What Unites Us

[Molly]

There is a phrase that I think is important, but is overused and well
on its way to becoming a cliché and that is: “What unites us is
greater than what divides us!” President John F. Kennedy used it in
his 1961 address to Canadian Parliament: “Geography has made us
neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us
partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath
so joined together, let no man put asunder. What unites us is far
greater than what divides us.

The current US President, Barack Obama also used the idea in his
speech this past Martin Luther King Junior Day: “through times of
great challenge and great change, we have remembered that fundamental
American truth - that what unites us is always more powerful than what
divides us.”

But the idea is not strictly American, as the Secretary-General of the
United Nations, Ban Ki-moon has recently used it in two different
speeches. First, in April of 2009, in his address to the Alliance of
Civilizations forum in Istanbul, “What unites is so powerful it could
easily overcome what divides us.” Next, in November of 2009 in his
speech to the Summit of Religious and Secular Leaders on Climate
Change in London, “We are united by the belief that what unites us as
human beings is stronger than what divides us.”

What is it that unites us all? Is it greater than what divides us?
What do YOU think?

[Don Johnson]

"All for one and one for all."

United we stand, divided we fall."

I'm sure these sentiments have been around 10's of thousands of years.  What I believe it's all about is survival.  And when that is taken for granted then we unite for prosperity.  Ambition unites us. 

dj

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.

[archytas]

The answer currently seems to be 'no' Molly. Trivia is being raised
to heightened levels to divide us.

> > minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com<minds-eye%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups .com>

[iam deheretic]

I agree politicians are not interested in a united front  only in the trivia that divides..

the one for all  and all for one has fallen by the wayside it seems that politicians are not interested in what makes the world strong only in what allows them to plunder mankind..
I don't see signs of man waking up soon ,, unless this is a sign of the call for arms/
Allan

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.

--
(
 )
I_D Allan

[vamadevananda]

What unites us, the ' thing,' may seem more conceptual than real. But
it would outlive the divisive trivia and arch over conflicting
ambitions. To that extent, it's more real than the trivia and the
ambitions.

We do choose to size and prioritise our own realities, though !

> (
>  )
> I_D Allan

[Molly]

I suppose if what unites us will outlive what divides us, it would be
the greater. It does seem easier to identify what divides us, than
what unites us - including the "no." Finding identity in not-me - or
"no" is part of human development, albiet an immature part.

> > I_D Allan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[archytas]

Habermas wrote a lot on a communicative action in the lifeworld that
unites us, but also on the pathological system that tends to subsume
this. Our neighbours gave us some brioche yesterday, saying it's just
what people do at Easter in Bulgaria. We have lost nearly all such
space Molly - I'd call it the 'hayrick time'. Such stuff has been
taxed and 'efficiency-gained' to death. Christianity has become
Xtianity, not something to be part of in collective action but bought
and watched. The wrong habits have been broken. Even in China they
are bull-dozing ordinary communities to build more of the new dross
that makes money for a few. It may well be hard to talk of what
unities us because power has taught us to be silent in some very nasty
ways. 'Affluence in privacy' may well have destroyed us, our
'farewell from the working class' (old books now).
We have grim warnings about returns to 'year zero' in history, yet
something even in this may well be why we can't talk about unity -
because it is something to leave behind, rise above and succeed by
leaving, by greasing our way up the pole of hierarchy. All our
political messages are about this, a success that leaves one on top of
others to be forgotten, yet abused as losers.

[DarkwaterBlight]

While I agree very much with what you are trying to say here arch, I
cannot help but default to the position that if those who make it to
the top of the proverbial pole remember where they come from and are
commited to the greater good then we are united. Those who have their
roots in the aristocracy have no basis for comparison as they are
where they came from. So an individual coming up out of the dross must
learn to validate his/her self through communication by means of ideal
linguistics and having a better argument. Aside from the trivial, that
individual does not forget the struggles of getting where they need to
be in order to have an impact. There is, I shall assume, much
alienation involved in 'becoming someone'. I shall also assume that
those who have no basis for comparison use phrases like “What unites
us is
greater than what divides us!” a means to relate/appeal to the masses.
But we are not all blind and throughout history have been known to put
a match to the straw.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[gabbydott]

And who has the right to define what the whatever basis for whatever
comparison is? Nah, there is noway out other than breaking up this
political construct "what unites us is" into its active and its
passive aspect. Breaking it down it could mean to move and search for
people you have more in common with than what seperates you and learn
to avoid the BS preachers. Hello @Lee, I'm right with you! :-)

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.

[Pat]

On 5 Apr, 13:17, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I suppose if what unites us will outlive what divides us, it would be
> the greater.  It does seem easier to identify what divides us, than
> what unites us - including the "no."  Finding identity in not-me - or
> "no" is part of human development, albiet an immature part.
>

Surely it's the Oneness of the One that unites us. Any separations
are due to our perceptions or, rather, misperceptions about nature
itself. And, that One is FAR greater than the sum of what we think
are its parts. It has no parts...only extensions.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.

[DarkwaterBlight]

Yes gabby, I agree that it needs to be broken up or deconstructed and
reconstructed, that is why I used the figure of putting "a match to
the straw". The point being made is exactly like you say; "who has the
right..." and the answer is no one. The fact though is that it is
about social classes and retaining wealth, old money and new money. It
has been this way throughout history. When someone uses a phrase like
that I have to question the intent in doing so. What Pat says is valid
to me but not for everyone. Having said that I realize that there are
vast differences in "what unites us" or at least the perception of
such. One thing that should unite us all is concern for the common
good, however, by means of rhetoric, the many are fooled by the few.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[gabbydott]

I once thought children would qualify for "common good", but I had to
learn to correct myself.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.

[Pat]

On 16 Apr, 16:59, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I once thought children would qualify for "common good", but I had to
> learn to correct myself.
>

Yes, Jon Venables is a case-in-point. Certainly was/is common, but no
good.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[gabbydott]

No, actually I was referring to the "thing that should unite us all".
But since this is a Molly thread, I will make all your dark energy
bounce off into nothingness. :-)

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[archytas]

Wow Gabbers - you have found something to bounce off dark energy!
CERN is defunct! Send details at once. My anti-matter engine was
destroyed by territory marking cats and I sense a new form of
propulsion based on your device may solve issues in my relativity
drive. Given the smell left in my laboratory by said felines, need is
urgent. All love, Neil (no, no, not in the command sense dear)!

> ...
>
> read more »

[Slip Disc]

Make no mistake! The only concern in being united with anything is
self preservation; the core interest in unification. A group is
better than one in any adverse situation until the point of resolution
when all scatter in opposite directions, seeking independence and
individuality.
What unites us is fear of weakness and strength in numbers.

[Pat]

On 16 Apr, 21:57, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, actually I was referring to the "thing that should unite us all".
> But since this is a Molly thread, I will make all your dark energy
> bounce off into nothingness. :-)
>

Ahh, I see, the thing which should unite us all is 'a common good'.
That would be great, if humanity could define what said 'common good'
is. It may take a 'common enemy' to force that issue. Nothing more
human than to be brought together by a love that is, in essence, a
hate or distrust truly felt by everyone. Yet, sadly(!?), no such
thing yet exists. Although there are religious prophecies regarding
such a thing, they've yet to materialise.

Oh...and...BOING!!!! ;-)

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[rigsy03]

I metioned the unison of a symphony orchestra Friday- Berlioz-
Symphonie fantastique- and there are numerous other examples from the
arts and various civilizations where mankind has cooperated in a
postive manner however you are correct in that this same energy can be
diverted to evil designs and purposes. Even on a much smaller scale,
you can trace this positive/negative energy at play in relationships
of two, of family, of various groups. And, of course, of the
individual self.

[hassan yacoub]

really if we look to the humanity we find that all people all over the globe are brothers from the same parents(adam and eve) and they must share what had God gave them to the best extent of right and good limit and must assist each other not kill each others for the sake of money and controling the weak ones knowing that nothing we will take to our grave exept our deeds so those who do good will meet their god last day gladly if they had done  good while those did nothing good will be unhappy

     so you the rich people try to be good especially with the poor and needed one belive me you will never take your property now your money and even any thing with you

 are you satisfied of what i said if so congratulation
hassan yacoub katy texas usa

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.

--
hi to all

[Pat]

On 5 May, 12:10, hassan yacoub <hamo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> really if we look to the humanity we find that all people all over the globe
> are brothers from the same parents(adam and eve) and they must share what
> had God gave them to the best extent of right and good limit and must assist
> each other not kill each others for the sake of money and controling the
> weak ones knowing that nothing we will take to our grave exept our deeds so
> those who do good will meet their god last day gladly if they had done  good
> while those did nothing good will be unhappy
>      so you the rich people try to be good especially with the poor and
> needed one belive me you will never take your property now your money and
> even any thing with you
>  are you satisfied of what i said if so congratulation
> hassan yacoub katy texas usa
>

I'm happy with what you've said, Hassan. Essentially, if I may
paraphrase you, you've said that what unites us is the fact that we
are one big family. The problem is that we are not one big HAPPY
family. And, as you've rightly pointed out, this is largely due to
the disproportionate allocation of resources and money. A fair
statement. Also, you've pointed out that, irrespective of how much
'wealth' we gather during our lives, we take none of THAT with us;
rather, what we take with us is the weight of our deeds. Another fair
statement. What we ought to do, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree with
me, is to recognise our filial duty to one another and act with
respect and fairness towards each other; for, if we did so, then we
might even out the economic disparity amongst us and the population,
as a whole, would benefit. Of course, the problem is convincing the
rich to give up their goods, property and money to those less
fortunate, And that is a huge problem, as greed tends to grow when
wealth is amassed. And, whilst it may be more obvious to some than
others, 'great material wealth' is not always a blessing and is, in
fact, a great responsibility often not dealt with in the best of
fashions. (and now, to paraphrase/quote 'Fiddler on the Roof') On the
other hand, there's no shame in being poor; but, it's no great honour
either. Allah hafiz, Hassan!!

> > minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com<minds-eye%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups­.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
>
> --

> hi to all- Hide quoted text -

[Don Johnson]

One problem, when the poor man is given wealth he most often squanders it.  "Big fine house in the middle of the town with one staircase going up and another just to go down."  And ends up wasting his valuable time reading scripture instead of being productive.  The self made wealthy and those brought up and educated with riches are more likely to be productive.

The rich really are better then the rest of us.

dj

DISCLAIMER:  The above is sarcasm with comical movie/song reference.  Had ya going, didn't I?

[Pat]

On 6 May, 11:24, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One problem, when the poor man is given wealth he most often squanders it.
> "Big fine house in the middle of the town with one staircase going up and
> another just to go down."  And ends up wasting his valuable time reading
> scripture instead of being productive.  The self made wealthy and those
> brought up and educated with riches are more likely to be productive.
>
> The rich really are better then the rest of us.
>
> dj
>
> DISCLAIMER:  The above is sarcasm with comical movie/song reference.  Had ya
> going, didn't I?
>

Not in the least, Don. I don't jump to conclusions (No sarcasm).
Although there is some truth to what you said, in that the rich are,
by definition, richer than we are. ;-)

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[vamadevananda]

" Of course, the problem is convincing the rich to give up their
goods, property and money to those less fortunate, And that is a huge
problem, as greed tends to grow when wealth is amassed."

The real problem is the greed, the one that makes us apathetic and
unmindful. But for that, no one needs give up anything, except what
he / she believes is excessive or burdensome and hence wishes to part.

[Molly]

I'm beginning to think that a vow of poverty does not actually
necessitate relinquishing every thing we own, but rather, letting go
of the notion that I possess any thing (or any one). The current
economic crisis has many of my friends wondering what it is we truly
own, as they watch their illusory home value diminish and their
retirement funds disappear.. What I know is, that the less I can feel
that I possess anything, and the more I am able to give and receive
freely, the more my needs are met in the moment in a big and beautiful
way - like a flow with a form of experience that is constantly
changing - and that change is no longer tied to economy or "work" or
cause and effect.

[Molly]

I would add that, in that flow we are united.

[Pat]

On 6 May, 15:56, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would add that, in that flow we are united.
>

Yup! In fact, at every level. We're united just around the
dimensional corner. But, since it IS around that corner, we can't see
it, so people don't get the chance to see it obviously.

> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 6 May, 15:54, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm beginning to think that a vow of poverty does not actually
> necessitate relinquishing every thing we own, but rather, letting go
> of the notion that I possess any thing (or any one).  The current
> economic crisis has many of my friends wondering what it is we truly
> own, as they watch their illusory home value diminish and their
> retirement funds disappear..  What I know is, that the less I can feel
> that I possess anything, and the more I am able to give and receive
> freely, the more my needs are met in the moment in a big and beautiful
> way - like a flow with a form of experience that is constantly
> changing - and that change is no longer tied to economy or "work" or
> cause and effect.
>

Plus, a TRUE vow of poverty would include giving up even vows of
poverty, as one couldn't 'have' one. Nice little paradox there, eh?
And, of course, a Sufi viewpoint.

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 6 May, 13:43, vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> " Of course, the problem is convincing the rich to give up their
> goods, property and money to those less fortunate,  And that is a huge
> problem, as greed tends to grow when wealth is amassed."
>
> The real problem is the greed, the one that makes us apathetic and
> unmindful. But for that, no one needs give up anything, except what
> he / she believes is excessive or burdensome and hence wishes to part.
>

Yes, when everyone understands that, charity would be the resulting
effect of the cause of 'loss of greed'. And we would ALL benefit from
that.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[vamadevananda]

Charity, as the word signifies, is a Christian concept that drives
away people, even kind and well-meaning ones ! That ' giving for
another's sake ' leaves people fearful and so dissatisfied because
there are so many that need and are forever there to take. On top of
it, if you are being pushed or shamed into doing it because it is the
expected thing ... would be a horribly destabilising practice to
perpetuate.

The ' giving for one's own sake ' is another paradigm ... as and only
as much as I feel I must, even judge when and to whom, in accord with
whatever my values and calling ... because I want to !

[Ash]

On 5/6/2010 2:29 PM, vamadevananda wrote:
> Charity, as the word signifies, is a Christian concept that drives
> away people, even kind and well-meaning ones ! That ' giving for
> another's sake ' leaves people fearful and so dissatisfied because
> there are so many that need and are forever there to take. On top of
> it, if you are being pushed or shamed into doing it because it is the
> expected thing ... would be a horribly destabilising practice to
> perpetuate.
>
> The ' giving for one's own sake ' is another paradigm ... as and only
> as much as I feel I must, even judge when and to whom, in accord with
> whatever my values and calling ... because I want to !
>
>

Would this then represent yet another paradox: selfish means for
selfless ends? Kidding. The daring thing that some allude to is that in
order to beat game theory the practice of the principle (recognizing it
is in our own best interest, sowing virtue) has to pass a threshold in
both quality and quantity. What you propose, and I agree, should be the
fundamental basis and is qualitative. As principle is undermined by
necessity, it is a luxury. That does not negate the principle though,
and pursuit of it may provide us an indication of 'leaky' reductions of
situations and pre-assessment. Adding my take on it, I think this is
implied with '...in accord with whatever my values and calling ...
because I want to !'

Either way it does appear to sustain the evolutionary model by avoiding
self destructive traits. We could argue that it is indeed how people
apply the principle in practice and mold the 'rules' or select the
'scriptures' that are potent to it. Now, how to refactor the zero-sum
game the world is playing? Creative potential might be sustenance, but
the threshold will require ignition or unifying vision. I hope we can
find that by choice... I retain the hope that the majority of people are
waiting for something, an indication or ignition, that we may not know
what looks or sounds like but is fundamental and natural to what we are.

[Dinesh]

>' giving for one's own sake '

That is a long long way from where the state of affairs is. But I
agree that in any case everything is given away, am I trying to
describe the taste of sugar ?

[Pat]

On 6 May, 19:29, vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charity, as the word signifies, is a Christian concept that drives
> away people, even kind and well-meaning ones !  That ' giving for
> another's sake ' leaves people fearful and so dissatisfied because
> there are so many that need and are forever there to take. On top of
> it, if you are being pushed or shamed into doing it because it is the
> expected thing ... would be a horribly destabilising practice to
> perpetuate.
>
> The ' giving for one's own sake ' is another paradigm ... as and only
> as much as I feel I must, even judge when and to whom, in accord with
> whatever my values and calling ... because I want to !
>

More...As there is only One, one can ONLY give for One's sake. Monism
at work. In either form of charity (for one's OWN sake or the ske of
another), the ultimate recipient is still the same as the giver. No
energy lost in the system, as we know, energy is conserved. ;-)

[Pat]

On 7 May, 07:27, Dinesh <hgdin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >' giving for one's own sake '
>
> That is a long long way from where the state of affairs is. But I
> agree that in any case everything is given away, am I trying to
> describe the taste of sugar ?
>

And, if you were, how would you describe it to a deaf man without a
tongue? Sorry, just felt the need for a little koan. ;-)

[Pat]

Perhaps altruism in a monistic paradigm? The zero-sum game is a
result of the conservation of energy--even if that energy is emotional/
mental. I'm hoping that my book will offer that 'ignition' of wich
you speak. Even though I know that, in some areas, it will actually
be ignited itself. Ahhh, critics. ;-)