April 30, 2010
- Niccolò Machiavelli on “Liberty” vs Liberation -
And thus the desire of defending liberty caused each to prevail [raise itself] in proportion as they oppressed the other. And the course of such incidents is, that while men sought not to fear, they begun to make others fear, and that injury which they ward off from themselves, they inflict on another, as if it should be necessary either to offend or to be offended.
(via Jayarava’s Raves)
photo caption: Machiavelli has developed his “smug bastard” look to perfection.
;)
Comment by Ian — April 30, 2010 @ 10:22 am
So what’s liberation?
Comment by ted — April 30, 2010 @ 8:22 pm
That is the question, isn’t it?
Comment by Ian — May 1, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
From another perspective:
Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power.
- Lao-tzu
Comment by Ann Seeker — May 3, 2010 @ 12:08 am
Hell yeah! I love the Tao Te Ching. Thank you Ann, for the wonderful reminder.
That’s it, exactly. The removal of the need to fear. Not to be fearless but being able to say yes and no to it, and knowing when each is appropriate (as much as possible).
Comment by Ian — May 3, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
Wasn’t Lao Tzu, in reality what Machiaveli was trying to be? That is an advisor to powerful rulers?
I mean the thing is though Lao Tzu wasn’t an anarchist. His assumption is that some people are fit to rule and that others aren’t. He was a bit elitist, which I don’t object to, because I think there could be a true Aristocracy, hypothetically, at least.
But as far as the article this is from goes, I don’t think dropping out is the answer.
Comment by Ted — May 3, 2010 @ 8:55 pm
It’s an interesting article, but I only linked to it to give credit to where I found the quote, not as any positive or negative judgment on the article itself, nor to imply that it held an “answer” of any sort.
Lao Tzu, if he really existed (and there’s some confusion about that), was actually just some sort of mid-level government figure (in the arcane hierarchies of Chinese government of the time) but the legend is that he left all that behind to go wandering off into the mountains when he was stopped by a border guard and asked to give a summary of his understanding of life. This was the Tao Te Ching, after which Lao Tzu was heard from no more.
Also, Lao Tzu essentially just means old (lao) master (tzu). From the same Chinese as the Zen Roshi, in fact.
With this quote that Ann posted, its not meant to be an either-or thing. Lao Tzu was definitely not an anarchist. Mastery over others is strength, but its not true power. If you desire power, the only way that craving will ever be truly be fulfilled is through mastery of the self. Everything else is painting over rotten wood, instead of replacing it, an attempt to cover up the fear rather than address its root cause (an incorrect understanding of the self).
Comment by Ian — May 4, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
Well, I thought you were juxtaposing liberty and liberation. I wanted to talk about that.
I think Liberty is a good starting point. I think a bunch of mutually semi-hostile people all fighting for Liberty is the basic bed-rock of what America is.
I think when people are free they buy guns and compete in business and try to accumulate wealth and things like that. Its the Frontier mentality. I think under Feudalism, people know their place more and there is less conflict. Classes are really stratified, everything is more ossified, people live in the shadow of huge buildings and ancient institutions hundreds even thousands of years old. There is less struggle and conflict. So if the message here is “be a liberated peasant” withdraw from “the game” I find a problem with that.
I mean, sure there is room for a few people to do that, but on the main its not a way to be influential in the World. And I think that its a given that successful people are able to rule themselves first. But Somebody is going to have a disporportionate influence over others, why not have it be a good person with noble aspirations? Or at least a really ambitious slightly narcissistic person with noble aspirations? Whatever it takes to get the job done.
Creative chaos! Revolution!Leadership!
Comment by Ted — May 5, 2010 @ 9:01 am
I mean isn’t it quite possible that the key players in the game, the “rigged game” are the ones with the most vested interest in enlightened people withdrawing from the game altogether and leaving it to the staus quo?
Comment by Ted — May 5, 2010 @ 9:04 am
What makes the job “done”?
Comment by Ian — May 5, 2010 @ 10:03 am
Well there is a lot of Environmental degredation and crushing poverty in the world.
So you could say “well, I don’t like this rat race, this world is too greedy for me. I will drop out, take a vow poverty, maybe a vow of silence too, and lead a life of contemplation. Maybe others will notice my peaceful countenance as I sit all day in front of my begging bowl and they will decide to emmulate me and eventually everyone will become a renunciate and all the worlds problems will melt away.”
That doesn’t seem to be getting the job done. Dropping out of the game doesn’t end the game. The game goes on, even escalates. To be influential you must engage. In TIME magzines 100 most influential People I was most impressed with This Guy
Stuff like that. Progress. I believe in Progress. I think you kind of do too.
I don’t know when it would be “done” but disengaging doesn’t finish anything either. I think it just makes things worse and tries to get people to accept their fate quietly and patiently.
Comment by Ted — May 5, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
Yeah, that guy seems to have the right idea. But he’s kind of dropped out too, in that he’s not playing the game according to its rules. He’s broken away from that, looked around with fresh eyes, and done something that probably seemed impossible (just because no one had done it yet). Its hard to stay in the game and not be caught up by its “rules…”. Breaking away from the rules can be one form of “dropping out”.
Anyway, no one’s advocating dropping out here. Looking over the comments, it seems to be something you brought to the discussion and then proceeded to argue against. I don’t quite understand this…?
Comment by Ian — May 6, 2010 @ 10:23 am
the guy that wrote the article seems to advocate that and says that’s what the Buddha advocated.
Comment by Ted — May 6, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
Comment by Ted — May 6, 2010 @ 6:19 pm