Jacque Fresco
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:42 am
A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
https://www.dharmawheel.net:443/
Hello sir,Thrasymachus wrote:We do not live in enough of a surrogate, fake human created reality for you? You want more? People already don't know how to be brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, but they do know how to be shoppers and workers. Still you want more of such teleological progress?
People like you need to wake up from your trance. Fresco is a scammer, peddling puerile dreams, but a very attractive one because he offers the illusion of an external utopia without any inner change or effort on your part.
dharmagoat wrote:Why in a utopia does the architecture look so garish?
Internal change? Well, that would be nice but human nature hasn't changed for thousands of years. We're products of our enviroment. People who live in a system of artificial (or actual) scarcity run by psychopaths aren't likely to become ethical and compassionate since this would lessen their chances of survival. I think Fresco's idea of changing the enviroment so that altruistic behavior at least isn't penalized and everyone's basic survival needs are taken care of is a much better plan than trying to convince people to be ethical and compassionate when they see those who are doing this having their faces jackbooted into the mud.Thrasymachus wrote:
\We do not live in enough of a surrogate, fake human created reality for you? You want more? People already don't know how to be brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, but they do know how to be shoppers and workers. Still you want more of such teleological progress? People like you need to wake up from your trance. Fresco is a scammer, peddling puerile dreams, but a very attractive one because he offers the illusion of an external utopia without any inner change or effort on your part.
For my part I believe that the greatest Buddhist saints could actually reach out and touch the surface of the moon with a fingertip, stop the sun in its tracks, or walk inside the hollow horn of a dead yak. Reality is malleable and plastic, because it is created by mind and the magical powers of mind are limitless. If prayer fails or the world is a limited, horrible place it is because we have projected it this way. If you pray and at the same time secretly believe that it is hopeless then you will indeed go blue in the face. My favourite miracle was when one Buddhist saint was explaining the Dharma to a group of sceptics, to demonstrate his point he walked over to a nearby mural depicting a herd of cows and milked one of them, filling his begging bowl with fresh milk which he then passed around.Adumbra wrote: Prayer has never solved anything. You can can pray 'till your face is blue for a cure to smallpox or more resiliant crops and recieve nothing.
This is a very good point. I considered this immediately after I made the initial post and realized I've never used the word "utopia" with The Venus Project before... I suppose it doesn't really matter.And, by the way, 'utopia' is a relative idea.
I guess 'pessimistic' is a relative term as well. No, he wasn't a pessimist to the same degree that the Marquis de Sade was (which amounted to 'The world is Hell, humans are evil by nature, and there is no God so lets have fun destroying each other'). I refer specifically to his outlook on existence.He believed that existence is so full of suffering that it is better to not exist. Now, this is neither true nor false. It's simply a judgement that he came to after he saw how much suffering there is in life in proportion to it's scant pleasures. Buddha was probably a lot more affirming of existence before he saw the corpse and the begger. Imagine the shock, at the age of 29, of learning that people get sick and die. It doesn't seem so horrible to us because we grew up with that knowledge, but for him, it was impossible to affirm the value of a transient existence, painful or pleasurable, that utlimately ends in death followed by an endless and fruitless cycle of rebirths that end the same way.catmoon:
Buddha is pessimistic? Funny, I thought he taught that there is a way out of this mess.
Um, well, if you aren't being facetious I will admit that the mind certainly does hold amazing latent powers. But how many people have access to them? Men and woman who never get sick and live to a healthy 120 years are pretty rare. I don't think we're gonna eliminate AIDS, cancer, and depression by teaching everyone pranayama and Taoist internal alchemy. How many have the time and discipline to learn?Raksha:
For my part I believe that the greatest Buddhist saints could actually reach out and touch the surface of the moon with a fingertip, stop the sun in its tracks, or walk inside the hollow horn of a dead yak. Reality is malleable and plastic, because it is created by mind and the magical powers of mind are limitless. If prayer fails or the world is a limited, horrible place it is because we have projected it this way. If you pray and at the same time secretly believe that it is hopeless then you will indeed go blue in the face. My favourite miracle was when one Buddhist saint was explaining the Dharma to a group of sceptics, to demonstrate his point he walked over to a nearby mural depicting a herd of cows and milked one of them, filling his begging bowl with fresh milk which he then passed around.
Impossible to know for certain. He would certainly favor the elimination of suffering to whatever degree possible. Buddha did admit that life had it's pleasures but in his discussion on meditation (sorry, don't have the reference) he explained that even the first Dhyana is far superior to the best sex you could ever have. There was another time when, as a very old man, he looked at the beautiful scenery before him and confessed to Ananda that he wouldn't mind living another century if it were possible to do so in good health. If I had to guess, I would say that he would still reject sensual pleasures, but only because for him they are all inferior to the tranquility of deep meditation. It would be more like rejecting a lesser good for a much greater one than simple running away from a painful and meaningless existence.Roland:
I wonder what the Buddha would say if these technologies existed in his time, or he was around now. Would he still give economic advice on how to run businesses (like in the Pali Canon)? Or would he present something along these lines? or both?
I am not sure, where you got your info on Buddha´s teaching, but I have never heard that Buddha would say that it is better to not exist. Existence and non-existence are just two extremes. Buddha did not show a path into non-existence, he showed the path beyond existence, but this state cannot be pointed to as non-existence, since it has presence. It is however beyond limits of minds conditioning and judgement. It is our own mind that pinpoints things as real, existent, non-existent etc. So since it cannot be pinned down or shown it cannot be spoken of existent either.Adumbra wrote:I refer specifically to his outlook on existence.He believed that existence is so full of suffering that it is better to not exist. Now, this is neither true nor false.
Tradition has it that Buddha mentioned three times to Ananda, that he could live until the end of eon, he hinted this, so that Ananda would request him to do so, for the benefit of others. For Buddha life and death are illusions so he had no stake in continuing life. Ananda missed this opportunity and when had finaly asked Buddha, Buddha said that it is too late now, since he cast away his will to live.Adumbra wrote:Impossible to know for certain. He would certainly favor the elimination of suffering to whatever degree possible. Buddha did admit that life had it's pleasures but in his discussion on meditation (sorry, don't have the reference) he explained that even the first Dhyana is far superior to the best sex you could ever have. There was another time when, as a very old man, he looked at the beautiful scenery before him and confessed to Ananda that he wouldn't mind living another century if it were possible to do so in good health. If I had to guess, I would say that he would still reject sensual pleasures, but only because for him they are all inferior to the tranquility of deep meditation. It would be more like rejecting a lesser good for a much greater one than simple running away from a painful and meaningless existence.
I think Schopenhaur said it best:dzoki:
I am not sure, where you got your info on Buddha´s teaching, but I have never heard that Buddha would say that it is better to not exist. Existence and non-existence are just two extremes. Buddha did not show a path into non-existence, he showed the path beyond existence, but this state cannot be pointed to as non-existence, since it has presence. It is however beyond limits of minds conditioning and judgement. It is our own mind that pinpoints things as real, existent, non-existent etc. So since it cannot be pinned down or shown it cannot be spoken of existent either.
'Nothing', of course, is only a concept while Nirvana is an experience and I will take it for granted that no one present here has experienced it. Buddha seemed to be only capable of describing it in negatives: timeless, spaceless, changless, selfless, causeless. Whatever Nirvana is, it is clearly the absence of anything that most people would define as existent since all that we know of as existent is bound up with causality i.e. space-time (even dimensionless concepts require a brain to conceive them). What do we call that which does not exist in space-time? Nothing. We say that it does not exist....we must banish the dark impression of that nothingness which we discern behind all virtue and holiness as their final goal, and which we fear as children fear the dark ; we must not even evade it like the Indians, through myths and meaningless words, such as reabsorption in Brahma or the Nirvana of the Buddhists. Rather do we freely acknowledge that what remains after the entire abolition of will (to live) is for all those who are still full of will certainly nothing ; but, conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and has denied itself, this our world, which is so real, with all its suns and milky-ways -- is nothing.
-Arthur Schopenhaur, The World as Will & Idea Book 4, chapter 71.
Interesting... but then to appreciate an experience is not quite the same as being attached to it. I can appreciate a sunny day without wishing that the sun to always shine. So Buddha indulged in meditation, but was not attached to it.Dhyanas are in fact considered just a state of calm a focused mind, they are in no way a goal of buddhist meditation. Being attached to dhyana is no different to being attached to sex. Since Buddha is by deifinition (his own) someone who is free from all bondage, how could he choose one object of bondage over the other?
Well, I am by no means an expert on Fresco (so forgive me if I am wrong) but I have never heard him even imply that anyone should be forced to move into his cities or abandon their religion. He simply seems to assume that any sane person would prefer to live in his cities rather than some dirty, crime-ridden inner city ghetto (which is why he has such appeal to the poor). As for religion, since it is only an opiate that dulls the pain of poverty and boredom, I think Fresco just reasons that the various religions will loose their following once poverty and drudgery have been eliminated (something I personally doubt).At last to the topic, Fresco is no saviour, I assure you. His idea of Venus project contains several assumptions that operate with forcing ideas upon human beings - should the project be brought to the full scale. One of them is the idea that humanity will have to abandon the old cities. Why would people do that? Ok maybe some people will find it nice to live in sterile and uniform apartment complexes that Fresco´s project proposes (I doubt that there would be many of those), but what about people who like where they live and like the place they call home. Would Venus project move them by force? Another idea of his is that people should abandon their religious afiliations, including showing the outward signs of their religion.
All forms of communism presume that there will be workers. And for there to be workers there must be work to be done. I see Fresco's vision as being much closer to aristocracy than communism. In an aristocracy the elite work to better themselves while the slaves and/or serfs do all the necessary drudgery to keep everyone fed, clothed, and housed. The only difference in Fresco's version is that the 'slaves' are mechanical, cannot suffer, and do not require rest.I am not sure everybody will like that. You know overall Venus project seems to me to be good old Marx and Engels minus the revolution.
Ad hominem attacks belie a weak intellect, not necessarily a weak position. In other words, just because some people use weak arguments to defend Fresco doesn't mean Fresco is wrong. It just means that some of his fans need to study rhetoric.One of the warning signs should be that whenever somebody tries to publicly criticize Venus project, there is a host of people who will use ad hominem and other "debate" techniques in orther to silence the criticism.
Following in the footsteps of Lord Buddha can eliminate all ills. Even just a healthy mental attitude can have dramatically positive effects on ones health. I'm not denying that we live in a dark age and that all such efforts are paddling upstream against the flow of negative karma, which is extremely strong. Of course, I would be overjoyed if everyone mastered internal alchemy, like in the golden age, but alas that isn't going to happen. Instead we have do whatever we can, no matter how little, like solitary ninjas against an endless army.Adumbra wrote:...the mind certainly does hold amazing latent powers. But how many people have access to them? Men and woman who never get sick and live to a healthy 120 years are pretty rare. I don't think we're gonna eliminate AIDS, cancer, and depression by teaching everyone pranayama and Taoist internal alchemy. How many have the time and discipline to learn?
The idea is that no one is forced to do anything during the "transition period". People can still live in their houses, use the existing cities, basically while the project "grows". But no existing structures would be updated or repaired. I am someone who doesn't like living in cities, so that would not work for me. But there would be custom made houses that can be built in any area, and not everyone would have to live in the cities, if they didn't want. Apparently the idea is that people could see the advantages of the cities and custom houses and might be convinced to transition to them. Following that idea, I would assume that the more prominent and larger scale it becomes, more people would be willing to accept. I'm guessing this is the implication.dzoki wrote: At last to the topic, Fresco is no saviour, I assure you. His idea of Venus project contains several assumptions that operate with forcing ideas upon human beings - should the project be brought to the full scale. One of them is the idea that humanity will have to abandon the old cities. Why would people do that? Ok maybe some people will find it nice to live in sterile and uniform apartment complexes that Fresco´s project proposes (I doubt that there would be many of those), but what about people who like where they live and like the place they call home. Would Venus project move them by force? Another idea of his is that people should abandon their religious afiliations, including showing the outward signs of their religion. I am not sure everybody will like that. You know overall Venus project seems to me to be good old Marx and Engels minus the revolution. One of the warning signs should be that whenever somebody tries to publicly criticize Venus project, there is a host of people who will use ad hominem and other "debate" techniques in orther to silence the criticism.