"I am because we are"

I found this to be an inspiring story. It seems we in the west know only competition, but what a wonderful world it would be if everybody acted like this.


Photo by Gregg Braden:
Attachment 8010

Quote:

---

An anthropologist proposed a game to the kids in an African tribe. He put a basket full of fruit near a tree and told the kids that who ever got there first won the sweet fruits. When he told them to run they all took each others hands and ran together, then sat together enjoying their treats. When he asked them why they had run like that as one could have had all the fruits for himself they said: ''UBUNTU, how can one of us be happy if all the other ones are sad?''
'UBUNTU' in the Xhosa culture means: "I am because we are"

---

Pretty cool. We are more of a "we do because we can" kinda people. Whole different vibe.

Here's some relevent research.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/34139997

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -N-

Here's some relevent research.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/34139997

---

That was cool. I think we as a people would love to just be peaceful, chill out and smoke a doobe or whatever proclivity you like, but the few of us that don't want that f@ck it all up. Lets bring back tar and feathering and run these aZZholes who are against peace and harmony outta here. *utopian dream*

Cool topic.

Highly competitive societies are not only in the West, but also in countries like Japan, China, and others. Oftentimes, it's found that people from cultures (or just individuals) who may not be rich but feel truly fulfilled in their lives, their relationships to others, etc., are far happier than many of those who are usually seen as the paragons of success (wealth, power, etc.). With much of that also comes greater stress, and a lack of satisfaction/appreciation for what one already has. The quest to gain more becomes never ending.

I heard somewhere that the U.S. doesn't rank anywhere near the 'happiest' of nations, and that Japan (excluding Okinawa) ranks at or near the bottom in happiness. I'm not sure how they come up with these figures, and I'm sure they're generalities, but I don't find it too hard to believe.

This is the trailer for the film I saw about happiness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDkv6Mi8JrI&sns=em

I would highly recommend it if you can see it.

I haven't watched the vid, no time, so I appologize if it covered this... but I think that chasing happiness is like chasing the dragon. It's serious junkie shit. The goal should be "content", not happy. Besides, who would want to be happy ALL the time. That would be so exhausting, doncha think? I would love to hear what others think about that though. I'm not religious, but I do have much appreciation for balance and "the middle way". Knowhutimsayin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn7

I haven't watched the vid, no time, so I appologize if it covered this... but I think that chasing happiness is like chasing the dragon. It's serious junkie shit. The goal should be "content", not happy. Besides, who would want to be happy ALL the time. That would be so exhausting, doncha think? I would love to hear what others think about that though. I'm not religious, but I do have much appreciation for balance and "the middle way". Knowhutimsayin?

---

I believe the taoists would say too much happy is just as bad as too much sad or any other emotion. Balance is definitely key. If you're too happy then you need a little mean, if your too sad then you need a little happy…etc.

I do think the world could use a little more happiness, because it seems that we are balanced towards pain, sadness and anger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

This is the trailer for the film I saw about happiness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDkv6Mi8JrI&sns=em

I would highly recommend it if you can see it.

---

I may be getting soft in my old age, but there are some real tear jerker scenes in this documentary. Many thanks my friend for posting that!

So, just a side thought on this if anyone cares to look it up (I don't really have the time at the moment). Researchers have found that lab mice, when faced with starvation, become more loyal than disloyal. When faced with a food shortage, they are more likely to eat part and leave the rest for another. If sharing is not an option (the food item is not such that it can be broken up, for example), they are more likely to delay eating (the extent to which they put off eating I don't remember).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn7

I haven't watched the vid, no time, so I appologize if it covered this... but I think that chasing happiness is like chasing the dragon. It's serious junkie shit. The goal should be "content", not happy. Besides, who would want to be happy ALL the time. That would be so exhausting, doncha think? I would love to hear what others think about that though. I'm not religious, but I do have much appreciation for balance and "the middle way". Knowhutimsayin?

---

The film wasn't so much about chasing happiness, but about those who find happiness and contentment in their lives, even with fewer external advantages. That happiness has more to do with meaningful relationships, doing what you love, feeling your life has meaning, etc., whatever that means for you. In that way you are happy, not trying to be. It talked about how so much of what we're taught we must pursue to be successful, and ultimately happy, ends up leading to things like depression, etc. It was not about trying to be unrealistically happy all the time, or being a Pollyanna in rose-tinted glasses. People who are generally happy will still experience the full range of emotions.

I will tell you, there was a period years ago where I suffered from depression, and anyone who's ever been there knows that THAT is truly exhausting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu

So, just a side thought on this if anyone cares to look it up (I don't really have the time at the moment). Researchers have found that lab mice, when faced with starvation, become more loyal than disloyal. When faced with a food shortage, they are more likely to eat part and leave the rest for another. If sharing is not an option (the food item is not such that it can be broken up, for example), they are more likely to delay eating (the extent to which they put off eating I don't remember).

---

Okay, now that's pretty cool. Rats have shown very similar behavior to our own.

I'm sure you've heard of B.F. Skinner and his experiments. When I worked in the IT world I was one of the senior analysts who wrote many of the solution documents. Most of the time I was re-writing other analyst's solutions, so I would find all these superstitions that people came up with. Things like reseating cables and antennas and other things that have nothing to do with fixing the problem. Usually these solutions would have a reboot somewhere in there which is what normally fixed the problem. Higher level analysts never did this because they are interested in the cause as much as the fix, but the noobs always had a solution or two with these strange superstitions.

For those who don't know about the rat study, it goes something like this… One group of rats was a control that received food pellets on a schedule. One was a random dispensed cage. One would dispense pellets when the rat pressed a button. All the cages had buttons and pellet shoots and a light and buzzer would turn on as the pellet is dispensed. The control group was obviously the healthiest. The cage where the rats could press the pellets as often as they wanted had really fat rats. The cage that was random was the funniest. The randomly fed rats would exhibit all sorts of strange superstitious behavior like pressing the button all day long while slapping their tail against the cage, jumping on the wall with one foot…etc. In the end the random caged rats looked like gambling junkies and were loosing their hair and suffering serious health problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenBrain

Okay, now that's pretty cool. Rats have shown very similar behavior to our own.

I'm sure you've heard of B.F. Skinner and his experiments. When I worked in the IT world I was one of the senior analysts who wrote many of the solution documents. Most of the time I was re-writing other analyst's solutions, so I would find all these superstitions that people came up with. Things like reseating cables and antennas and other things that have nothing to do with fixing the problem. Usually these solutions would have a reboot somewhere in there which is what normally fixed the problem. Higher level analysts never did this because they are interested in the cause as much as the fix, but the noobs always had a solution or two with these strange superstitions.

For those who don't know about the rat study, it goes something like this… One group of rats was a control that received food pellets on a schedule. One was a random dispensed cage. One would dispense pellets when the rat pressed a button. All the cages had buttons and pellet shoots and a light and buzzer would turn on as the pellet is dispensed. The control group was obviously the healthiest. The cage where the rats could press the pellets as often as they wanted had really fat rats. The cage that was random was the funniest. The randomly fed rats would exhibit all sorts of strange superstitious behavior like pressing the button all day long while slapping their tail against the cage, jumping on the wall with one foot…etc. In the end the random caged rats looked like gambling junkies and were loosing their hair and suffering serious health problems.

---

I am, although I'm more familiar with his pigeon study. Pattern recognition is a funny thing. Behavior is sort of my side fascination. Particularly in context of evolution. An organism can't control its genetics or its morphology. Behavior is the one parameter that an organism can consciously adapt to effect its own fitness (actually what I am supposed to be doing right now is reviewing these two opposing papers on optimal foraging theory for a discussion tomorrow). And its pretty amusing when, as funny as the rat example is, even with our evolved brains with our high logical capacity, we still can come up with some ridiculous "patterns" of our own. Especially if you play baseball. If you find this sort of stuff interesting, you may like Michael Shermer's books. I say this, after just slapping Dawkins in my post in another thread (Shermer is one of the high profile atheists, although not quite so abrasive as Dawkins). He was trained in psychology, but now he's sort of a sleazy businessman (possibly in the literal sense of that word as well). But while his ethics are questionable, and I think he's kind of a **** (or maybe he just didn't like my small town university I met him at, or I had something on my shirt, or whatever, but then others who had dinner with him felt the same...), and he had done little to be called a "scientist" (this is a lot of disclaimers), his book does have a lot going for it in that between the ranting are some references to some work that IS really interesting; topics like well, pattern recognition, psychology of dreams, etc. All the esoteric stuff that people like to spout BS about, but actual scientific studies on these things and how they relate to neurology. One of my favorites was the stuff on "angels" (or just that feeling of "other" entities) and how it relates to miscommunications between hemispheres of the brain; the possible explanation being discovered in epileptic patients (one of the ways of treating severe epilepsy is surgically severing the commisseral pathways in the corpus collosum). One of the major side of effects of the surgery is feelings of "other worldly" entities. I don't think its a coincidence, with this in mind, that all these so called "guardian angels" are experienced by individuals in traumatic circumstances, particularly when cranial trauma is involved. Or near death, the brain is highly effected by oxygen deprivation (obviously).

Quote:

---

you may like Michael Shermer's books

---

As I was reading your post I kept thinking, now where have I seen that name, until it dawned on me that three of his books are sitting across the room on one of our book shelves. I'm ok smart but my wife is really the academic. She has a masters in Anthropology with a specialty in Osteology, a minor in Geology and a fantastic book collection. Most of my books are centered around martial arts, farming, survival, geology and few other technical stuffs.

This one is for Gene! One of my favorite books in our collection is Shaolin Trips. Thank you!!! The name speaks for itself and it's a must read for anybody who is interested in learning more about the world of Shaolin from the perspective of somebody who has walked in the shadows of the masters.