By Choice or Indecision

As Seneca said so long ago, wherever he went, voluntarily or in exile, he found people living by choice or indecision. So not making a decision is in a way a decision; but realty it suggest a false dichotomy, for really it is a trichotomy, to not make a decision, aka never consider the question, is not the same as making a considered decision to leave or to stay, not the same as to go a specific place. Split hairs... is the way of philosophy... western culture since the Greeks invented philosophy.

Buddha handled this all differently; he left everything up to the individual to decide. Examine it, turn it over in your own mind, and if it stands up, adopt it and live up to it. The individual was responsible, and thereby had a duty to self, within their own society. Forms and consciousness was not of concern; life was, physical life that is.

Great philosophers live in the shadow of their own cultures, just as we live in our current electronic-internet-isolationist-mixed tradition- jumbled- impermanent- rapid change- electronic communication- political motivated- irrational -erratic -confused culture. Try to make sense of our culture is not just moving goal posts, but multiple goal post, that change after the goal is made. We have no fixed culture, no common goals, no common ideology, no coherent national direction. We have a mesh-mash of liberal/conservative views, living on borrowed money, depending on others to pay it back, in a society and economy that is not rationally sustainable. The only question is, like death, when will all this coming crashing down.

So the Greeks were great talkers/writers/academics and the Buddhist lived in a monastical environment. So what is in common, and why does it fit together so nicely. It all comes down to the individual is left making the decisions about how they are going to live, because, despite all the discussion and analysis, in the end, philosophy seems to never really come to a conclusion on so many things.

Consider ethics. The philosophers have though of a bunch of different ways to make the decisions, and we are left with nothing better, clearer nor more in any way then the Buddhist compassion, equality, and consideration. Virtues, categorical imperatives, existentialism, utilitarianism, whatever, results in nothing better, as ultimately, it is the individual that must decide. Ideology cannot prescribe, that is just one human lording it over another. That cannot work if we are all equal. It is just one more ideology. Consider the situation in the US with the "pledge of alliance"  in schools. One group of asshats lording it over another equal group. There is no equality there.

So they can decide to stay or go, and in an overpopulated world, it does not matter where they go, there will be conflict, as we all strive for our space. There is not a solution beyond a one child policy that can equatable reduce population to a reasonable level, constant to slightly declining Co2 level, then a two child policy. It is done. In the end we all just die anyway. Hail all.