"...we are all responsible not only for ourselves but the entire society..."

I think this is a great discussion.

During the various histories throughout the world, there are parts where people have been completely independent. As people came together individual responsibilities remained, but also effected those around them be it for the protection of their villages, supporting one another following a bad harvest season with a collective effort to make up for such through hunting and gathering, and even "community policing", as even though "laws" may not have been written, many individual groups or even groups within a geographical region established an understanding of what was acceptable to that which required action. Even today, though technically under the laws of the United States and Canada, the Amish and Mennonite communities have their own such expectations which can lead to "shunning".

The evolution of the question of individual responsibility versus that of the 'group', has become more of an issue as the expanse of civilizations in modern society have, in effect (with exceptions of isolated tribes, such as those in S. America), established national boundaries which literally 'demand' not only individual responsibility for an established social norm, but also a level of communal commitment on the greater scale as well. Such can be in the form of militaries, similar, albeit on a grander scale, to the villages in early human civilization for protection, to the need for social commitments for the good of a society as a whole. Such is inevitable as with the growth of the population and the limited 'space' with which such a population can reside.

So, even within our own microcosm of existence, our degree and level of responsibility are not always something we can control without conscience or even retribution from the societies in which we live. The quagmire comes with a multitude of situations and applied ethics within that paradigm. We have some that wish to take freedom or prosperity from others either from greed, selfishness in lack of participation and responsibility within society, or through control--not based upon any philosophical question, but based upon personal beliefs or religion. This can occur within small groups towards the grandest magnification of a global scale. Can we control the global community? If not, how can we be responsible for such?

In the end, at the most basic of any foundation, an individual is ultimately responsible for themselves. The effect they have upon others can be positive or negative, which cascades through one's surroundings to either smooth into a lack of effect or be reinforced by our surroundings to a greater harm, or greater good. So whilst we are ultimately responsible for ourselves, in the modern society within which we live, a part of ourselves not only effects us as individuals, but others as well. The reflection of such responsibility can be a contradiction. One, as an individual can be doing a "great good" resulting from their personal dealing with their own responsibilities, only to experience a greater hardship as others surrounding such an individual can be negligent in dealing with their own, or just the opposite.

It is my belief, based upon my personal experiences, studies, and observations, that we are in fact ultimately responsible for ourselves. However, as our existence is also dependent upon others (if one is a mechanic, such an individual is definitely dependent upon the farmer to live, as is the farmer dependent upon the mechanic to fix their farming equipment), that we are also responsible for society as well. The question of the "entire society" is consequential--it is the product of the collective effects resonating from the smallest sub-groups right down to the individual. Even so, considering the magnitude of modern societies and the question of modern civilization, from the smallest to the grandest scales, society is a reflection of the level of responsibility and commitment with which we perceive and act towards towards those around us as well.

This has already become long enough...I save any personal examples of my life's experiences in helping and being helped. However, I will say that I am here today because someone took responsibility for me when actions beyond my control required such assistance, and the question as to if it was their job or not is without relevance, because the employer of that person was the product of a collective effort of people believing that we are also responsible for others in our society.

With respect,

Lightstrider, You wrote the following:

It's not me who is making this an us verse them thing either, they are the ones who decided to go against everyone else and take advantage of situations for their own benefit.

That phrase seems paradoxical, a little like saying "I'M not the one saying this is black and white. It's THEM who are doing bad black things!" By saying I in the first part of the sentence and they in the next, I think you may have unintentionally created an us vs them conflict.

So if we wanted to briefly avoid the black and white dualism I think we might be better off including ourselves with the majority of other people. And the majority of people take advantage of situation for their own benefit. And the majority of people are unaware of how limited their choices are because of the situations and upbringings and environnements. How are we any different? We too try to best take care of ourselves and what's important to us given whichever environnement we're in. And while we might not go against everyone else we probably go against a good number of people because we think we know, we think we're right and we think we're got a better grasp of reality (than them). I think it's pretty common that point of view. After all, humankind is not born rational. It is something we develop over time.

Personally, I think we are not responsable. Not for ourselves, not for other people, not for our environments. It's harder for me to say but I can replace the word we with the word I. I am not responable for myself, for others and the environment to which I live in. I will never have such a knowledge about all of that to respond in the best way, BUT, if we were to play a word game we could split the word reponsible to response and able- or able to respond- BUT, by becoming able to respond (by being aware of what's going on inside and outside) it is then that I can be responable. Maybe not all the time because I'm not aware and I haven't alot of experience, but perhaps if I'm only responsable a little of the time I'm alive I think I'll make the world a bit better (by recognising my deep connection to everything in it, both good and bad.)

I hope I make sense,

(22:12:47) Vusuki: Who else had trouble facing the idea (of Krishnamurti) that we are all responsible not only for ourselves but the entire society of which we are a part of?
(22:13:09) Vusuki: I haven't finished the book- freedom from the known but I found that deeply unsettling

It sounds to me like there's some kind of ubiquitous metaphysical power connecting everything to everything else... But I could be wrong of course

Ren,

That was brilliant. Lol.

But understanding that everything is connected doesn't mean one realises how deeply that runs true. In addition, this idea of everything being connected can sometimes run a little in contrast with how generally we dislike to take responability for our and other's suffering.

Nice photo MartaLina

Vusuki wrote: That phrase seems paradoxical, a little like saying "I'M not the one saying this is black and white. It's THEM who are doing bad black things!" By saying I in the first part of the sentence and they in the next, I think you may have unintentionally created an us vs them conflict.

.....

I hope I make sense,

Yes in a way you're right but at the same time I'm talking about the people who write about their desires to control the masses, poison us, use us as cannon fodder, decide one group of people or an entire deveoping country is a threat to national security, how nobody should be born without a job serving their state. The big business/political interests, technocrats and modern day Edward Bernays types. Books that talk about annihilation of self preservation through scientific techniques from inoculations to modifying the food and water.


From Bernay's Propaganda 1928

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." p9

"There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes. Nor, what is still more important, the extent to which our thoughts and habits are modified by authorities. In some departments of our daily life, in which we imagine ourselves free agents, we are ruled by dictators exercising great power. A man buying a suit of clothes imagines that he is choosing, according to his taste and his personality, the kind of garment which he prefers. In reality, he may be obeying the orders of an anonymous gentleman tailor in London. This personage is the silent partner in a modest tailoring establishment, which is patronized by gentlemen of fashion and princes of the blood." p35

"In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

"Men are rarely aware of the real reasons which motivate their actions. A man may believe that he buys a motor car because, after careful study of the technical features of all makes on the market, he has concluded that this is the best. He is almost certainly fooling himself. He bought it, perhaps, because a friend whose financial acumen he respects bought one last week; or because his neighbors believed he was not able to afford a car of that class; or because its colors are those of his college fraternity." p51

Diet, injections and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so..

Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society 1953

Or Zbigniew Brzezinski's Between Two Ages, written in 1970 by the way, this guy was high up in the NSA and advisor to Obama and others.

"At some point, however, even the efficiency oriented group will have to address itself to the more basic questions concerning the nature of man and the purpose of social existence. Until it does so, there is always the likelihood that the ruling elite can at least temporarily succeed in compartmentalizing the scientific community, in extracting its talents, and in corrupting it with a system of rewards—all the while reserving to itself the definition of the larger objectives." -p.81

"The traditionally democratic American society could, because of its fascination with technical efficiency, become an extremely controlled society, and its humane and individualistic qualities would thereby be lost. (Such a society is the subject of Kurt Vonnegut’s novel Player Piano.)" -p253

"Speaking of a future at most only decades away, an experimenter in intelligence control asserted, “I foresee a time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain." -p15

"In addition, it may be possible—and tempting—to exploit for strategic-political purposes the fruits of research on the brain and on human behavior. Gordon J. F. MacDonald, a geophysicist specializing in problems of warfare, has written that accurately timed, artificially excited electronic strokes “could lead to a pattern of oscillations that produce relatively high power levels over certain regions of the earth. . . . In this way, one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period... No matter how deeply disturbing the thought of using the environment to manipulate behavior for national advantages to some, the technology permitting such use will very probably develop within the next few decades." -p57

"Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific knowhow. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits." -p252-253

"Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the steppingstones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society." -p253

Charlies Galton Darwin's The Next Million Years 1953

"Another type of discovery may be connected with hormones, those internal chemical secretions which so largely regulate the operations of the human body. The artificial use of hormones has already been shown to have profound effects on the behaviour of animals, and it seems quite possible that hormones, or perhaps drugs, might have similar effects on man. For example, there might be a drug, which, without other harmful effects, removed the urgency of sexual desire, and so reproduced in humanity the status of workers in a beehive. Or there might be another drug that produced a permanent state of contentment in the recipient—after all alcohol does something like this already, though it has other disadvantages and is only temporary in its effects. A dictator would certainly welcome the compulsory administration of the "contentment drug" to his subjects." p183

"Widespread wealth can never be common in an overcrowded world, and so in most countries of the future the government will inevitably be autocratic or oligarchic; some will give good government and some bad, and the goodness or badness will depend much more on the personal merits of the rulers than it does in a more democratic country." p194

"To think of it as possible at other times is a misunderstanding of the function of government in any practical sense of the term. If the only things that a government was required to do were what everybody, or nearly everybody, wanted, there would be no need for the government to exist at all, because the things would be done anyhow; this would be the impracticable ideal of the anarchist. But if there are to be starving margins of population in most parts of the world, mere benevolence cannot suffice. There would inevitably be ill feeling and jealousy between the provinces, with each believing that it was not getting its fair share of the good things, and in fact, it would be like the state of affairs with which we are all too familiar. If then there is ever to be a world government, it will have to function as government do now, in the sense that it will have to coerce a minority - and indeed it may often be a majority - into doing things they do not want to." p191

White House Science Czar John Holdren's co-authored book Ecosciences in 1978

"Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits." - p943

My point about all of this, and there is much more to consider espcially if you've got $20,000 to buy a Tavistock textbook, is that regardless of what we think about whether or not we are all responsible for the entire society, there are many powerful people who have taken that responsibility and their actions and decision making are at the core of many of the problems we see today and in history but don't realize why and weren't/aren't told why.

I think to discuss our individual roles in the responsibility of the entire society must also consider those who make it their life's work to create history and make the big decisions for everyone because they took it upon themselves to do it. I'm not debating whether or not they are wrong or right, I only learned about this stuff because I thought it was absolutely crazy and impossible, that it was just all conspiracy but there is really something to all of it. Because the majority of people take responsibility for themselves in manners that are obvious and in ways provided to them by the controlled entire society, it's like Plato's cave or a child born into a room that just is not even aware of what else is really out there. Like we're all born on an island and have no knowledge or concept of mountains, rivers, or other basic geological landscapes. Or the elephant that is trained to walk around in a circle so well that it never ever even thinks to deviate from that original path as it grows up.

Vusuki what you said does make sense and I agree with you from your perspective. I really can't say I know what's best even for myself other than what I think based on from what I've learned, experienced and received from other people and from education and media that is created by people just like me who aren't born with all the answers they are just trying. I was born into an ever changing geological and political environment that has a history of over a million years for all I know. But there are families, bloodlines that have preserved their knowledge through experiencing the rise and fall of empires, who have experienced major environmental calamities, have been part of or witnessed the evolution of so much technology and spiritual/philosophical ideas, and I can't really judge these big decisions makers from my relatively immature position.

I do know that most people just want to live and enjoy their lives, myself included but I can see the trends and feel for where things could go and you see with all the things going on around the world and at home, I sense trouble ahead and so I try to understand the who, what, where, why, how. Because I am a young adult who is maturing and seeks to become more responsible for myself, my friends and family, I must consider how that all factors into the grand scheme of the entire society because I am part of it. I'm not trying to stay within the confines of the black and white dualistic world where it's just me, my friends and family, or us and my country versus them, or my religion or ideology versus them. I'm trying to understand as much as I can so that I can plan and act accordingly to what opportunities and possibilities may present themselves positive or negative. So I see these very influential, promiment, wealthy, noble people as examples to learn from and take into consideration their insights.

I could just say that from all I've read and seen that they have it under control, they are smarter and have more resources or experience in playing that authoritative decision making role and maybe they know what's best. I can't do that though because there is a lot of greed, deception, sinisterness that as a Jedi and considering the doctrine it all demands a closer examination and perhaps even some justice. Some of these people talk about other humans like they're their chattel, that the masses aren't smart enough or responsible enough (after dumbing them down and keeping them ignorant by design) to play a role in the responsibility for the entire society. On one level sure I can agree that not everyone needs to and we would never come to any solutions if we waited around for everyone to decide. We'll never have a utopia but as we've seen in history with Hitler or Stalin the world can fall into a dystopia fairly quickly in the attempts of elite groups trying to create a utopia themselves. While most people think everything is under control, we have terrorists and economic hardships but nothing so tragic like history could happen again - I think they're all in for a surprise when they found out just how controlled things have really become and even though millions of people aren't being hauled off and disappeared, we're being incrementally terminated by scientific, medical means. Some have talked about how they desire to wipe out 80% of the popluation and use the overpopulation myth as justification for implementation of policies that will bring their envisioned utopia to life.

Vusuki wrote: I am not responable for myself, for others and the environment to which I live in. I will never have such a knowledge about all of that to respond in the best way, BUT, if we were to play a word game we could split the word reponsible to response and able- or able to respond- BUT, by becoming able to respond (by being aware of what's going on inside and outside) it is then that I can be responable.

And that's the key. I may seem overly passionate about all of this but it's just because I myself have been in the situation of just not caring about myself, what I eat, what I do, didn't care about the environment, politics, spirituality, the whole mystery of the universe. I know so many people who still live like that, who are just after money, material stuff and status. We do this because it's how we've been trained, and it's how our trainers are, the apples don't fall far from the tree. Some only respond to what's inside, which is what was put inside by TV and authority, some only respond to what's outside and act without that inner wisdom or consciousness and they become the useful idiots or pawns of others. I don't expect perfection and I'm not up in arms about all of this trying to wake everyone up or save the world, I just really like to talk about it because it's the elephant in the room and not many see it and it really has to do with this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiP-BJySxE8