychology?

The ability to construct in your mind connections between ill-conceived scientific data does not authorize a contention that any such connection exists. As Wolf has pointed out, you are woefully uninformed, and peddling pop notions of "differences" between East and West. Propagandists, by the way, count on such delusions. The governmental authorities of the Peoples' Republic of China offered as an apologia for their ruthless crackdown on the democracy movement which reached its bloody apotheosis in Tianemen (sp?) Square a contention that in the East in general and in China in particular, there is no conception of individual freedom such as exists in the West. This is historically false, and the evidence going back at least to the campaigns of Tsao-Tsao (or Cao-Cao, if one objects to Pinyan) during the collapse of the Later Han Dynasty (late 2nd, early 3rd century CE) is that rulers in China in particular, as well as the East in general, have long negotiated for popular support with peasant leaders at the district and village level, offering recognition of "natural rights" for material support and levies of troops.

I don't intend to offer a post as long as your introductory post--however, i could easily pile up pages of evidence that what are wrongly considered to be western characteristics are to be found in eastern history, and that the reverse is also true.

I'm sure Carl Jung was fun at parties--i don't look to him to provide me with the only definitive description of human nature and how it has impinged on history.

0 Replies

To expand upon what Wolf observed, Marx himself stoutly denied that Russia could ever be the home of the first successful socialist state. He fondly hoped to see that rise in Germany. Vladimir Ulyanov (popularly known by his alias, Lenin) created a fiction when, purely by parliamentary means, he declared his small wing of the Russian Workers Party to be "Bolshevik," which is to say, the majority. The majority of the Party were thereafter, quixotically, known as "Mensheviks," which is to say, the minority. Lenin advised against an uprising. The Mensheviks ignored him, and the result was that their attempt to rise against the Imperial Russian government after the debacle of the 1905 Russo-Japanese war, which was ruthlessly crushed. Thereafter, the Mensheviks fragmented in their upper echelons, and the Bolsheviks got busy with creating their cells, which propagated "the faith," while insulating the leadership from the "Pharoahs," the Tsraist secret police.

In the lead-up to the Great War, the Russians promised the French that they would mobilize within three weeks, and march within six weeks, in the event of war with Germany. No one believed them, including the French--but the French were gratified with the character of the expression of support. The French were then making the moves which would lead to an alliance with their traditional ememy for centuries, England. In the event, the Russians mobilized in two weeks, and marched in three. The First Army group consisted of the First Army commanded by Rennekampf, and the Second Army, commanded by Samsonov. They drove into East Prussia at a speed which amazed the world and dismayed the Germans.

The great architect of the plan to attack France, Schlieffen (sp?), is said to have said on his death bed that all the force should be put on the right (geographically, that means the drive through Belgium). In that event, the plan seems to have been fatally altered before it was implemented (in my never humble opinion) by the insistence of the Bavarians that more force be put into their sector in Alsace and Lorraine, and the neighboring Ardennes. Nevertheless, von Below pushed rapidly across Belgium, and looked like fulfilling Schlieffen's plan to take Paris in a coup de main which would end the war in a little more than a month.

In the east, von Prittwitz, commanding the German Eighth Army, was losing his head. South of Koenigsburg, Rennekampf broke the German line, and sent them reeling. The commander of the First Corps, von François, put in a reserve division, and halted the Russian advance. He then boldly took a decision which he did not bother to clear with von Prittwitz. Leaving a cavalry screen, he withdrew his corps, and march it to the south, using the excellent German railroads, and prepared to do to Samsonov what he had just done to Rennekampf.

Since the days of Frederick the Great, when the King commanded, but a senior experienced officer was responsible for operational plans and execution, the Prussian army had had a dual command structure. Von Prittwitz' operational officer (Chief of Staff) was Colonel Max Hoffman (later, as Max von Hoffman, he was to command the Ninth Army, which drove deep into Russian territory on the Baltic coast, and developed the tactical doctrines which would be used in the German 1918 offensive in the west). He saw the brilliance of von François' initiative, and took the responsiblity, after assuring that Rennekampf had halted and was making no moves to advance, to forward the bulk of the Eighth army to the south and east, where Samsonov's army was not simply stopped but routed. Samsonov rode off from his staff and disappeared into a wood, from which he never returned. He is thought to have shot himself.

But the panic of von Prittwitz was contagious, and two corps were taken from von Below and forwarded to the east. Hindenburg was called out of retirement and sent to replace von Prittwitz, with the phoney hero von Ludendorf to be his chief of staff. Ludendorf saw that Hoffman had the operation well in hand, and chose not to interfer, but only to garner the glory for himself and Hindenburg. But the Schlieffen plan was now doomed, if ever it had a chance, and in the west, the enemies settled down to the nightmare of trench warfare.

In the east, however, Russia reeled from disaster to disaster, and the Tsarist government--now saddled with the additional insanity of the German Tsarina's fascination with Rasputin--had made another fatal decision. The Tsar promised the Allies that he would end drunkenness in Russia by prohibition (yeah, right). This did not end drunkenness, but it deprived his government of the most lucrative revenue it enjoyed--the tax on vodka. Bolsheviks got busy in the munitions factories around St. Petersburg, patriotically renamed Petrograd, and when they were discovered, the Pharoahs foolishly compounded the "disease" by sending the Bosheviks to the front, where they spread their doctrine in the front-line regiments.

In the late winter of 1917 (February in the Julian calendar used by the Russians, March in the Gregorian calendar of the west), discontent in the factories of Petrograd had reached the breaking point. The women of the factories decided to march on the city to demand bread (shades of the French revolution!). The Bolshevik leadership forbad the demonstration, but the women ignored them. They marched on the Nevsky Prospekt, and the Tsarist authrorities (Nicholas II was at the front, to assure that ruling incompetence would be well spread around the empire) sent the Cossacks to disperse them. The women, calling upon them as "little mothers," a term of endearment used for either sex, moved up the Cossack line, and then passing between the horses or stooping under them, continued to advance into the city. The Cossacks made no move to stop them. The Pharoahs had enough sense to see the game was up, and they got out of Dodge just as fast as their fat little legs would carry them. The Russian Revolution was accomplished in an afternoon, and the Boleshviks in the machine gun regiment at Petrograd, and on the cruiser Aurora had enough sense to capitalize on the event--the Soldiers and Sailors Soviet took over the city (soviet just means committee).

Subsequently, in October by the Julian calendar (November in the Gregorian calendar), the Bosheviks overthrew Kerensky's ineffective government, which had fatally compromised itself by acceeding to the request of the Western Allies to continue the war with Germany, thereby destroying any public support they might have had. When General Kornilov earlier attempted a coup, using the Caucasian Division (Chechens and Ingush tribesmen), as had been planned by the Moscow Soviet, the Bolsheviks working for the railroads assured that he would arrive at Petrograd, and a firing squad, but that the Caucasian Division would wind up in about twelve different places, far from Petrograd. This assured the authority of the Petrograd Soviet over the Moscow Soviet, and paved the way first for Lenin, and then for Stalin and Trotsky, who were in Petrograd.

The Germans added dynamite to the mix by hustling Lenin through Germany in a closed train, and getting him across the Baltic to Finland. When Lenin arrived at the Finland station in Petrograd, the fate of the Russian Empire was sealed.

I will not, but i assure you i am able, to apply the same type of analysis to China and the East. Despite the contention of Tolstoy in War and Peace, history is not the tale of the movements of people, nor is it exclusively the tale of "great men." Lenin were irrelevant without the women in the factories demanding bread, and their demands would not have lead to the establishement of the first communist state without Lenin. It is one of the silliest and most common conceits of those who know a little history, but not that much, that events are inevitable. I know of very few events in history which were, in fact, inevitable. The story of how the Russian Revolution occured and succeeded, and how subsequently the Bolshevik Revolution occured and succeeded is a tale which depends upon a particular sequence of events which can by no means be said to have been, each event in and of itself, inevitable. All the pieces had to have occured as they did, when they did, and the result was only inevitable in hindsight, ignoring the particularism of the sequence.

I completely reject the thesis that one can make statements about human nature which are general, but otherwise specific to either the East or the West, and also otherwise exclusive one of the other.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The governmental authorities of the Peoples' Republic of China offered as an apologia for their ruthless crackdown on the democracy movement which reached its bloody apotheosis in Tianemen (sp?) Square

They did? That's news to me.

Also, I've always officially seen Tiananmen Square spelt as I've done so, but sometimes with an ' after Tian.

To expand on Setanta's contention, I must remind you that in China, there were two opposing forces that would have succeeded to power after the expulsion of Japan, the Nationalists and the Communists.

The Communists only won out in the end because the Nationalists were practically decimated thanks to the Japanese Forces.

Vietnam fell partially due to US support for a Catholic President whom discriminated against the majority of Buddhists in the country; combined with American atrocities against Vietnamese villagers, which wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't sent mentally ill-qualified youngsters to fight. Cambodia... I'm not sure about Cambodia, actually.

Yes, my above explanation is an oversimplification, but it is enough to prove that your contention that Communism rose due to an Eastern collective mentality is pure bunkum.

0 Replies

I'd have been more prolix, without doubt, but those are basically the arguments i'd have offered about communism in China and Indo-China. I would also have pointed out that Ho Chi Mihn was educated in France, as a part of their concept of the mission civilizatrice, and where he became a communist. After the Second World War, the English and the Americans, through Wild Bill Donovan's OSS, promised Ho that they would support him, as they had done when he lead the only viable force fighting the Japanese in Indo-China.

Thanks for the spelling correction, i post this stuff off the top of my head.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

The doctrine, however, is Western. You made it sound as if the Doctrine was Eastern in origin and in practice, which it was not and is not.

Ok, it's Eastern in massive practice.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You mean like fascism, which was popular in Western Europe during the 1930s? That was also down to strong collectivistic mentality, as is the American patriotism.

Once again, I must state that you rethink your position. Collective mentality is not a product of the East, as you stated.

I mean collectivistic mentality as emphasis on social cohesion and economic collectivism. Communism abolished private ownership of resources and transferred them into common ownership. Economic decision making was transferred from businesses to the government. Communism reduced differences in wealth among people. The goal was to create a classless society, and "everyone should give according to his ability and be given according to his needs". You don't have this mentality in America. In America you have emphasis on freedom of the individual and the American dream of getting rich.
As for fascism, although it opposed the communist ideal of "brotherhood of men" because of nationalistic and racial chauvinism, it did have collectivistic features too; it opposed capitalism and was fueled by mass hysteria around a leader. You see, continental Western Europe was a boundary region, with both Western and Eastern influences.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

The New Age movement is not necessarily Eastern in origin. In fact, New Age tends to be Western, originating from Pagan ideals from Europe and a mish-mash of pseudo-science with Eastern ideals.

New Age is a recent development in which Western tradition merges with Eastern. It is part of globalization, massive interaction and mutual enrichment between West and East.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You fail to realise that many scientific developments occured in the East, but that much of the development has been stifled by poverty, a lack of education and the terror brought about by dictatorships that arose from the ruins of once propserous societies that were wrecked by meddling from the West.

Likewise, you fail to realise that the West's dominance in science, technology and democracy (I don't count Capitalism, because China and Japan are economic powerhouses) is not down to a mentality but due to relatively stable politics, good education and a lack of poverty.

I don't mean to say there have been no scientists in the East or no mystics in the West. I am pointing to the domination of science and technology in the West and of mysticism in the East. While poverty and lack of education may have various causes you shouldn't ignore the Eastern religions which view the material world as illusional and corrupt and whose goal is to get rid of material desires and achieve liberation from the material world.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Communism arose in the East, not just because of the promises of equality, but also due to a failure by the West to stem the tide.

That's right. And capitalism survived in the West also due to a failure by the East to spread the communist ideology there.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

In the West, any attempts at Communism were dealt with viciously. The Nazis rounded up Communists and had them executed. Even in Britain and the USA, Communists were maltreated. They weren't even allowed to speak during the McCarthy years, were persecuted, perhaps executed or exiled.

The inability of Communism to take hold in many of the Western nations was due to a political effort by the pro-Capitalistic Governments to suppress all attempts at rebellion.

That's right. And government action enjoyed popular support.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Communism's rise is not down to collective mentality, but down to a failure of pro-Capitalistic forces to crack down on the Commies.

I see it's hard for a Westerner like you to imagine that collectivism may be more important for some people than individualism.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Politics is the major player, not mentality.

The two can go hand in hand, can't they?

0 Replies

litewave wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
The doctrine, however, is Western. You made it sound as if the Doctrine was Eastern in origin and in practice, which it was not and is not.

Ok, it's Eastern in massive practice.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
You mean like fascism, which was popular in Western Europe during the 1930s? That was also down to strong collectivistic mentality, as is the American patriotism.

Once again, I must state that you rethink your position. Collective mentality is not a product of the East, as you stated.

I mean collectivistic mentality as emphasis on social cohesion and economic collectivism.

Fascism is very social cohesive. Communism isn't economically collectivist. Look at Communist China. Pah. You can't call that Communist.

Quote:

Economic decision making was transferred from businesses to the government. Communism reduced differences in wealth among people.

Rubbish. Communism did no such thing. It was supposed to, mind you, but it never did, which just goes to disprove your point.

Quote:

You see, continental Western Europe was a boundary region, with both Western and Eastern influences.

America is also influenced by itself and the East.

Quote:

I don't mean to say there have been no scientists in the East or no mystics in the West. I am pointing to the domination of science and technology in the West and of mysticism in the East.

And in the past, science was far more dominant in the East than in the West, which makes your latter point moot. They were materialistic in the East too.

Quote:

That's right. And government action enjoyed popular support.

Well, of course. Government propaganda made people fear Communism. It is a mentality instilled in the population through political propaganda, not an inherent mentality as you claimed.

Quote:

I see it's hard for a Westerner like you to imagine that collectivism may be more important for some people than individualism.

Very judgemental of you. It's also very prejudiced of you, I might add.

Quote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Politics is the major player, not mentality.

The two can go hand in hand, can't they?

[/quote]

Well, this is the problem. Your original post blamed mentality solely. It brought about supposed differences in the West and the East, that either aren't there or have minimalistic roles in the way our world is at the moment.

You painted the East as a hemisphere of people who are mentally incapable of being scientific and rational, whom rely solely on mysticism.

The original post was so oversimplistic it was insulting to the people it was describing.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The governmental authorities of the Peoples' Republic of China offered as an apologia for their ruthless crackdown on the democracy movement which reached its bloody apotheosis in Tianemen (sp?) Square a contention that in the East in general and in China in particular, there is no conception of individual freedom such as exists in the West.

This view may be true to some extent but obviously the Chinese government took it to the extreme. I think that popular protests against the Chinese government, as well as in Eastern Europe and Russia at the end of 1980s/beginning of 1990s, and China's gradual introduction of market economy since the end of 1970s were due to the long-term unsustainability of the extremely collectivistic economic system and totalitarian ideology and due to the pressures of globalization. That doesn't mean that collectivistic mentality didn't play a significant role in the Eastern communist regimes.

Setanta wrote:

This is historically false, and the evidence going back at least to the campaigns of Tsao-Tsao (or Cao-Cao, if one objects to Pinyan) during the collapse of the Later Han Dynasty (late 2nd, early 3rd century CE) is that rulers in China in particular, as well as the East in general, have long negotiated for popular support with peasant leaders at the district and village level, offering recognition of "natural rights" for material support and levies of troops.

In such distant past dictatorships existed almost everywhere in the world. Even in the West, the rise of individualism seems to have its beginnings in Renaissance and the industrial revolution (though there was partial democracy already in ancient Greece and Rome, which however ended in the feudal system of Middle Ages).

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I will not, but i assure you i am able, to apply the same type of analysis to China and the East. Despite the contention of Tolstoy in War and Peace, history is not the tale of the movements of people, nor is it exclusively the tale of "great men." Lenin were irrelevant without the women in the factories demanding bread, and their demands would not have lead to the establishement of the first communist state without Lenin. It is one of the silliest and most common conceits of those who know a little history, but not that much, that events are inevitable. I know of very few events in history which were, in fact, inevitable. The story of how the Russian Revolution occured and succeeded, and how subsequently the Bolshevik Revolution occured and succeeded is a tale which depends upon a particular sequence of events which can by no means be said to have been, each event in and of itself, inevitable. All the pieces had to have occured as they did, when they did, and the result was only inevitable in hindsight, ignoring the particularism of the sequence.

I completely reject the thesis that one can make statements about human nature which are general, but otherwise specific to either the East or the West, and also otherwise exclusive one of the other.

Ok, but I think you underestimate the socialist ideology shared by hundreds of millions of people in the communist bloc.

0 Replies

Hundreds of millions of people may have been subject to Marxism. That by no means can be construed to mean that they "shared" that ideology, that they adhered to its principles.

0 Replies

litewave wrote:

In such distant past dictatorships existed almost everywhere in the world. Even in the West, the rise of individualism seems to have its beginnings in Renaissance and the industrial revolution (though there was partial democracy already in ancient Greece and Rome, which however ended in the feudal system of Middle Ages).

This can be dismissed as nonsense. In Germania, Tacitus acknowledges that the Germans recognized neither an aristocracy or a monarchy, and commented that a German tribe was as likely to elect a Graf in time of war, as to select a candidate from their royal clan. They could chose a "King" from such a family for the period of the emergency, or they could elect a Graf. But his evidence also was that no persons held such an office, nor exercised any such authority, in the absence of a perceived emergency. In ancient Keltic societies, it was not even certain that the man exercised paramount authority in a household, as the woman was entitled to claim supremecy if she could demonstrate that her property exceeded in value that of the male head of household--that was the entire basis for the dispute between Maeve and Aiffe at the beginning of the Irish Epic, Tain bo Cuilgne, or The Coolney Cattle Raid. "Law speaks," known by the name Thing were the moots at which all members of a tribe among the Norge and Danes stood forth as equals subject to the judgement of the community. Rousseau's rather florid account in Sur l'origine de l'inégalité nevertheless points out the basic equality which can be construed as obtaining in all primitive societies before the rise of more complex polities.

The problem you are laboring under is an unthinking acceptance of the Semitic-centered view of history and socities which came through the 19th century historians and archaeologists who saw the middle eastern temple societies of Sumer and the later Akkadians as being exemplary of the rise of all civilizations. In marauding bands of Aryan tribesmen, in groups such as the Turkic-speaking horsemen of the central Asian highlands, no leader has any authority which does not rest upon his or her competence.

0 Replies

At the beginning of the warring states period in Japanese history, Oda Nobunaga began, but did not accomlish (he was assassinated) the conquest and unification of Japan. His father, Oda Nobuhide, was the clan ruler of the province of Owari, and could not even control all of his province, nor all of his clan. He accomplished exactly two political coups in his life--first he married his son Nobunaga to the daughter of the powerful Daimyo of the rich province of Mino to the north, which also controlled the northern portion of Owari. That daimyo Saito Dosan, was the son of a merchant, and had begun life himself as a merchant--among the lowest and most despised of classes in a rigid society. But Saito Dosan had made himself master of Mino, arguably the richest province in Japan. He was overthrown by his own son, who was accepted as daimyo because he had demonstrated his competence by overthrowing his own competent father.

Oda Nobuhide's other coup was to kidnap Matsudaira Motoyasu as he was being taken to the province of Suruga to be a hostage to Imagawa Yoshimoto, then one of the most powerful daimyos in Japan. Matsudaira was the leading clan of Mikawa, one of the three and the western-most of the provinces controlled by clan Imagawa. Even the Matsudaira clan was fragmented, and Motoyasu's father was the leader of the faction which accepted Imagawa dominance, and was therefore fated to fall.

Oda Nobunaga was a black sheep. He was not the choice to succeed his father, and caused a scandal when he appeared drunk and rowdy at his father's funeral. But Nobunaga had the protection of the then-powerful Saito Dosan. Imagawa Yoshimoto attempted to take Kyoto, and force the emperor to proclaim him Shogun--but he failed, and he lost his life in the battle in which he was defeated. Matsudaira Motoyasu, however, defeated the forces of the notional Shogun, took a border fortress of Oumi (the province in which Kyoto is located), and then retreated to Mikawa, cementing his position with his people. He then made alliance with Oda Nobunaga, which enabled both of them to survive, and enabled Nobunaga to begin his career of conquest.

After Nobunaga's assassination, Matsudaira Motoyasu survived, and, having already changed his name to Tokugawa Ieyasu, went on to complete the work of conquering and unifying Japan. The dynasty of Tokugawa Shoguns ruled Japan for more than two centuries. All of the principle figures who succeeded, Saito Dosan, Oda Nobunaga and Matsudiara Motoyasu/Tokugawa Ieyasu, rose from obscure origins on the strength of their personal competence. All of the big players at the beginning of that period--Imagawa Yoshimoto, Takeda Shingen, Uyesugi Kenshin, Mori Montonari--were destined to death in battle, or obscurity from their individual and personal declines.

Competence has always meant more in individuals in history than has any position in a notional "dictatorship" to which you are please to allude. Tolstoy was right to point out that individuals are not the only force in history, and that movements of peoples are important. But this thesis that the invasion of Russia marked the highwater point of the "will" of the French people to move east, and was followed by the "will" of the Russian people to move west was pure, unadulterated horsiepoop. The complex mosaic of history shows both movements of people, and dynamic change occuring because of competent and charismatic people.

We can look at the career of Temujin next, and the history of the Chinese dynasties, if you like.

0 Replies

Although it has been found scientifically people from the East tend to view the big picture more, whereas people from the West tend to focus on the smaller parts that make up the whole.

However, to suggest that this is partially respsonsible for Communism's hold over the East is preposterous and baseless.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Communism isn't economically collectivist. Look at Communist China. Pah. You can't call that Communist.

Typical communism entailed a centrally planned and directed economy. Chinese government started to introduce market mechanism in the late 1970s due to inefficiency of centralized economy and due to pressures of globalization.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Quote:
Economic decision making was transferred from businesses to the government. Communism reduced differences in wealth among people.

Rubbish. Communism did no such thing. It was supposed to, mind you, but it never did, which just goes to disprove your point.

Communist governments decided about prices and wages and they nationalized private resources (land and capital).

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Quote:
You see, continental Western Europe was a boundary region, with both Western and Eastern influences.

America is also influenced by itself and the East.

In the era of globalization you can find interaction between West and East almost anywhere.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

And in the past, science was far more dominant in the East than in the West, which makes your latter point moot. They were materialistic in the East too.

I know they invented many practical things but later they fell behind the West.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Well, of course. Government propaganda made people fear Communism. It is a mentality instilled in the population through political propaganda, not an inherent mentality as you claimed.

But I guess you also admit inherent individualism in the West (or was it just government propaganda?), so why do you deny inherent collectivism in the East?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You painted the East as a hemisphere of people who are mentally incapable of being scientific and rational, whom rely solely on mysticism.

The original post was so oversimplistic it was insulting to the people it was describing.

In the original post I named pros and cons of the left-brain and right-brain perspectives and said that the former was cultivated especially in the West and the latter especially in the East. It is you who puts extremist spin on my words.

0 Replies

Logic and intuition, West and East, and the coming of Christ

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know