Home › Forum Online Discussion › General › Decline in Trust = Weakening U.S. Earth Element
- This topic has 13 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by ribosome777.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 30, 2013 at 12:50 pm #41614Michael WinnKeymaster
Note: Trust is the quality nourished by strong earth Qi/element. Dis-trust weakens one’s earth element. So America’s earth element is weakening. But it is being caused by declining morality, or because of a larger cycle in which the “old earth” must dissolve away and a “new and more spiritual earth” replaces it?
-michaelIn God we trust, maybe, but not each other
Shown is the cash box at Dennis and Darlene Hess’s farm stand Monday, Nov. 4, 2013, in Litiz, Pa. You can take our word for it: Americans dont trust each other anymore. An AP-GfK poll conducted last month found that Americans are suspicious of each other in everyday encounters. Less than a third expressed a lot of trust in clerks who swipe their credit cards, drivers on the road, or people they meet when traveling. However, there are still trusters around to set an example like Dennis Hess who runs an unattended farm stand on the honor system. Customers pick out their produce, tally their bills and drop the money into a slot, making change from an unlocked cashbox. “When people from New York or New Jersey come up,” said Hess, “they are amazed that this kind of thing is done anymore.” (AP Photo – Matt Rourke)
By CONNIE CASS
From Associated Press
November 30, 2013 11:27 AM ESTWASHINGTON (AP) You can take our word for it. Americans don’t trust each other anymore.
We’re not talking about the loss of faith in big institutions such as the government, the church or Wall Street, which fluctuates with events. For four decades, a gut-level ingredient of democracy trust in the other fellow has been quietly draining away.
These days, only one-third of Americans say most people can be trusted. Half felt that way in 1972, when the General Social Survey first asked the question.
Forty years later, a record high of nearly two-thirds say “you can’t be too careful” in dealing with people.
An AP-GfK poll conducted last month found that Americans are suspicious of each other in everyday encounters. Less than one-third expressed a lot of trust in clerks who swipe their credit cards, drivers on the road, or people they meet when traveling.
“I’m leery of everybody,” said Bart Murawski, 27, of Albany, N.Y. “Caution is always a factor.”
Does it matter that Americans are suspicious of one another? Yes, say worried political and social scientists.
What’s known as “social trust” brings good things.
A society where it’s easier to compromise or make a deal. Where people are willing to work with those who are different from them for the common good. Where trust appears to promote economic growth.
Distrust, on the other hand, seems to encourage corruption. At the least, it diverts energy to counting change, drawing up 100-page legal contracts and building gated communities.
Even the rancor and gridlock in politics might stem from the effects of an increasingly distrustful citizenry, said April K. Clark, a Purdue University political scientist and public opinion researcher.
“It’s like the rules of the game,” Clark said. “When trust is low, the way we react and behave with each other becomes less civil.”
There’s no easy fix.
In fact, some studies suggest it’s too late for most Americans alive today to become more trusting. That research says the basis for a person’s lifetime trust levels is set by his or her mid-twenties and unlikely to change, other than in some unifying crucible such as a world war.
People do get a little more trusting as they age. But beginning with the baby boomers, each generation has started off adulthood less trusting than those who came before them.
The best hope for creating a more trusting nation may be figuring out how to inspire today’s youth, perhaps united by their high-tech gadgets, to trust the way previous generations did in simpler times.
There are still trusters around to set an example.
Pennsylvania farmer Dennis Hess is one. He runs an unattended farm stand on the honor system.
Customers select their produce, tally their bills and drop the money into a slot, making change from an unlocked cashbox. Both regulars and tourists en route to nearby Lititz, Pa., stop for asparagus in spring, corn in summer and, as the weather turns cold, long-neck pumpkins for Thanksgiving pies.
“When people from New York or New Jersey come up,” said Hess, 60, “they are amazed that this kind of thing is done anymore.”
Hess has updated the old ways with technology. He added a video camera a few years back, to help catch people who drive off without paying or raid the cashbox. But he says there isn’t enough theft to undermine his trust in human nature.
“I’ll say 99 and a half percent of the people are honest,” said Hess, who’s operated the produce stand for two decades.
There’s no single explanation for Americans’ loss of trust.
The best-known analysis comes from “Bowling Alone” author Robert Putnam’s nearly two decades of studying the United States’ declining “social capital,” including trust.
Putnam says Americans have abandoned their bowling leagues and Elks lodges to stay home and watch TV. Less socializing and fewer community meetings make people less trustful than the “long civic generation” that came of age during the Depression and World War II.
University of Maryland Professor Eric Uslaner, who studies politics and trust, puts the blame elsewhere: economic inequality.
Trust has declined as the gap between the nation’s rich and poor gapes ever wider, Uslaner says, and more and more Americans feel shut out. They’ve lost their sense of a shared fate. Tellingly, trust rises with wealth.
“People who believe the world is a good place and it’s going to get better and you can help make it better, they will be trusting,” Uslaner said. “If you believe it’s dark and driven by outside forces you can’t control, you will be a mistruster.”
African-Americans consistently have expressed far less faith in “most people” than the white majority does. Racism, discrimination and a high rate of poverty destroy trust.
Nearly 8 in 10 African-Americans, in the 2012 survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago with principal funding from the National Science Foundation, felt that “you can’t be too careful.” That figure has held remarkably steady across the 25 GSS surveys since 1972.
The decline in the nation’s overall trust quotient was driven by changing attitudes among whites.
It’s possible that people today are indeed less deserving of trust than Americans in the past, perhaps because of a decline in moral values.
“I think people are acting more on their greed,” said Murawski, a computer specialist who says he has witnessed scams and rip-offs. “Everybody wants a comfortable lifestyle, but what are you going to do for it? Where do you draw the line?”
Ethical behavior such as lying and cheating are difficult to document over the decades. It’s worth noting that the early, most trusting years of the GSS poll coincided with Watergate and the Vietnam War. Trust dropped off in the more stable 1980s.
Crime rates fell in the 1990s and 2000s, and still Americans grew less trusting. Many social scientists blame 24-hour news coverage of distant violence for skewing people’s perceptions of crime.
Can anything bring trust back?
Uslaner and Clark don’t see much hope anytime soon.
Thomas Sander, executive director of the Saguaro Seminar launched by Putnam, believes the trust deficit is “eminently fixable” if Americans strive to rebuild community and civic life, perhaps by harnessing technology.
After all, the Internet can widen the circle of acquaintances who might help you find a job. Email makes it easier for clubs to plan face-to-face meetings. Googling someone turns up information that used to come via the community grapevine.
But hackers and viruses and hateful posts eat away at trust. And sitting home watching YouTube means less time out meeting others.
“A lot of it depends on whether we can find ways to get people using technology to connect and be more civically involved,” Sander said.
“The fate of Americans’ trust,” he said, “is in our own hands.”
November 30, 2013 at 11:56 pm #41615StevenModeratorThe following three sentences from the article are key:
Trust has declined as the gap between the nation’s rich and poor gapes ever wider, Uslaner says, and more and more Americans feel shut out. They’ve lost their sense of a shared fate. Tellingly, trust rises with wealth.
Then parents who have to work two jobs, don’t actually spend any time raising their kids, so the kids are not actually taught any real values. The values I was taught as a child are not taught today; parents are too busy with their own lives.
When you have a culture of “everybody in it for themselves, to hell with the other guy”, and a culture where children are not taught values, it creates a culture of scam artists, con artists, and the like. You get burned a few times, and you stop trusting people. And everyone gets burned from time to time.
For me, I follow the motto of the old TV show’s “The X-Files” of Fox Mulder, i.e. “Trust No One”. Well . . . at least, until that person has EARNED my trust.
To do otherwise, is foolish.
There are just too many people that lack integrity.The solution is to fix the massive amount of wealth inequality in America. Continuing to give tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy, tax breaks to corporations, cutting food stamp program (SNAP) and other programs for the poor, all while making the middle-class pay for the continual re-direction and funneling of money to the top 1% will succeed in doing two things:
1. Killing the middle-class in America, turning America into a version of Mexico.
2. Creating a culture of very little values, more rampant crime, more mistrust . . . like Mexico.S
December 2, 2013 at 2:49 pm #41617frechtlingParticipantI agree but I tend to trust my gut, which tells me who I can and cannot trust. In general, I tend to have faith in humanity and I think my positive vibe/attitude/aura tends to attract trustworthy people and detract those who are not. Just my 2 cents.
Also, the wealth disparity is pretty insane…as a “successful” middle class professional, I feel the squeeze every day…
December 3, 2013 at 3:17 pm #41619ribosome777Participantthis is so completely false it is beyond comprehension
you prepare for the worst
arm yourself to the max
you do not budge an inch lest everyone takes a mileand you appreciate the best knowing it is transient
this is the most false “new age” mumbo of any of them…
if you ever once addressed any of this there would be some progress
rather than some wishy washy vapiditysigning out…
December 3, 2013 at 3:44 pm #41621c_howdyParticipantDecember 3, 2013 at 8:39 pm #41623ribosome777ParticipantDecember 3, 2013 at 11:45 pm #41625c_howdyParticipanthttp://www.tcnjsignal.net/2010/04/13/sm-for-beginners-easing-into-a-new-situation/
After becoming comfortable in a sexual relationship, couples often times decide to become more adventurous, and a common avenue is S&M sadomasochism and rough sex.
The term sadomasochism finds its roots in the words sadism, meaning to enjoy inflicting pain, and masochism, meaning to enjoy pain being inflicted on oneself. According to Discovery Health, sadomasochism is most simply defined as the eroticizing of pain during sexual intercourse.
Although this path definitely isnt for everyone, it is important to debunk the stigmas connected to S&M before providing fodder for ideas. There is a common misconception that sadomasochism is essentially rape, but this isnt the case, since sadomasochism is fully consensual.
American media also portray sadomasochism in its most extreme states, like whips, chains, and handcuffs, but in reality, a couple is practicing sadomasochism if they even lightly bite one another during intercourse.
If you have never indulged in rough sex or S&M before, youre likely thinking to yourself, Why would anyone enjoy being hurt or hurting their partner during sex?
The answer to this question is very simple, biological, and may seem weird: Pain, just like pleasure, releases endorphins, the compound connected to pleasure and enjoyment. The masochist recognizes that being spanked or squeezed is slightly painful, but he or she mostly feels pleasure, causing additional sexual arousal.
Obviously, this branch of intercourse can be very heated and passionate, part of why people enjoy engaging in sadomasochism. Unlike other branches of sex, sadomasochism can be dangerous since it involves pain, so its important to do your homework and get consent before busting out the fuzzy handcuffs from Spencers gifts.December 6, 2013 at 1:39 pm #41627ribosome777ParticipantDecember 8, 2013 at 8:37 am #41629c_howdyParticipantSorry for off-topic posting.
HOWDY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsvfofcIE1Q (masterandservant)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxvDFd3UzU4 (houseofshame)
December 8, 2013 at 1:47 pm #41631StevenModeratorBeing able to explore sexual fantasies, and being able to work them out, is all part of the natural process of the Tao. Therefore, I’ve been permitting these posts thus far, and I encourage you both to continue to explore it.
However, while your back-and-forth sexual dance is somewhat entertaining and a natural example of the Tao in action, you can also understand how too many posts of this nature fill up the Forum, and act as interference for folks coming here looking for qigong/meditation topics.
Therefore, I encourage you two to exchange emails and/or contact info as soon as possible, so that any burgeoning sexual relationship that the two of you wish to pursue, can be pursued offline, and the Forum can be spared the details of the back-and-forth “courting”.
Note: If there start to become too many back-and-forth posts of this type, I will start removing threads to ensure Forum stability.
Thanks,
StevenP.S. Optimal would be if one (or both) of you post here an email address (that you feel comfortable providing publicly), and let nature take its course.
December 8, 2013 at 5:23 pm #41633c_howdyParticipantThe pope has already drawn the ire of some conservative Catholics, particularly in the U.S., for his open-minded comments on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion and contraception, and hes also previously criticized capitalism for promoting greed.
-https://portside.org/2013-11-26/pope-francis-rips-capitalism-and-trickle-down-economicsSorry, but this seem to be really more general problem.
Those who are holding seriously enough very conservative views are clearly not anyway single-minded group, but can be very very contradictory.
And here there haven’t been any serious sexual pursuit from any direction for my understanding.
Also one should notice that many who regard themselves libertarians are not at all that. That is practical cognitive problem.
I have several times already consciously added my own remark that my few postings shouldn’t really disturb anybody and especially harm Healing Tao, through this forum, as a business.
But reason for the tone of some postings is that for seriously practicing NEIDAN one cannot be a sissy, but must be able to stand on one’s own not only like one might understand it in normal sense.
One must be able to go over that.
Good night in Finland!
Good afternoon/evening in North America!
HOWDY
Ps. Sorry for my broken English.
Have you learned from Mantak Chia in person or homestudy or from his books? I don’t think you can realy learn the practice from a book.
-http://forum.healingdao.com/practice/message/23788/The common name by which the Cistercians who follow the reform inaugurated by the Abbot de Rancé (b. 1626; d. 1700) in the Abbey of La Trappe, were known; and often now applied to the entire Order of Reformed Cistercians. Thus it cannot be said that there is an Order of Trappists; though if one were to speak of Trappist monks, he would be understood to refer to monks of the Order of Reformed Cistercians, as distinguished from the Order of Cistercians of the common Observance (see Cistercians and La Trappe). The primitive austerities of the Cistercians had fallen into desuetude in practically the entire order principally through the introduction of commendatory abbots, political disturbances, and human inconstancy; and though many and very praiseworthy attempts at their restoration had been made in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal, etc., yet these were but local or at most national in extent. That of de Rancé, however, was destined by Divine Providence to be more enduring and of wider scope than any other. Although the Abbey of La Trappe flourished exceedingly, even after the death of its venerated reformer, as evidenced by more than 300 professions between the years 1714 and 1790, yet the spirit of materialism and sensualism rampant in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, did not permit the rapid extension of the reform outside its walls; it did not even allow the entire severity of ancient Cîteaux to be introduced at La Trappe, though this reform was the most thorough and perfect of the many attempts that had then been made. Consequently it founded but a small number of monasteries; these were: Buon-Solazzo, near Florence (1705), and St. Vito at Rome (1709); Casamari, in the Papal States, was obliged to adopt the Constitutions of de Rancé (1717), but for nearly a century there was no further expansion. It was from the time of these earliest foundations that they who embraced de Rancés reform were called Trappists. Too much credit cannot be given to these noble bands of monks, who by their lives demonstrated to a corrupt world that man could have a higher ambition than the gratification of the mere natural instincts of this ephemeral life.
-http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15024a.htmThe very long and complex history of homosexual relations within Japanese Buddhist institutions has only now come to light in the English-speaking world with the recent translation of a few key documents and a number of commentaries on them. I was struck, as I hope the reader of this essay will be, by how normative sexual interactions between men in Buddhist institutions in Japan became, and how these relationships were accepted by the wider society with equanimity. Indeed, as I show, homoerotic relationships that had developed in Buddhist institutions actually served as the basis for wider same-sex sexual relationships between men throughout Japanese society from the thirteenth to the end of the nineteenth century.
-http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.htmlDecember 8, 2013 at 6:16 pm #41635StevenModeratorI have no problem with the topic.
If you want to discuss homosexuality or S&M, or any other sexual topic, feel free.
A huge part of the Tao is sexual fulfillment, and that is to be embraced.
I have no desire to limit your creativity.
These are topics worthy of discussion.However, when you repeatedly post the same thing in different threads that have nothing to do with the original topic, and you seem to be directing your attention at one person, it becomes unclear what your motives are.
It is unclear whether you are seeking some kind of sexual gratification (in which case, I’m trying to offer you completion), or if you are simply trying to view your role as exposing the weaknesses of others.
On the latter note, I agree that a serious practitioner should have sufficiently grounding, be centered enough, and have the internal strength to deal with it. But you also have to recognize that not everyone is at that place, and your actions can be perceived by some to be that of a bully.
Some people not involved in the situation who come to the Board with less experience, may be put off by such postings, and be dissuaded from posting themselves. So I recommend you modify your approach.
It would be better if you have an interest in certain topics, to simply start your own thread. Whether that is homosexuality, S&M, or whatever. Let whoever is interested to reply, reply . . . and keep the replies that go off on an unrelated tangent directed at one person, to a minimum, unless entirely relevant to the larger topic.
Thanks,
StevenDecember 9, 2013 at 2:55 pm #41637ribosome777ParticipantDecember 10, 2013 at 9:04 pm #41639ribosome777ParticipantYOU CAN’T
regardless of “meta” “super” out there drainage
artificially doing anything until your head swells is a joke“oh this is a back door key” NOT!
“oh this is true!” NOTso you will sublimate your self to some artificial technique and call it true like it is some “secret trick”?
NOT
go drain someone else of their true self impulse
~wimpy~ is as wimpy doesoh, so you can’t get away with it?
90% truth has been mixed with 10% “bologna”
if I am not mistaken, the “inner yuan/smile” practice was oriuginally a YIN nightime sitting practice..
this contrasted entirely active yang solar practice..
and would be the correct “WAY” when all comes back to stasis
who the hell said anyone should “be” neutral?
how is neutral NOT yin when every description is yinit is obvious that “neutral” IS predominantly yin…
as a 90% water-course way..this is FALSE in relation to concentrated 10% yang
90% dark universe creates 10%+ concentrated yang activity NOT by being neutral
it’s just plain GAY
that means it doesn’t reproduce,it DIES
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.