how effective is non-violent diplomacy in the modern world?

In light of recent events taking place around China and India, specifically with the clash between the Tibetans and the Chinese. The original intent was to march peacefully from Dharamsala, India to Lahasa, Tibet and possible begin talks about a compromise to allow exiled Tibetans to return to their homeland that was taken from them and commercialized by the Chinese government, but more recently it seems that many of the Tibetans have started to clash with the Chinese military in the area because the Tibetans feel that the Dalai Lama's message of trying to reach a consensus towards autonomy is not progressing as well as the displaced Tibetans would like, and feel that by clashing with gov't officials it will resonate a louder message, not only to the world but to the gov't of China as well. Looking back in time, the non-violent protests in Tienanmen square held by students and countless other Chinese citizens hoping for more democratic policies in the PRC's gov't let to a violent response by the military that killed many protesters. Just recently the peaceful anti-government protests in Burma also elicited a violent response from the Junta, that led to the deaths of hundreds of monks. In India, a peaceful protest against the British rule was led by Mahatma Ghandi, the most popular of which was the Salt March that caused a retaliation by the British gov't towards the peaceful marchers, and this retaliation involved violence towards the marchers. I'm sure there are many many other references that I don't want to continue to list, but what I'm getting to is... is it feasible to hold non-violent diplomatic talks in an age of weapons and the need to show force to get ones standpoint across? I like to be optimistic and think it is possible, that if the nations of the world would want to sit down and talk about possible reducing the amount of bloodshed, that the civility of humans can be displayed, I'm one to believe that we live in a time that is at peace with moments of war, instead of the belief that we live in a world that is filled with war with moments of peace. So why not extend the period of peace even further, why not find a way to compromise without greed. I don't know what do other people think about this question?

Infinity?

What is Infinity? It's a question that we learn about when we take calculus or when we talk about physics or spirituality but what is infinity? I had been listening to a radio show and on it one of the hosts defined infinity as something that is not finite, but that only really tell you what infinity isn't not what infinity is, and one interesting example they gave was that if you were to change the question and ask what is green? Then by the same notion from the previous answer you can say that green is not blue, well that tells you what green isn't but it doesn't tell you what green is, we can define green or rather any color, as what our eyes perceive through the reflection of light on an object, depending on the type of material or color that object is bounced off of, how much of the light gets absorbed and how much gets reflected... that forms the color that we perceive, so that is a definition of the color green. But back to the question of infinity, what is it?? Well according to the mathematician Cantor he stated that a collection is infinite if some of it's parts are as big as the whole. That you can find a 1-1 mapping of parts of a set to another set, so take for example the idea of walking to the door but you start by going half way then going half way from your current point and so on, in this way there are infinite possibilities but there is a final goal. A better understanding if your read the "Infinite Hotel". But Cantor also stated that all infinities are not the same, so 2 * infinity is not the same as 3 * infinity. Now to speak a little bit outside of set theory, people consider the universe to be infinite, or that time is infinite, and on a spiritual sense, god is infinite, in that god has infinite wisdom and that god is incomprehensible since god is infinite, but if we take that notion and we can find and can define what infinite is then the idea of god no longer exists because understanding God is supposed to be outside of the scope of our understanding, the supreme being, if we now understand or know what infinity is then we understand god, and if we understand god then god is something we can all understand and thus god really doesn't exist because we all understand the infinite and thus understand god. So infinity is a concept of set theory, but there are still quite a number of paradox's that need to be explored and this is quite an interesting concept and definately worth exploring more, but I will leave it here for now.

Ethics of Reciprocity

It's a very simple concept, better know as "The Golden Rule", or more better understood with the well know quote, "Do Onto Others as you would with them to do onto you", it's such a basic idea that applies to humanity and the right that we all humans are born with, and which I would also include all living creatures. I think in this day and age with all this news of genocide and war and poverty and corruption and violence we've forgotten what rights we should all try to convey in our daily life, all religions have this concept inherent within it, I present some quotes I found on Wikipedia here:
Buddhism: Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

Baha'i Faith: "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." -Baha'u'llah

Christianity: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." -Matthew 7:12

Confucinism: "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." -Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton

Hinduism: "That one I love who is incapable of ill will, And returns love for hatred." -Bhagavad Gita

Islam: "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." part of the Last Sermon of the Prophet Muhammad

... And the list goes on, it can be found in all religions that exist in the know world. So why is it that we've come to live in a world where this simple principle is no longer practiced? Why do people find other reasons to justify violence and ignore the right that every human should have. I don't know what has happened to this world, all I know is if we continue to ignore this principle we will learn to grow even more distant as a species and eventually no one will remain to defend their beliefs. Here's to the hope of a more peaceful world...

Happy Valentines Day

Since it's Valentines today I thought it be appropriate or relevant to post up a few things I've wondered about as well as heard of or read in regards to love and relationships and attraction... First off, it being Valentines day, there will probably be a lot of heart shaped balloons, cards and candy boxes that will be presented to the many significant others, but how did the heart shape come about? Why does it look like two bass clef's meeting at their respective points. So I went online and started searching for the origin of the heart shape, and of course I come across a wikipedia article, along with a slate.com article about the origin of the symbol, and though it doesn't have or there is no definitive answer to the origin, some of the speculations are that the symbol came from the shape of the seedpod of a North African plant called the Silphium, which was widely traded as a form of birthcontrol by the city of Cyrene, and since this plant was so critical to the economy, coins were created in the shape of the seedpod, a heart. Some of the other theories are that Saint Margaret Mary Alocoque, had a vision of the heart surrounded by thorns which came to known as the sacred heart of Jesus Christ. Of course there are other theories that the heart shape is just a botched representation of a real heart when drawn by individuals in the past. Quite interesting... Now off the subject of symbols and onto time magazine, and their article about what is love, and how is it that we choose the person to love or have as a partner, well supposedly it has something to do with the MHC complex that's found in our immune systems, supposedly individuals with a different MHC complex then their own are attracted to the other and vice versa. And it seems to have to do with this idea of producing an offspring that has a more diverse immune system, thus allowing it to survive longer. Because when the 2 parents have the kids, with their differing immune systems, they will have a child with varying immunity towards a much diverse set of pathogens that they will have a higher chance of survival. But the interesting thing that the article pointed out was that women who are on the birth control pill tend to choose a mate that has a similar MHC complex, and this may cause a problem because once the woman is off the pill the relationship may not work out once her hormonal system is back to normal, and may end up divorcing the person she thought she was in love with. Anyway you can read more about it here. So quite interesting this idea of what we think love is, is it just a bunch of chemical reactions or is it something more metaphysical and spiritual, I guess in this modern age where there are long distance relationships perhaps love and attraction are on more of a intellectual level rather then physical. Who knows, what ever it is, we will all have our own answers.

Biofuels bad for environment...?

I was listening to science friday today on NPR and the first story was about Biofuels and how our sudden interest in increasing this production of alternative fuels can actually do more harm to the environment then the benefits that we think may be gained from switching to these alternate forms of energy to power our fossil fuel centric society. The reason this may actually do more harm is because in order to produce more ethanol and palm oil and such more of todays fertile farmland and forests are being demolished so that the land can be used to grow corn. The amount of carbon that may be released from destroying existing farmland and forests cold harm the environment such that it would take 1-4 centuries to repair, quite a stunning figure. So what are some of the alternatives? Well there has been research into algae and garbage consuming bacteria that can convert waste into viable fuel. And it seems that companies have started doing more research with these alternative forms of energy. I personally never thought that growing corn so that it can later be used for fuel would be so harmful, I mean with genetic modification the genetic material of corn can be manipulated such that it would require less water and be able to grow in a smaller area allowing for more plants to be grown in the same amount of space. But of course the problem is as we put more and more money into researching ways to make more efficient and subsidizing farmers that grow corn they begin to shift their crops away from non-subsidized produce, and we have a world ridden with corn, now I can only take so much corn on the cob or popcorn. Still amazing how as much as we try to find a way to continue to use transportation and energy as inefficiently and as boldy as we can, we still can't find a way to reduce our own carbon footprint. It's sad that our society has come to depend so much on technology that is harming the very planet we are living on and we're just looking for a way to continue using it but not feel as guilty when we do. Oh well, I'll shut my light off and go to sleep, try not to waste too much energy in the evening... :)

Happiness...?

I was having a conversation with someone about my beliefs on life and spirituality and the question of what I look forward to came up and more precisely what my doctrines are for life and of course my belief particularly on faith. So my answer which has always been my answer for quite a number of years was that I believe in living life for the sole purpose of obtaining happiness, quite a vital principle of the Buddhist philosophy, or atleast that of the Dalai Lama and his teachings on Tibetan Buddhism. But that answer wasn't very clear and I guess it is a bit vague in what exactly is happiness, and it seems like it's really not a very fulfilling goal. So I'm going to try to express what I mean by happiness in writing and perhaps it may help me better articulate it through speech. Ok, well when you speak to a lot of individuals about their faith and beliefs they always say that at the end of their life they hope to have accomplished things and if they have done anything that may have harmed another person or thing that they have atoned for their sins. But living a life where the ultimate goal is achieving some sort of gift or praise seems to me like you are only following rules but not living. Living should be about learning and growing and understanding. And that's this idea of happiness, and to me happiness means that I've learned all that I've had the capability to learn, that I've not led a life where I've interfered too greatly, in a negative sense, with the life of another individual, that I've grown far greater not in a physical sense but in a mental sense, and that I've tried to understand what I've lived and how others have lived to be more cognizant of why certain people are and perhaps learn how to understand them. I also believe that happiness implies that you take away this idea of hope, we as humans are hoping that one day our time will come when all our life will have meaning, but I think that's more of a selfish attitude, and though it may be fulfilling to have hope, it's a very narrow minded goal which for some reason there is a unforeseen event we may loose our hope. Now perhaps if we see all events as having a purpose then that has far greater meaning then being in the mindset of the hope for a change and ultimately having grown from the past. I also think that we all try to, as a friend of mine once said, "sell our selves", in many ways through life, that we are our own ultimate salesmen, we want to look good on a date, we want to make a good impression when we meed someone, we carry out a formality when confronting, but the Dalai Lama said that he is one that does not believe in formality but rather in the idea of connection, when you take formality too seriously you don't make the connection which is just communication with another individual. And by being formal we sell our politeness. Now I'm not saying walk up to someone naked but rather the focus should be more on communication rather then the act of following a proper rules of engagement for communication, which may lead you to miss a connection. Ok, so I side tracked there a little but, so what am I getting at, well... ultimately I want to say that my goal is know that I have expressed myself and communicated to the best of my abilities without being too overt. And that I'm happy about the events of the past, or fulfilled. In a sense enlightened about what it means to live a life. Ok, it's late and I should sleep now but I will expand more on this subject later...

finally watched 'Cloverfield'

I went to watch the largely hyped new movie, 'Cloverfield' this weekend and I'm mixed about how I felt about it, one thing I can say is it's quite original not in the sense of the plot but in the way that the movie was directed and shot. This concept of bringing the homemade video phenomenon that's exploded onto the internet and turning that idea into a mainstream movie was well done. I have to give Matt Reeves and Drew Goddard credit in changing the way movies are shot. But the whole movie had the elements of The Blair Witch Project, Godzilla, and the plethora of films that followed 9/11. I guess in one way showing this films in theaters shows that the events of 9/11, were what they were, tragic events of the past and just like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan following WW2 and the subsequent release of Godzilla several years later, Cloverfield ironically seems quite reflective. Anyway overall I say it's a good film and a nice modern day vision of Godzilla instead of another "Gozdilla vs. ".