"This world is a paradoxical one. Without ugliness there would be no beauty.
These are relative terms. If we adopt the conventional definitions of our own time, a woman who would be considered strikingly beautiful in 10,000 BC might be considered plain, flawed, and rough from her scrapes with the rigors of those times, and maybe more rugged than the classical beauties of today. Yet if we adopt a different, more culturally relativistic view, we might regard the beauties of both Ages as equally beautiful -- not only from a liberal attitude but from an overwhelming appreciation where superlatives cannot adequately explain the heights of beauty that have culminated in both women.
Without suffering there would be no joy.
While discussing paradox, how about the 'paradoxical nature of freedom' (Author's name withheld for now)? Freedom seems more precious to most when feeling an obvious lack of it. However, the word becomes cliche' as some of us sink into a life of little comforts, mind-numbing routines of a mid-wage career, or even a life of distraction.
Suffering is certainly not helpful per se. Some types of suffering may occur while progress is being made, while other suffering simply accompanies total loss of future joy. Suffering can be self-imposed, such as wanting something one cannot have and not knowing how to be free of that desire. Recognizing this is one of the pillars of Buddhism as I understand it.
Without poverty there would be no wealth. And without death there would be no life."
I'm a little worried about the economic model being cited there. In my humble but well-travelled opinion, poverty does not create wealth. Greed and mismanagement by some can help create poverty in others -- by comparison with what might have been.
So I wouldn't blame management for this state of things. Not that our leaders are blameless, far from it, but I suspect things would only be slightly better if we were governed by the pure of heart.
I had not applied "pure of heart" to management before, but that is interesting. If management in our American government were purely trying to accomplish the goals of the Constitution as stated in the Preamble, would "things be better" than if they did not even set out to accomplish those stated goals? Call me simple, but it seems a good bet to me that "things WOULD be better!" But there are numbskull-level understandings of the Preamble to our Constitution. Our current President claims he read only one book while in undergraduate studies -- and is known to have been a booze-hound during that time. So, can there be intelligent government without stupid government? You have me asking new questions, Aurino. Maybe all those intellectuals and scientists had taken to sleepwalking through their paces. Goodness knows a few Republicrats did wrong by me in the university. I could not figure what got into them unless perhaps, in their advanced conservliberalism, maybe they forgot that Columbus found mostly cannibals when he arrived in the islands now called by some "The West Indies." Some of these republicrats had rightly concluded Europeans had a history of savagery but somehow in their wish to believe in good somewhere, let themselves believe savagery was unusual on Earth. This led them to choose as a rule to believe what they were told as long as it was not by a white male unless that person was signing their paycheck.
Pretty silly -- but if hospitals are for the sick, maybe universities are for the ignorant. I just wish more of them were made well before they were discharged.
Is one also saying, without hot there would be no cold? Sunspots on the sun are "cold spots" -- a few thousand degrees cooler than surrounding areas but still thousands of degrees Fahrenheit.
So why does this state of things exist, and what can be done to change it? One of the best things I've read in that regard can be found here:
Hope you enjoy it. And Happy New Year to you too.
I will take a look at it. Thank you.