I'm arrogant? Yes, but that's a pot calling a kettle black. Mind is omniscient. Sure, mind or awareness is the base state, containing all division but also all lack thereof. It is omniscient in that everything that is known is known by Mind. Timeless but also containing all time and the seeds that create and destroy time. Omnipotent because everything that is done is done by Mind. Perfect from the beginning because it contains all beginnings and all perfection, as well as all sustainings, all endings and the lack of same, and all imperfection as well. Beyond all characteristic. That's the truest thing you've said, yet you try to place characteristics on it. Why?
Just because you can't see something's cause doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Sure, there is Mind, the Way, the Uncaused Cause, but that is beyond words and trying to put words on it can be worse than gilding a lilly. You say it has no cause when it has every cause the way a tree has leaves.
You seem intent on convincing me that you have more spiritual knowledge than me. Why? You seem attached to mystery, as if you want to prove that you have understanding of mysteries that I don't. That bores me. You seem intent on teaching, in a rather pedantic way, without truly listening to see where your "student" actually is. I suggest that if you want to play this game, you leave the teachings of your school and/or guru behind and meet me mind to mind with no pretense or artifice. Perhaps your preconceptions of who I am are mistaken.
Don't take that to mean that I never accept the teachings of others. Quite the contrary, I cherish them when they are worthy. But I'm quite discerning and I only accept those things that make sense to me. Anyone claiming to perfect spiritual knowledge will undoubtedly know the exact phrases to use to help me "get it" so I'm not really worried.
Space is caused by the laws of our universe. Space is not an empty stage upon which actors move, it is a thing with a cause and effects. For instance, the Van der Waals force is caused by the properties of space. Because space is not empty, but full of a froth of virtual particles which spring into existance in pairs and then annihilate each other, when two objects are brought close together there is less room for virtual particles in between them. Therefore the virtual particles outside the two things push them together. Space and time are also intricately tied together, in that going fast not only makes time slow down, but it squashes objects in the direction of travel, at least from an external reference frame.
But even if space were but a mere stage, it would still have a cause and effects. It's cause could be said to be the Big Bang, or The Word if that is a closer fit to your belief system. It's effect is obvious: it keeps everything from hapenning all in the same place.
You use words like better, but you even bothered to state what scale you are using to measure "better," or where that scale came from. Therefore, "better" is a poor choice of word to use to convey the concept.
If one thing exists, but that thing is a thing called "difference" or division, which as you might know stem from the asme root as "divinity" then that one thing necessarily creates all things by existing. Without difference, there would be no concept of Monism. You can say, "it's all one" but that is still two things, now isn't it? "It" and "one"
What if consciousness IS the one thing that exists? What is everything is just a form of consciousness? And what is consciousness if not a recognition of difference, divisions, divinity? You are correct to state that Monism is in fact a form of dualism, with one pole over emphasised. And the Zen master was correct to chop of his student's finger when the student imitated the master by holding up that finger when asked the meaning of life. "It" is not "One." Or it is, but that's not the point...
No one is wise in an absolute sense. Wise in regards to what? What is there to be known or predicted? By whose standards do you measure wise? I mean, yes, I get what you are getting at, but what's the point of stating something like that? Either your words speak for themselves or they don't. So far, you come across as someone who has something to prove. I mean, it's a fun game we're playing here, but it appears that you're bordering on taking it seriously, which is always a bad sign in my book.;-)
If it is not a cause, and not an effect it has no impact and is not impacted by anything, therefore it doesn't exist. Will exists, it arises when the conditions necessary for it's existence arise. It is an emergent phenomenon. I do believe in the Buddhist concept of dependent origination. Nothing is a thing unto itself.
Of course, not everything must have a cause, or an effect, but those things that don't can't be known, as knowing itself is an effect. Interesting point, the greeks had four words for cause: material, formal, efficient and final cause. Material cause is what something is made of, i.e. wood is the material cause of a table. Formal cause is what a thing is intended for, i.e. people needing a flat plane higher than the floor to set things on is the formal cause of a table. Efficient cause is what we now think of as cause, the externel entity that created the changem, i.e. the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter cutting some wood and joining it together in a particular way. Final cause is similar to formal cause and I have never been fully able to figure out the difference Aristotle was trying to imply, but I guess it's more of: there's a table with a glass on it now kind of thing.
But this is all missing my point, and I'm afraid you did too in trying to sound wise by putting what you've seen into words.;) You basically restate my whole premise as if I missed it in the first place. Cause and effect assume an internal/external dichotomy that doesn't truely exist. To define casue and effect one must seperate this from that where all such seperation is arbitrary and entirely dependent on the mind of the one doing the seperation. In truth, the seperation doesn't exist.
Materialistic Monism is no denial of sentience or awareness, it just places those properties in a subordinate position. They are emergent properties, like color. Color doesn't exist. Just wavelengths of light. When wavelengths of light interact with a retina and nervous system, the perception of color arises. Perception itself is also an emergent property, one part of the chain of dependent origination that leads to things such as sentience and awareness.
The problem of trying to put what is beyond words into words is that only people who don't understand what you are saying will think you are wise. People who do understand won't think you're an idiot unless you have the kind of attitude which negates what you are trying to say. It's like tossing a piece of fish to a cat, but the cat doesn't see, so you point at the fish and the cat sniffs your fingers. We know that words are like those fingers, pointing at something. Don't look at the words, look at what the words are pointing to.
In short: Why did Bodhisatva bring Buddhism to the east? Because I like fish.
Sorry, I was trying to be funny, pointing out the ridiculousness of your unwarrented ad hominem rather than insult you. That's why I said poo. And you brought up writing commercial software and making money as if that were some big deal, when the post you were replying to was, I believe, asking what you have done for the community. You haven't done anything, and that's fine, but don't expect to be honored by a community that believes in sharing if you do everything for money.
Neither Trotsky or Robespierre survived the zealotry they helped create
Things have been going downhill ever since they nerfed the Zealot class. If anyone needs them, I've got a +5 greathelm of Protection from Icepicks and an Anti-Vorpal Gorget.
The urge to save humanity is selfish, but doesn't necessarily come from a desire to rule. Me, I just don't want a bunch of desperate, unhappy humans around me. Personal preference, you know. Maybe other people enjoy watching people suffer. Me, not so much.
Last I checked, this was a FREE society, and people can do whatever they want with their time. You don't have to respect people for giving their work away, but no one has to respect you just because you got paid for writing some software. Guys like you are a dime a dozen. People here care about giving back, and if you don't, that's fine, just don't whine about how no one respects you.
P.S. I tried to give your mom the dirty sanchez last night, but the dirty bitch kept licking the poo off my finger! What a whore.
I've tossed out what now? Where the hell did you get tossing out freedom of speech, religion, the press and minority rights from what I wrote? I think it should be obvious that communities are themselves members of larger communities and therefore what they can and can't do to members is in part determined by the rules of the larger community. Just as a community might deny an individual the benefits of membership for exposing themselves in public, a larger community or nation might deny benefits to communities that did not protect free speech, religion, and minority rights. In fact, thankfully, we live in such a nation. And the fact that a larger community is there to police the smaller communities of our nation is the only thing keeping some of those communities from enacting laws that would make it legal to, say, lynch black people. Communities of all sizes have a responsibility to their members, and members have a responsibility to their communities. It goes both ways.
That was some strident, knee-jerk, willful misinterpretation you pulled there, I have to say.
The whole thing is a DeBeers invention. Before DeBeers, no one would even think that surprising a woman with a big sparkly rock that cost two whole months salary was a good way to get her to say yes. Their market research showed that most women would rather have the man save the money for a downpayment on a house. So they came up with the whole "Surprise her with a diamond" idea. Don't tell her ahead of time or ask her father or any traditional shit like that so that she has a chance of talking you out of doing something stupid, surprise her!
You make a good point, perhaps these groups really are so crazy that they don't deserve our recognition. But I don't think we're at that impasse yet. If we believe that, there's nothing left to do but fight them tooth and nail. However, if talking still has a chance of resolveing differences, fighting is just stupid.
They can discuss censorship, they just shouldn't be allowed to enact it. And the best way to keep them from doing that is to pay attention to what they are talking about and make them feel like their concerns are being heard. At this point, not everyone who goes to these things wants outright censorship. They are mostly scared and confused. If the games industry goes to these events, they will not only show the community they are willing to hear their concerns, they also get to air theirs and show their side of the story.
No one should legislate anyone's morals, but it never hurts to listen to people's grievances. Even as stupid as those greivances seem.
Too true. And in order to keep them from trying to enforce their crap on us, don't you think it would be wise to at least go to their conference and listen to them whine and at least pretend to care? This was a slap in the face, for no good reason.
So would you run throught the streets of your town naked? Would you want stop someone who was exposing themselves to women in your town? Kids? In a sane world simply showing your schlong to someone wouldn't mean anything, but we don't live in a sane world, but to some people it means a great deal. I'm not about to go telling others what should or shouldn't be a big deal in their own heads. For the sake of getting along in the world we're all going to have to at least pretend like we care about people's sniffy little issues. It's better to listen than to fight if that's an option, and this was a place where it could have been an option if the game industry had cared. I want to see censorship as little as you do. But we're going to have to be smarter about how we go about keeping that beast penned up in it's little cage with only those freaks who really want to be there with it. Not going to this thing was not a good move for the game industry.
A man alone in the world would think about rights as much as a fish thinks about water. And there are no external scales with which to measure anything, as there is no external.
No, he knew exactly what he was doing and what kind of an impact he would have on society, he weighed the possibilites of, on the one hand, staying alive and continue to fight and do good, and on the other hand making a very dramatic gesture. He did what he thought was right in the moment.
Buddha specifically rejected the idea of extravagences such as asceticism well before Epicurus got the idea. But who are you to say this was that? Based on my understanding of what kind of self control it would take to do what he did, I would say my explanation is much more likely.
The twin studies I read showed it averaged about 50-50 nature/nurture overall, rising to 60% nature to 40% nurture in later life. But some people are more open to influence by the world and some are more inner directed. The worst kind of abuse and neglect will almost always damage a person for life, but some people will still rise above it. And the best parenting in the world won't make some babies into adults you'd want to be around. I read another interesting study recently that showed that our childhood peer group has more of an impact on who we become than our parents do in most cases.
I'd say you are right about the argument, it's still open. I'm leaning towards "no, but..." As in, no, it doesn't make kids vioent but it can be a contributing factor.
Let me just say that I do not support mandatory censorship. I think the industry can manage itself, with it's own independent labelling board. But the gaming industry needs to respect the community, even when the community is being disrespectful. This is an emotional area, people are not thinking rationally. They need to be pandered to a little bit, not ignored or fought. At least let them feel their concerns are being heard.
People need labelling in products. I am not presonally offended by anything that is done consensually and I think people who are are somewhat closed minded. But I respect that they would rather not buy a game only to find out through experience that their sensabilities have been offended. It's rather to late at that point, don't you think?
I don't want groups like this to impose their will on others. But we have to be smart about it, and if that means kissing their ass a little bit and going to their conferences and hearing them whine rather than them gettin some law passed, I'm all for it. Actually, kissing their ass is a bad way of putting it, it's really about showing some respect for the fact that we all have to live together on this one little planet.
Brother, I could have written your words myself. I feel exactly as you do about the concept of rights. I was going a wee bit far in one direction in order to spark discussion. I responded to another post before I read your reply and I find there are some very interesting parallels.
Free will is a red herring. It just puts the real issue of control and determination at one further level removed. What made this happen? I willed it to happen, and enacted my will. But what made me will what I did? What caused the particuler set of choices I comprehended to appear in my consciousness? Something inside me, or something outside me? Do you see where the falsity of this line of reasoning lies?
What is inside you is everything you have made of the world, and it has made of you, before this moment. What is outside of you is the moment, as it presents itself to you. Where was that line again?
If I raised a child in a box with no outside contact with the world, it wouldn't be a person as we know it. If I raised that child away from influences except myself, then I would be society to that child.
Derangement, lack of efficiency, and vicious circles of bad causes leading to bad effects can happen in individuals, in families, or in larger societies. Sometimes, due to the right arrangement of circumstances, one deranged person can impact a society as much as our society impacts all of us.
As for your last comment, what would you propose as an alternative? In a world where everything is owned by individuals, those who own nothing must be slaves to those who do. There is a saying, only free individuals can create a strong tribe, and only a strong tribe can create free individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
I find your ideas about donated wenches intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I'm arrogant? Yes, but that's a pot calling a kettle black. Mind is omniscient. Sure, mind or awareness is the base state, containing all division but also all lack thereof. It is omniscient in that everything that is known is known by Mind. Timeless but also containing all time and the seeds that create and destroy time. Omnipotent because everything that is done is done by Mind. Perfect from the beginning because it contains all beginnings and all perfection, as well as all sustainings, all endings and the lack of same, and all imperfection as well. Beyond all characteristic. That's the truest thing you've said, yet you try to place characteristics on it. Why?
Just because you can't see something's cause doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Sure, there is Mind, the Way, the Uncaused Cause, but that is beyond words and trying to put words on it can be worse than gilding a lilly. You say it has no cause when it has every cause the way a tree has leaves.
You seem intent on convincing me that you have more spiritual knowledge than me. Why? You seem attached to mystery, as if you want to prove that you have understanding of mysteries that I don't. That bores me. You seem intent on teaching, in a rather pedantic way, without truly listening to see where your "student" actually is. I suggest that if you want to play this game, you leave the teachings of your school and/or guru behind and meet me mind to mind with no pretense or artifice. Perhaps your preconceptions of who I am are mistaken.
Don't take that to mean that I never accept the teachings of others. Quite the contrary, I cherish them when they are worthy. But I'm quite discerning and I only accept those things that make sense to me. Anyone claiming to perfect spiritual knowledge will undoubtedly know the exact phrases to use to help me "get it" so I'm not really worried.
Space is caused by the laws of our universe. Space is not an empty stage upon which actors move, it is a thing with a cause and effects. For instance, the Van der Waals force is caused by the properties of space. Because space is not empty, but full of a froth of virtual particles which spring into existance in pairs and then annihilate each other, when two objects are brought close together there is less room for virtual particles in between them. Therefore the virtual particles outside the two things push them together. Space and time are also intricately tied together, in that going fast not only makes time slow down, but it squashes objects in the direction of travel, at least from an external reference frame.
;-)
But even if space were but a mere stage, it would still have a cause and effects. It's cause could be said to be the Big Bang, or The Word if that is a closer fit to your belief system. It's effect is obvious: it keeps everything from hapenning all in the same place.
You use words like better, but you even bothered to state what scale you are using to measure "better," or where that scale came from. Therefore, "better" is a poor choice of word to use to convey the concept.
If one thing exists, but that thing is a thing called "difference" or division, which as you might know stem from the asme root as "divinity" then that one thing necessarily creates all things by existing. Without difference, there would be no concept of Monism. You can say, "it's all one" but that is still two things, now isn't it? "It" and "one"
What if consciousness IS the one thing that exists? What is everything is just a form of consciousness? And what is consciousness if not a recognition of difference, divisions, divinity? You are correct to state that Monism is in fact a form of dualism, with one pole over emphasised. And the Zen master was correct to chop of his student's finger when the student imitated the master by holding up that finger when asked the meaning of life. "It" is not "One." Or it is, but that's not the point...
No one is wise in an absolute sense. Wise in regards to what? What is there to be known or predicted? By whose standards do you measure wise? I mean, yes, I get what you are getting at, but what's the point of stating something like that? Either your words speak for themselves or they don't. So far, you come across as someone who has something to prove. I mean, it's a fun game we're playing here, but it appears that you're bordering on taking it seriously, which is always a bad sign in my book.
It's aitcheedoublehockeysticks.com. Starting bid is.... one BILLION dollars! Mwahahaha ah *cough* *cough* *wheeze*, gotta lay off them smokes...
Sure, the songs are downloaded for free, but the terrorists are making it up in volume...
If it is not a cause, and not an effect it has no impact and is not impacted by anything, therefore it doesn't exist. Will exists, it arises when the conditions necessary for it's existence arise. It is an emergent phenomenon. I do believe in the Buddhist concept of dependent origination. Nothing is a thing unto itself.
;) You basically restate my whole premise as if I missed it in the first place. Cause and effect assume an internal/external dichotomy that doesn't truely exist. To define casue and effect one must seperate this from that where all such seperation is arbitrary and entirely dependent on the mind of the one doing the seperation. In truth, the seperation doesn't exist.
Of course, not everything must have a cause, or an effect, but those things that don't can't be known, as knowing itself is an effect. Interesting point, the greeks had four words for cause: material, formal, efficient and final cause. Material cause is what something is made of, i.e. wood is the material cause of a table. Formal cause is what a thing is intended for, i.e. people needing a flat plane higher than the floor to set things on is the formal cause of a table. Efficient cause is what we now think of as cause, the externel entity that created the changem, i.e. the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter cutting some wood and joining it together in a particular way. Final cause is similar to formal cause and I have never been fully able to figure out the difference Aristotle was trying to imply, but I guess it's more of: there's a table with a glass on it now kind of thing.
But this is all missing my point, and I'm afraid you did too in trying to sound wise by putting what you've seen into words.
Materialistic Monism is no denial of sentience or awareness, it just places those properties in a subordinate position. They are emergent properties, like color. Color doesn't exist. Just wavelengths of light. When wavelengths of light interact with a retina and nervous system, the perception of color arises. Perception itself is also an emergent property, one part of the chain of dependent origination that leads to things such as sentience and awareness.
The problem of trying to put what is beyond words into words is that only people who don't understand what you are saying will think you are wise. People who do understand won't think you're an idiot unless you have the kind of attitude which negates what you are trying to say. It's like tossing a piece of fish to a cat, but the cat doesn't see, so you point at the fish and the cat sniffs your fingers. We know that words are like those fingers, pointing at something. Don't look at the words, look at what the words are pointing to.
In short: Why did Bodhisatva bring Buddhism to the east? Because I like fish.
Well now I feel like an ass. Sorry.
Sorry, I was trying to be funny, pointing out the ridiculousness of your unwarrented ad hominem rather than insult you. That's why I said poo. And you brought up writing commercial software and making money as if that were some big deal, when the post you were replying to was, I believe, asking what you have done for the community. You haven't done anything, and that's fine, but don't expect to be honored by a community that believes in sharing if you do everything for money.
Neither Trotsky or Robespierre survived the zealotry they helped create
Things have been going downhill ever since they nerfed the Zealot class. If anyone needs them, I've got a +5 greathelm of Protection from Icepicks and an Anti-Vorpal Gorget.
The urge to save humanity is selfish, but doesn't necessarily come from a desire to rule. Me, I just don't want a bunch of desperate, unhappy humans around me. Personal preference, you know. Maybe other people enjoy watching people suffer. Me, not so much.
Last I checked, this was a FREE society, and people can do whatever they want with their time. You don't have to respect people for giving their work away, but no one has to respect you just because you got paid for writing some software. Guys like you are a dime a dozen. People here care about giving back, and if you don't, that's fine, just don't whine about how no one respects you.
P.S. I tried to give your mom the dirty sanchez last night, but the dirty bitch kept licking the poo off my finger! What a whore.
Busses fixed: Sick transit's glorious monday.
Six word sentences can't say much.
Please rewind brain before returning body.
That's no alien, that's a man!
You get that thing I sent?
Mind comprehends perfect knowledge. Now what?
Buy OxLox: our air tastes better!
Great, now the moon wants royalties.
It was alive just now, I swear!
I could go on all day.
President crawls inside his own rectum.
Here's mine:
Woman smooths dress. Is she nervous?
Untalented hack milks series to death!
Over done, even sex gets boring.
Series unfinished: angry mob kills writer.
I've tossed out what now? Where the hell did you get tossing out freedom of speech, religion, the press and minority rights from what I wrote? I think it should be obvious that communities are themselves members of larger communities and therefore what they can and can't do to members is in part determined by the rules of the larger community. Just as a community might deny an individual the benefits of membership for exposing themselves in public, a larger community or nation might deny benefits to communities that did not protect free speech, religion, and minority rights. In fact, thankfully, we live in such a nation. And the fact that a larger community is there to police the smaller communities of our nation is the only thing keeping some of those communities from enacting laws that would make it legal to, say, lynch black people. Communities of all sizes have a responsibility to their members, and members have a responsibility to their communities. It goes both ways.
That was some strident, knee-jerk, willful misinterpretation you pulled there, I have to say.
The whole thing is a DeBeers invention. Before DeBeers, no one would even think that surprising a woman with a big sparkly rock that cost two whole months salary was a good way to get her to say yes. Their market research showed that most women would rather have the man save the money for a downpayment on a house. So they came up with the whole "Surprise her with a diamond" idea. Don't tell her ahead of time or ask her father or any traditional shit like that so that she has a chance of talking you out of doing something stupid, surprise her!
You make a good point, perhaps these groups really are so crazy that they don't deserve our recognition. But I don't think we're at that impasse yet. If we believe that, there's nothing left to do but fight them tooth and nail. However, if talking still has a chance of resolveing differences, fighting is just stupid.
They can discuss censorship, they just shouldn't be allowed to enact it. And the best way to keep them from doing that is to pay attention to what they are talking about and make them feel like their concerns are being heard. At this point, not everyone who goes to these things wants outright censorship. They are mostly scared and confused. If the games industry goes to these events, they will not only show the community they are willing to hear their concerns, they also get to air theirs and show their side of the story.
No one should legislate anyone's morals, but it never hurts to listen to people's grievances. Even as stupid as those greivances seem.
Too true. And in order to keep them from trying to enforce their crap on us, don't you think it would be wise to at least go to their conference and listen to them whine and at least pretend to care? This was a slap in the face, for no good reason.
So would you run throught the streets of your town naked? Would you want stop someone who was exposing themselves to women in your town? Kids? In a sane world simply showing your schlong to someone wouldn't mean anything, but we don't live in a sane world, but to some people it means a great deal. I'm not about to go telling others what should or shouldn't be a big deal in their own heads. For the sake of getting along in the world we're all going to have to at least pretend like we care about people's sniffy little issues. It's better to listen than to fight if that's an option, and this was a place where it could have been an option if the game industry had cared. I want to see censorship as little as you do. But we're going to have to be smarter about how we go about keeping that beast penned up in it's little cage with only those freaks who really want to be there with it. Not going to this thing was not a good move for the game industry.
A man alone in the world would think about rights as much as a fish thinks about water. And there are no external scales with which to measure anything, as there is no external.
No, he knew exactly what he was doing and what kind of an impact he would have on society, he weighed the possibilites of, on the one hand, staying alive and continue to fight and do good, and on the other hand making a very dramatic gesture. He did what he thought was right in the moment.
Buddha specifically rejected the idea of extravagences such as asceticism well before Epicurus got the idea. But who are you to say this was that? Based on my understanding of what kind of self control it would take to do what he did, I would say my explanation is much more likely.
The twin studies I read showed it averaged about 50-50 nature/nurture overall, rising to 60% nature to 40% nurture in later life. But some people are more open to influence by the world and some are more inner directed. The worst kind of abuse and neglect will almost always damage a person for life, but some people will still rise above it. And the best parenting in the world won't make some babies into adults you'd want to be around. I read another interesting study recently that showed that our childhood peer group has more of an impact on who we become than our parents do in most cases.
I'd say you are right about the argument, it's still open. I'm leaning towards "no, but..." As in, no, it doesn't make kids vioent but it can be a contributing factor.
Let me just say that I do not support mandatory censorship. I think the industry can manage itself, with it's own independent labelling board. But the gaming industry needs to respect the community, even when the community is being disrespectful. This is an emotional area, people are not thinking rationally. They need to be pandered to a little bit, not ignored or fought. At least let them feel their concerns are being heard.
People need labelling in products. I am not presonally offended by anything that is done consensually and I think people who are are somewhat closed minded. But I respect that they would rather not buy a game only to find out through experience that their sensabilities have been offended. It's rather to late at that point, don't you think?
I don't want groups like this to impose their will on others. But we have to be smart about it, and if that means kissing their ass a little bit and going to their conferences and hearing them whine rather than them gettin some law passed, I'm all for it. Actually, kissing their ass is a bad way of putting it, it's really about showing some respect for the fact that we all have to live together on this one little planet.
Brother, I could have written your words myself. I feel exactly as you do about the concept of rights. I was going a wee bit far in one direction in order to spark discussion. I responded to another post before I read your reply and I find there are some very interesting parallels.
Free will is a red herring. It just puts the real issue of control and determination at one further level removed. What made this happen? I willed it to happen, and enacted my will. But what made me will what I did? What caused the particuler set of choices I comprehended to appear in my consciousness? Something inside me, or something outside me? Do you see where the falsity of this line of reasoning lies?
What is inside you is everything you have made of the world, and it has made of you, before this moment. What is outside of you is the moment, as it presents itself to you. Where was that line again?
If I raised a child in a box with no outside contact with the world, it wouldn't be a person as we know it. If I raised that child away from influences except myself, then I would be society to that child.
Derangement, lack of efficiency, and vicious circles of bad causes leading to bad effects can happen in individuals, in families, or in larger societies. Sometimes, due to the right arrangement of circumstances, one deranged person can impact a society as much as our society impacts all of us.
As for your last comment, what would you propose as an alternative? In a world where everything is owned by individuals, those who own nothing must be slaves to those who do. There is a saying, only free individuals can create a strong tribe, and only a strong tribe can create free individuals.