Problems with dirtbags

[Howard Wallace]

In discussions of self defense, law enforcement, weapons… on various internet forums and even here in the Cantina, people ponder how to deal with violence, dishonesty, lawlessness, exploitation and theft. In particular, they often discuss how to deal with the problem of the dirtbag or scumbag, who is seen as a threat to the good people of the world.

I have to admit I share that assessment. Dirtbags are a threat to the good people in the world, although I think I may see the threat of the dirtbags from a slightly different angle. In this post I want to explore the dirtbag threat, and since this is the HI forum, use a little perspective borrowed from Tibetan Buddhist philosophers.

A digression on the demons of the Tibetans.

If you spend a little time looking at Tibetan Buddhist paintings (thangkas) you will see many pictures of fearful demons. Often black, with blood dripping from their fangs, and rings of severed heads around their waists. Many times they are treading on some poor prostrate wretch. In one of the most famous thangka themes, the wheel of life, the fearsome demon Mahakala holds the entire wheel of life, with all the heaven and hell realms of the intricate Tibetan mythology contained inside the wheel. Spend a few moments to google “thangka” or "wheel of life" and look at the images. You’ll find images of demons and hell realms that rival anything from the imagination of Hieronymus Bosch.

I encountered a Tibetan demon in my youth. It was after I had spent some time wandering in Nepal, seeing the paintings of fearsome demons in village temples back in the hills, staying in a monastery for a while. It a short time after I left Nepal, in a little hill station in the highlands of Sri Lanka, that I encountered the demon. He was just as in the Tibetan pictures, large and black and fearsome, and he was holding me down so I couldn't move just as I was awaking from sleep. For some reason, perhaps from being so recently steeped in the philosophy/psychology of the Tibetan Buddhists, I told the demon “You are a construct of my mind.” Not cooperating, he said in a deep voice “No, I’m not, ” and continued to hold me down. I once again made the assertion that he was my construct, and this time he gradually began to dissolve and fade away, and I could get up. Western psychologists call this a hypnopompic experience. It is a well known phenomena, involving hallucinations and paralysis upon transitioning out of the sleep state. For me, it was a lesson on mental constructs.

My interpretation of the demons of Tibet is not unique. While many unsophisticated Tibetan Buddhist farmers and laborers may see the demons as real and exterior to themselves, most lamas and monks who have spent years contemplating the workings of the mind understand the demons as mental constructs. One book that points this out quite clearly is the Bardo Thodol, or as we know it the Tibetan Book of the Dead. This book is often read over a corpse, and contains instructions for the departing spirit to navigate the bardo realms between rebirths. The bardo is also a convenient place to step off the wheel of life altogether, and choose not to be reborn. While this book is read out loud over a corpse in the hills of Nepal and Tibet, it is interesting to consider that the unsophisticated peasants who may be listening are getting a dose of rather sophisticated psychology/philosophy from an often very learned lama in the process.

The contents of the book detail the sometimes awesome, often frightening, experiences that the soul will encounter in the bardo realm. Always the key to escaping the fear and releasing onself from the bonds of life and death is the realization that the scary light, or demon, or whatever is a construct of mind. Once that realization is obtained, the soul is free to step off the wheel if it wishes. If not, it is inextricably drawn by its own desires to another womb for another lifetime of lessons.

Bill Martino was studying the Bardo Thodol in the months and years before he passed away. He told me several times he didn’t understand it, but I never believed him. He kept reading it and studying it, and that doesn’t happen if the message is not getting through.

A Tibetan demon is as terrifying as a dirtbag. In fact, the dirtbag we meet on the streets of a local city is a Tibetan demon. The dirtbag is a mental construct in the mind of the perceiver. That is not to say that one of us can’t have his skull caved in by a crowbar or be killed by a bullet fired by someone trying to hurt us. That can obviously happen. But the harm that a dirtbag can cause goes beyond those physical injuries.

Let’s spend a few moments considering the possible benefits and drawbacks of the dirtbag construct, realizing that we have the choice whether or not to employ it.

Some may argue that positive aspects of the dirtbag construct are the short-circuiting of compassion and moral considerations that could lead to hesitation in a life-or-death situation when seconds count. Also the temporary relief from guilt or moral torment from one’s actions. These follow directly from the dehumanization of the dirtbag. Military forces through the ages have used the dirtbag construct to address the reluctance of soldiers to kill. My old high school shop teacher used to regale his students with stories of dirtbags. He called them “gooks” because he was fresh from the war in Vietnam. People I have encountered returning from conflicts in the Mideast or Asia often refer to dirtbags as “towelheads” or “sand n*****s.” In a military situation some argue that a soldier is safer and more effective if he engages and terminates the enemy immediately upon identification as a dirtbag. In this manner of thinking, if the dirtbag’s back is turned, the soldier is safer shooting the dirtbag in the back rather than allowing the dirtbag to turn around and possibly engage. Similarly if pre-adolescent dirtbags have been suspected of killing soldiers, this line of thought would lead one to the conclusion that it is safest to engage and terminate a pre-adolescent dirtbag immediately upon identification. Lest this be considered hyperbole, remember the saying popularized during the Albigensian Crusade but that has been used by military forces throughout history, notably in the massacres of Native Americans not so long ago, “Kill them all and let God sort them out.”

In my youth the dirtbag construct and terminologies seemed most obviously prevalent amongst military men. Law enforcement of those days often referred to citizens as “sir” or “ma’am”, even when they had to give an order. In today’s world the dirtbag construct seems to be more widely accepted and encouraged among law enforcement. It is not unusual today to hear even members of the bar or the judiciary speaking in informal settings of dirtbags.

So what counterpoints can be brought against the arguments for dehumanizing and summarily dealing with perceived dirtbags? Here are some considerations:

• The dirtbag may be later reclassified. Consider the recent case of Kelly Thomas, who was beaten to death by law enforcement officers on the street. Later it was discovered that Kelly was the son of a retired LEO, that he had psychological problems but was known for his gentleness, and some people reevaluated his dirtbag status. Another case involved John T. Williams in Seattle carrying a knife and a piece of wood who was engaged and terminated by law enforcement. Later John's dirtbag status was reevaluated by many who remembered him as a gentle, deaf woodcarver who was known and cherished by many in the neighborhood where he was shot to death. In both these examples and many others society and the judiciary judged the results regrettable but not punishable, implicitly endorsing the utility of the dirtbag construct.
• Individuals using the dirtbag construct are subject to delayed guilt and moral turmoil. Now we are losing more ex-soldiers to suicide than are being killed in action, arguably due to the application of the dirtbag construct and the later turmoil it causes in their consciousness.
• Any of us could be subject to classification under a dirtbag construct. In that case we may be subject to summary execution without a chance to explain ourselves. This element of danger to every member of society counterbalances the increases in safety from instantly engaging perceived dirtbags.
• Damage to society due to the loss of respectful interactions. A great gift of our humanity is the chance to respectfully engage with the depths of each other. Those depths are obscured in the cartoon world of dirtbag constructs.
• Use of the dirtbag construct obscures reality.

We need to ask ourselves what kind of society and lives we want. Heinlein said “An armed society is a polite society.” It could be, if strong individuals acknowledge the humanity of other individuals and act with clear perception and compassion. However, if armed men walk around obscuring their perception with a dirtbag construct, Mr. Heinlein may be wrong.

Can one live with integrity and honor while affording other humans respect? Can one upon necessity engage with, hurt, or even kill another human while maintaining that essential respect of one human for another. These are important questions for every individual to address, sooner or later.

 

[Shavru]

Howard, A very VERY involved and Evolved combination of philosophy and humanity. And it leads to a couple of interesting conundrums.

First I would never disagree with anything that you stated because it is all very definately fact. However, I would then ask the question. What are we to do? Which is worse, the allowing the dirtbags to win by allowing the fact that they exist to change the way we act and how we choose to interact with people? (which as a person who has a CPL and carries a concealed pistol on a daily basis I admit I have allowed) OR do we continue along choosing to be blind to the fact that demons do in fact exist. Not just the self constructs you mention, but flesh and blood people who are willing to hurt others, even kill to perceptively better their own situation even minimally? Or in some cases just for the "FUN" of it.

I know personally that I have over the years become much more guarded in dealing with people. I rarely lower my situational awareness when I am outside of my own enclosed and controlled spaces. Even in my own yard I am wary if people come up to me without prior expectation. Heck when I answer the door to the mailman who I know casually and chat with, I still keep my primary hand free of obstruction incase I have to draw a weapon. I sit with my back to the wall at every public place I enter. (imagine hubby and I both rushing for the same chair because he has the same feeling I do LOL)

Do the deaths I have caused bother me? Yes! Do I dehumanize any of those individuals? No, I know the face of each and every one of them and if I take a brief moment I can remember exactly what they were doing when I killed them. Do I regret the circumstances that made it necessary? Yes. Would I do it again? In defense of a concept like country? I am lucky to no longer be in the military so it will not be something I will need to decide anymore. In defense of myself or my husband? Definately! In defense of my property? No probably not unless I felt that myself or my family was also threatened. Now here is the unfortunate thing. once you give up control enough to allow threat to your property, it is already too late to change your mind if the threat then encompasses yourself or family. If you allow the "dirtbag" enough of an upperhand that they control you enough to take your property then they also control taking your life should they choose that too.

Does that make me less compassionate? Not really. I choose to believe that there are a number of ways that we interact with people each day. In person, I am probably less likely to allow someone to gain control of a situation and will always be wary and aware. However that does not mean that I kick stray dogs and the homeless. I can be giving and kind and not put myself in situations where I am in danger.

I definately understand your view and what you mean by the "dirtbag" concept you discuss. It reminds me of the fact that every single language in the world has some way to refer to foreigners, or "someone NOT of us" By making them not one of us then it is easier to view them as having less rights or less humanity. My "not of us" group happens to include people who would do harm to innocents for their own benefit, whether that be robbery, rape, murder or anything in between. Would it make it easier to kill should I find it necessary. Probably, however, I assure you it is still not something I take lightly nor is it something I ever forget once done. trust me, there are reasons I have insomnia many nights.

So yes, there are many problems with dirtbags. Not least those issues you identify. However, I truly feel that dirtbags do exist they are not ALL mental constructs. Looking into the eyes of some people can very quickly show you demons do exist. As for the 2 situations that you mention as "re-classification" I would point out that in the same city of Seattle within the same year of John T. Williams death 4 police officers were gunned down while drinking coffee and working on laptops at a coffee shop. The dirtbag walked up to the counter as if to buy a coffee then when behind the officers, pulled out a gun and shot 2 of them before they could even react. The other 2 died trying to fight for their lives and protect the barista and other patrons of the shop. This was not a botched robbery attempt, it was a targetted attack on the officers, an execution because they were police officers. No other reason. It is a fine line we force police officers to walk. I would not want the responsibility.

Also remember that Heinlein accurately predicted in Starship Troopers (the book not that pathetic movie) that future people would not be safe walking in their own city park in the evening because gangs of teenage toughs would take them over as their "turf" seems his Sci-Fi books have a very healthu grounding in human psychology and forethought. While you seem to feel he might have missed the boat with the armed society concept. I believe that it was more polite(think the west during settler days) England, pre-Victorian or Europe similar timing (but only if you discount the interaction between noble and non-noble. That causes other issues but intra class not inter) and would be true should society as a whole embrase the concept.

 

[Howard Wallace]

...However, I would then ask the question. What are we to do? ...

Aye, but there's the rub.

Violence and evil actions do exist, and we are forced to come to terms with them in one way or another. It is not an easy conundrum. In the Tibetan tradition, they might tell us it is a puzzle that takes many, many lifetimes to solve. However, the puzzle, if not the answers, is heavy on the awareness of many of us.

My old Aikido sensei used to tell me, "When you throw someone you must throw them on the path of the universe." Sometimes I wonder if he was close to the answer.

 

[Gehazi]

some of the best posts ever in the cantina - my only response is our minds are definitely the constructors of our reality, though in my mind that in no way removes the very real ecology that exists between us and our environs, demons definitely exist and they are all within the sapient mind, making them no less dangerous.

but then I invite you to regard the world, a garden of agony and war, beautiful and terrible, dancing madly at the feet of the unknown, trying desperately to carve meaning out of the vastness-- and in the garden, the players all ignore the game itself, and engage with vigor each other. I often wonder if any species can rise to our level without the inherent need for exploitation. Humanity naturally looks around itself and sees what may be turned to its chain, what may be made to serve. It is the same when people predate one another, there is no real malice there , there is only dancing in this garden, taking part in the war our mother commanded, until the silence takes us all.
The criminal very often has rational reasons for his behavior, survival usually comes into prominence from any of us, just as often it is the product of a need to distinguish ones existence from those around them, so they do retrogressive things , since those things are exactly why humans are where they are.

If you read any of the old works like Anabasis or Shahnameh you realize that humans can never stop seeking each others things, then attacking it, because the unfamiliarity makes it outside of what can be cared about , as humans have no ability to care about everyone, only the clan and immediate group.

Humanity can only see the shape of the desire they summon, this is why buddhism has such great value; but, in the end I think we are unable to change past the programming , 136 things is all a human being can care about, thus you will never get out of the "group" mentality -- where people attach to a perception of community whether it be Law enforcement or criminals, or soldiers or terrorists, or just frat boys , human beings gather together and are lead to dominate everything around them, as in nature , removing the other groups by any means seems very rational to the animal.

We can also follow the intuition of the tamil tigers, who have a concept of "perfect violence" where they reverse the entire idea of buddhism, and actually consider certain murders and killings viable because removing those they kill was done without anger, and for the needs of the wheel.

This more than anything is the reason to be beneath notice of anyone , no better defense against those who seek the war

 

[Shavru]

My old Aikido sensei used to tell me, "When you throw someone you must throw them on the path of the universe."

hmmm wouldn't that translate very closely to "Let God sort them out?"

Howard, I definately agree each and every person needs to address this personally within themselves and determine how they can walk the edge. And I never disagree with another person's decisions on where that edge is for them. The only ones I disagree with are the ones that try to tell me where the acceptable edge is for me.

Gehazi, Poetry and philosophy in equal parts. Nicely done and very accurate of humanity as a whole.

We have some very well learned folks here who have studied this, I can tell. It is always good to discuss these types of topics as it sometimes leads to adjustments in how we view them. I love reading both of your views because it gives me information to allow me to determine if I have gone too far one direction. Always learn and never stay static is my goal. Always room to improve.

 

[Bawanna]

All way over my head but I'm reading and rereading in an attempt to wrap my mind around it anyhow.
My first take and few word summary was don't profile folks. I'll reread a few more times today and hopefully can come back with something intelligent to say.

 

[blue lander]

I can see how the "dirtbag construct" might dehumanize people and sew civil strife and philosophically might keep you from achieving inner peace and oneness with the universe or whatever. But speaking as somebody who lives in a dangerous city and sometimes has to walk through streets and alleys where people regularly get robbed or assaulted, you have to categorize people on how likely they might want to do you harm and behave accordingly. It's just survival. Being able to spot a dirtbag and knowing what to do might be the only thing that gets you home that night.

 

[J W Bensinger]

It's important to recognize the difference between the concept of "dirtbag"-which may have visual markers but is a pretty loose idea- and "dirtbag" (or whatever the term for the enemy is) based on immediate input.
Was I wary of every local national I interacted with outside the wire? Yep. But I made no judgement about them.
Same goes for this side of the pond. Actions dictate action, not preconcieved notions of who the problem is, ideally.
"I am very compassionate-but I have no mercy in me at all."

 

[Jens Schuetz]

Never been in a war and never heard of dirt backs in the army. They didn't even talk of commies or similar stereotypes. (Served during the time of the war against Serbia and trained a quite a few German soldiers who went there)
Still even without propaganda I would have not hesitated to disable any threat to my guys or me.

Seriously I don't hate the "subhuman enemy dirtbags" and see them as normal humans who act the same as I would under similar circumstances!!!

Still I value my own, my family's, my friends' and my comrades' life's more than that of unknown enemy combatants and would act accordingly! One could say its love, friendship and comradery which could make me kill but not hate.
Sounds good? Maybe, but doesn't make a difference to the poor guy on the other side of the barrel.

No need for dirtbag mind tricks. Simple honesty and something I could live with, without regret and turning suicidal. In theory.

 

[Bawanna]

I sense a fork in the road here with two different situations to deal with. One being the average or perhaps sub average civilian subject perceived as a threat to one or one's loved one's comrades so to speak.

The second a larger war type situation conceived and supported by a larger entity. Much less control on a personal level.

I was trying to digest the first version as that was the way I read it but of course I may be wrong. I personally seldom use the term dirtbag but there are several variations that basically mean the same thing. I also don't lump all of a certain group of people into the same category but profile on an individual basis.
I do take into consideration high density area's where there are without question a higher number of the folks I'd prefer to avoid.
If any of this makes sense please let me know, I think my brain is starting to melt.

 

[Rhinoknives1]

Very interesting thread.

I agree that the "Demon or Dirtbag" can be physical or a mental construct.
In the case of Kelly Thomas, Deemed by society to be a homeless "Dirtbag" I never saw him as anything but a mentally ill man and see the officer/officers in the clean pressed uniform who beat Mr. Thomas leading to his death, who then said in court, that he/they were in fear of their lives from Thomas. I see these Officer/officer's in the video as the real dirtbag Demons.

So they don't have to be one of the dregs or outcasts of our society to be a true "Demon Dirtbag". There are many others as well, some in elected office perhaps?

This is not to politicize this issue and I usually side with law enforcement. This is just to say that who the physical "Demon Dirtbag" is to me, might not be the same as to you.

What do they call "Demons" like that in the Tibetan book of the dead that seem fine on the outside but are really demons in disguise?

 

[Gehazi]

In the book of the dead, it is learned that all things you see after death are meant to scare you into wrong decisions about the path of your soul-- this is why it is considered "black magic " by some buddhists, as it allows an evil man to ignore the cycles as an animal and sneak his way back into being a human again -- the teaching in the book of the dead, used properly though, is a great mix of the old tengri style animism with the buddhism that came from india.

basically it outlines what you will see, then to just ignore all the terrible demons and promises and simply go find your next life and try harder next time , try harder to supply compassion to the great machine.-- as to buddhists life is just a great machine that creates enlightened souls.
(as I understand it)

 

[greenwoods]

Well. In a small ant colony, IMO, there are fewer bad ants. In a large colony there may be many more. In a colony where some of the ants have become self-aware there will be a chaotic number, an unpredictable number, maybe.

Of course many ants means more ant-eaters, and they likely don't care about ant philosophy. They are just hungry.


Mark

 

[sirupatespecial]

I'm 52 y.o. Never been in the service, never been in combat. But, I've seen a lot over the years, done a lot, been in a few fights, had a couple of guns pulled on me, knives a couple of times...But in these, oh probably a dozen, of not so good encounters I've not yet run into anyone that "needed killing". I may have thought so at the time but after looking at the situation later I realized that most were not "demons" but folks just like me. Maybe with a little demon drug or alcohol in 'em but not truly bad people. I had the opportunity to kill a couple, justifiably, and boy am I glad I didn't.

That's not to say there aren't those that do need killing.....I'm just not up to making that call.

 

[Shavru]

In the case of Kelly Thomas, Deemed by society to be a homeless "Dirtbag" I never saw him as anything but a mentally ill man and see the officer/officers in the clean pressed uniform who beat Mr. Thomas leading to his death, who then said in court, that he/they were in fear of their lives from Thomas. I see these Officer/officer's in the video as the real dirtbag Demons.

I would agree. As with you I frequently side with law enforcement. Theirs is an almost impossible task. Yet in this case, I really could not see how anything he did could have possibly resulted in that type of beating. At a certain point well before it ended Thomas was not even able to defend himself from the blows so in NO way could have been considered still a danger to the officers. These officers even if they DID have a reasonable expectation of keeping themselves safe at the beginning allowed it to go well past that and they should have been held accountable for their continued actions at the very least.

I sense a fork in the road here with two different situations to deal with.

Absolutely correct. That is why I mentioned I am glad to no longer be in the military. Different situation defending my life and family from an immediate threat vs defending a concept such as nationality. I draw the line in different places for both of these paths personally these days.

simply go find your next life and try harder next time , try harder to supply compassion to the great machine

A great philosophy (even if you don't believe in reincarnation you can believe in continuing to try in this life) Compassion is very very important. But as JW points out compassion and self concern, being wary and cautious of your own life or even killing for what you might consider a valid reason are not mutually exclusive. I consider myself a compassionate person, yet I also know myself capable of eliminating a threat to me or my family's lives. Neither one is a one time choice, the decision is made at many many situtations and the results of the decision might change based on the situation.

Of course many ants means more ant-eaters, and they likely don't care about ant philosophy. They are just hungry.

I've not yet run into anyone that "needed killing". That's not to say there aren't those that do need killing.....I'm just not up to making that call.

My heartfelt prayers for you and everyone else here that none of us ever have to make that decision for the first time or again as the case may be. I truly wish that no human would ever have to make that call.

 

[Howard Wallace]

...
So yes, there are many problems with dirtbags. Not least those issues you identify. However, I truly feel that dirtbags do exist they are not ALL mental constructs. Looking into the eyes of some people can very quickly show you demons do exist. As for the 2 situations that you mention as "re-classification" I would point out that in the same city of Seattle within the same year of John T. Williams death 4 police officers were gunned down while drinking coffee and working on laptops at a coffee shop. The dirtbag walked up to the counter as if to buy a coffee then when behind the officers, pulled out a gun and shot 2 of them before they could even react. The other 2 died trying to fight for their lives and protect the barista and other patrons of the shop. This was not a botched robbery attempt, it was a targetted attack on the officers, an execution because they were police officers. No other reason...

...
In the case of Kelly Thomas, Deemed by society to be a homeless "Dirtbag" I never saw him as anything but a mentally ill man and see the officer/officers in the clean pressed uniform who beat Mr. Thomas leading to his death, who then said in court, that he/they were in fear of their lives from Thomas. I see these Officer/officer's in the video as the real dirtbag Demons.

So they don't have to be one of the dregs or outcasts of our society to be a true "Demon Dirtbag". There are many others as well, some in elected office perhaps?

This is not to politicize this issue and I usually side with law enforcement. This is just to say that who the physical "Demon Dirtbag" is to me, might not be the same as to you...

Imagine

A good officer, a nice man, with a demon perched upon his shoulder. He sees a gentle soul who appears to him terrifying and threatening, due to the inspiration of his demon. The officer bravely battles the image of his demon in the innocent man, and brutally kills an innocent.

A good man watches video of the officer slaying the innocent on TV. He begins constructing his own demon to sit on his own shoulder. It makes people wearing a uniform like the officer wore appear terrifying and threatening. He notices that some of these terrifying beings regularly gather at a coffee shop, so he bravely prepares to engage the perceived monsters. He goes into the shop and kills several innocent officers.

And perhaps even now, someone on this forum is reading these posts. Perhaps he is constructing a demon to sit on his own shoulder, one that makes people who loiter around coffee shops seem fearsome and terrifying. Perhaps even now plans are being laid to bravely engage the image of that demon in some unsuspecting innocent.

... later I realized that most were not "demons" but folks just like me...

It's important to recognize the difference between the concept of "dirtbag"-which may have visual markers but is a pretty loose idea- and ... whatever the term for the enemy is ... based on immediate input.

.. Actions dictate action, not preconcieved notions of who the problem is, ideally.
...

A key point. In a reality with real and present dangers, is it not best to accurately perceive that reality and react to it, rather than to a construct that may have only a tenuous connection to any objective reality?

I can see how the "dirtbag construct" might dehumanize people and sew civil strife and philosophically might keep you from achieving inner peace and oneness with the universe or whatever. But speaking as somebody who lives in a dangerous city and sometimes has to walk through streets and alleys where people regularly get robbed or assaulted, you have to categorize people on how likely they might want to do you harm and behave accordingly. It's just survival. Being able to spot a dirtbag and knowing what to do might be the only thing that gets you home that night.

So, we may be in the situation of choosing between our demonic constructs that make us feel safe, and accurately perceiving reality in a way that increases our ability to react appropriately. It is often more comfortable to keep one's demon on one's shoulder.

If our comforting delusions get too out-of-step with the societally-sanctioned delusions, we may find ourselves less safe as we become the hunted.

...Of course many ants means more ant-eaters, and they likely don't care about ant philosophy. They are just hungry...

Well stated. We share reality with not only others possibly deluded by demons, but with hungry (and not delusional) anteaters. All the more reason to perceive our reality accurately in order to survive.

I sense a fork in the road here with two different situations to deal with. One being the average or perhaps sub average civilian subject perceived as a threat to one or one's loved one's comrades so to speak.

The second a larger war type situation conceived and supported by a larger entity. Much less control on a personal level.
...

Society will support certain demonic constructs at times, and be less supportive at others. The social pressures are always there though. One shouldn't feel too relieved, for instance, by getting out of the military. One is likely to come under similar social pressures in another circumstance. In the final analysis, we are individuals and the captains of our own souls.

...love, friendship and comradery which could make me kill but not hate.
Sounds good? Maybe, but doesn't make a difference to the poor guy on the other side of the barrel...

I wonder ...

... I invite you to regard the world, a garden of agony and war, beautiful and terrible, dancing madly at the feet of the unknown, trying desperately to carve meaning out of the vastness-- and in the garden, the players all ignore the game itself, and engage with vigor each other. I often wonder if any species can rise to our level without the inherent need for exploitation. Humanity naturally looks around itself and sees what may be turned to its chain, what may be made to serve. It is the same when people predate one another, there is no real malice there , there is only dancing in this garden, taking part in the war our mother commanded, until the silence takes us all.

...
We can also follow the intuition of the tamil tigers, who have a concept of "perfect violence" where they reverse the entire idea of buddhism, and actually consider certain murders and killings viable because removing those they kill was done without anger, and for the needs of the wheel.

This reminds me of Krishna's instructions to Arjuna in the Mahabharata.

Or Emerson's poem,

BRAHMA

IF the red slayer think he slays,
Or if the slain think he is slain,
They know not well the subtle ways
I keep, and pass, and turn again.

Far or forgot to me is near; 5
Shadow and sunlight are the same;
The vanish'd gods to me appear;
And one to me are shame and fame.

They reckon ill who leave me out;
When me they fly, I am the wings; 10
I am the doubter and the doubt,
And I the hymn the Brahmin sings.

The strong gods pine for my abode,
And pine in vain the sacred Seven;
But thou, meek lover of the good! 15
Find me, and turn thy back on heaven.

 

[Shavru]

Howard, All of which are basically wrapped up in the Taoist concept of PU. Starting from PU or free of prejudice.

my path is written by the actions of others. My decisions are in the major part based on the activities of the person themself, BUT you are correct that my initial view of waryness could indeed cloud my thinking and this is based on the construct of the dirtbag. Bearing in mind that I am from a class of people (black women) who are regularly stereotyped, and I know how little I fit that stereotype, I am very well versed on the concepts of profiling being potentially counter productive. However, at this point I would ask you Howard, how you would handle 3 situations where you are in a "dangerous" part of town during the late evening and are approached.

1) You are approached by a middle aged woman, who appears in distress, her clothing is torn and you see blood oozing from some wounds through the cloth.
2) You are approached by a group of 6-8 16-20 year olds all sporting tatoos and multiple pieces of red clothing.
3) You are approached by a mid-30s male in a suit and tie.

Do you handle each of the encounters exactly the same? are you MORE cautious during any of the encounters? I personally feel that I would be pretty cautious during all of them but feel that situation 2 would make me more nervous. Even though I know situation 1 the woman could have been wounded by her victim that she brutally murdered for no reason, I am less likely to lose control of an interaction with a single person, and the woman described would be less likely to be able to be a serious physical threat to me. Situation 3 well lets just say that most serial killers (or cereal killers if you consider the Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs types LOL) are mid 30s males who appeared mild mannered and un-threatening so I will be wary but again 1 person is less likely for me to lose control of the situation, but situation 2 is just too many variables. Each individual of that group plus the group dynamics plus... well it gets far tougher to watch all of them as well, so it is a "scarier" situation to me. Demons tend to prefer to run in packs where they multiply their potential damage exponentially.

So in a sense we all make decisions based on very little factual evidence. So we make determinations based on historic information that certain areas of town have had higher risk or specific types of people have higher risk because of historic information we remember reading in the paper. Yes, that information may totally be unrelated to the existing situation, but we have to make snap decisions based on known information so I tend to err on the side of caution. Is it right? probably not. Does it cause me to interact with people differently than if I knew that particular individual? Yes. But I see no other alternative except to completely ignore all the actual danger that does exist out there. Could anyone truly reach the perfection of PU while living in the common world? I doubt it, people in protected groups such as monks can't even do it as expoused by the concept of warrior monks like Shaolin or Templer Knights I would point out that even enlightened people feel the need of martial defense. Does that mean to stop striving. No. Does striving for it mean to completely ignore actual danger, well again I point out the Shaolin but say it is for each individual to decide.
As to the employ of the dirtbag construct. I agree, it has it's downside. However, I have not yet seen how to do away with it without increasing the danger.

 

[Jens Schuetz]

Howard, All of which are basically wrapped up in the Taoist concept of PU. Starting from PU or free of prejudice.

my path is written by the actions of others. My decisions are in the major part based on the activities of the person themself, BUT you are correct that my initial view of waryness could indeed cloud my thinking and this is based on the construct of the dirtbag. Bearing in mind that I am from a class of people (black women) who are regularly stereotyped, and I know how little I fit that stereotype, I am very well versed on the concepts of profiling being potentially counter productive. However, at this point I would ask you Howard, how you would handle 3 situations where you are in a "dangerous" part of town during the late evening and are approached.

1) You are approached by a middle aged woman, who appears in distress, her clothing is torn and you see blood oozing from some wounds through the cloth.
2) You are approached by a group of 6-8 16-20 year olds all sporting tatoos and multiple pieces of red clothing.
3) You are approached by a mid-30s male in a suit and tie.

Do you handle each of the encounters exactly the same? are you MORE cautious during any of the encounters? I personally feel that I would be pretty cautious during all of them but feel that situation 2 would make me more nervous. Even though I know situation 1 the woman could have been wounded by her victim that she brutally murdered for no reason, I am less likely to lose control of an interaction with a single person, and the woman described would be less likely to be able to be a serious physical threat to me. Situation 3 well lets just say that most serial killers (or cereal killers if you consider the Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs types LOL) are mid 30s males who appeared mild mannered and un-threatening so I will be wary but again 1 person is less likely for me to lose control of the situation, but situation 2 is just too many variables. Each individual of that group plus the group dynamics plus... well it gets far tougher to watch all of them as well, so it is a "scarier" situation to me. Demons tend to prefer to run in packs where they multiply their potential damage exponentially.

So in a sense we all make decisions based on very little factual evidence. So we make determinations based on historic information that certain areas of town have had higher risk or specific types of people have higher risk because of historic information we remember reading in the paper. Yes, that information may totally be unrelated to the existing situation, but we have to make snap decisions based on known information so I tend to err on the side of caution. Is it right? probably not. Does it cause me to interact with people differently than if I knew that particular individual? Yes. But I see no other alternative except to completely ignore all the actual danger that does exist out there. Could anyone truly reach the perfection of PU while living in the common world? I doubt it, people in protected groups such as monks can't even do it as expoused by the concept of warrior monks like Shaolin or Templer Knights I would point out that even enlightened people feel the need of martial defense. Does that mean to stop striving. No. Does striving for it mean to completely ignore actual danger, well again I point out the Shaolin but say it is for each individual to decide.
As to the employ of the dirtbag construct. I agree, it has it's downside. However, I have not yet seen how to do away with it without increasing the danger.

It all comes down to probabilities.

Sure the bleeding Aunty asking for help could be the criminal herself but it's less likely than her being the victim.

A single man of a certain age might be a serial killer but what's that chance? Slim to none. I doubt most murderers wear suit and tie when they want to fight other humans on the street.

A group of guys similar clothes show some togetherness which is more than what me and my friends would ever display (exception might be birthday hats at a party). If they act together as well as they dress together they could harm me more than an evil bleeding lady or a murderer guy trapped in a suit. Gang violence is more common than murderers and their victims are more random than that of single killers.
So first it is more likely that a group starts an attack. Second if they attack the group can harm me more than an individual human.
Sure I would be more careful with them. Who wouldn't?

I might be wrong in every case but much less likely than by judging everybody to be potential super villains.


In India last time:
Who would you be more scared of?
A a lady with her kid next to the cockpit door, waiting to go to the bathroom, or a few minutes later three guys (30-40yrs) standing there looking all nervous and earlier one of them asked you weird questions at the airport and kept looking at his watch all the time.
Before the guys were standing in front of the cockpit door next to the bathroom they were sitting in the first row and constantly going through their bags and switching seats with each other.
On top of that the flight you are sitting in suddenly has to fly to another city because of "technical difficulties". This new destination is more far away than the original goal If it's an emergency, why not fly to the closer airport where everybody wanted to go anyways? Plane kidnapped?

Lots of check marks there and I kept observing them. Ready to jump on them if I have to.

Turned out that the planes windshield was broken and could not have been fixed at our original destination.
The guys, well they were villagers who had never been flying before.
I guess they were even more nervous than me when we took a different route

Still, would keep more eyes on a bunch of guys than on a lady with her daughter. It's just probabilities.

 

[Shavru]

Exactly Jens, probabilities. And the fact that you were more aware of the group of guys I feel is perfectly appropriate. You didn't take any action of "jumping on them" at the time, but you did stay more aware of them. Is this wrong? You basically compared them to a construct and agreed there were certain similarities that justified heightened awareness. As you discovered additional facts to replace your guesses you quite appropriately filled in the blanks and became less and less worried about them. However, to Howard's point the facts are that he is correct, once you identified them as having more probability of being dangerous you instantly became more likely to misinterpret their actions in a way that led to your "jumping on them" you became prejudiced against them. I don't disagree with Howard that this can become a self fulfilling concept, I just don't see how to avoid doing it nor do I really feel that I would necessarily want to avoid doing so if I could as that would necessarily leave me more open to danger. I would have to wait until the group of guys pulled out box cutters and grabbed a flight attendant hostage and their actions proved they were demons and that would put me at a disadvantage in defending myself. I guess the only people who would be able to meet that goal are ones that truly feel no concern for death. And I with my comfortable life and spouse and family who would greive am not ready to say that my death is not something I choose to attempt to avoid as long as possible.

Hehe, I have to admit that Howard has taken the easier side of the debate. He has the moral high ground and is using it well. Next time I will have to start the debate so I can choose the side I am debating and put someone else on the selfish I wanna live side

 

[J W Bensinger]

Jens, that must have been kinda disconcerting...