Keith Rich Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 The three main parties have achieved political fusion, Red Toryism and Blue Labour !!! Certainly we have blue Labour...but red Tories?...come off it. I doubt if there has ever been a more extreme right wing governmnt than the present clowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No dice Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 It seems a little trite to throw this in to such an interesting exchange of points, but it is late, it amused me today and is relevant when considering right-wing libertarian small state thinking advanced by the likes of the Tea Party. Cavegirl, I agree with your points about an ideal utopian society being one where the state can be transcended... but as you say we are a long way from that and whilst we have corporations and multinationals with such influence across the world we need stronger democratic counterbalances to them, not weaker ones. "I have cholorah - what?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I just wanted to say a quick thanks for the Reich recommendation- I found a link to the full pdf text and I've been rivetted by it all evening. I haven't read 'To have or to be' by Fromm yet, but I do have 'The Fear of Freedom' and 'The Sane Society' and I can definately recommend both. You've made some really excellent points in the above post and I hope we can continue our discussion tomorrow- particularly in relation to the ecological issue- I'm very keen to hear you develop your thoughts on this. I completely agree with you that statism probably has to reach its zenith in terms of total social control before people are willing to set themselves free of this institution I just hope we don't allow it to destroy us before this freedom is attained. You're very welcome. I'm glad you found it interesting. I think a real shift in consciousness itself is imminent. The change from a "having" to being mode of existence. And not for any esoteric reasons, at least apparently. But an evolutionary pressure to recognise when a model has outlived its usefulness. Materialism continues to regard the ecology of the planet as an inexhaustible repository of "raw materials". And fails to recognise, the qualitative difference between forests which support immense biodiversity. And an economic equation, which can only see how many coffee tables, can be manufactured from it. Without the even medium term comprehension of the possible compounds and intrinsic solutions evolution has produced over millions of years of adaptation and selection. How limited? How ignoble of our species to divorce our presence from this system and reduce it, and ourselves in the process to no more than objects? This for me is the cornerstone of what will inevitably supersede the present model of using up rather recognising that more than enough is too much. Business can be used to drive innovation and alternative technology. And is proving very worthwhile in this sphere. But my concern, as yours, is that the time scales we face in terms of loss of habitat and species extinction will be too little too late. It will have to get worse before the swing back the other way seems the only way forward. And evolution seems to provide for these periods of "punctuated equilibrium" which Eldredge and Gould’s work suggested. Which seems to offer us the chance to change or be, largely wiped out. I believe that the change will happen (is happening) at the level of the collective unconscious (for want of b better a term). Where we are being offered the choice between a nightmare of tribalism and conflict. Or a recognition of the only sane way forward. A far greater emphasis on quality of life and cooperation. A choice between the ravages of war, disease and misery. Or a new enlightenment of human/life centred way of being. This video says it all I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 You're very welcome. I'm glad you found it interesting. I think a real shift in consciousness itself is imminent. The change from a "having" to being mode of existence. And not for any esoteric reasons, at least apparently. But an evolutionary pressure to recognise when a model has outlived its usefulness. Materialism continues to regard the ecology of the planet as an inexhaustible repository of "raw materials". And fails to recognise, the qualitative difference between forests which support immense biodiversity. And an economic equation, which can only see how many coffee tables, can be manufactured from it. Without the even medium term comprehension of the possible compounds and intrinsic solutions evolution has produced over millions of years of adaptation and selection. How limited? How ignoble of our species to divorce our presence from this system and reduce it, and ourselves in the process to no more than objects? This for me is the cornerstone of what will inevitably supersede the present model of using up rather recognising that more than enough is too much. Business can be used to drive innovation and alternative technology. And is proving very worthwhile in this sphere. But my concern, as yours, is that the time scales we face in terms of loss of habitat and species extinction will be too little too late. It will have to get worse before the swing back the other way seems the only way forward. And evolution seems to provide for these periods of "punctuated equilibrium" which Eldredge and Gould’s work suggested. Which seems to offer us the chance to change or be, largely wiped out. I believe that the change will happen (is happening) at the level of the collective unconscious (for want of b better a term). Where we are being offered the choice between a nightmare of tribalism and conflict. Or a recognition of the only sane way forward. A far greater emphasis on quality of life and cooperation. A choice between the ravages of war, disease and misery. Or a new enlightenment of human/life centred way of being. This video says it all I feel. Again Rowan you made some great points and there's lots here that I would like to expand upon. Firstly, I think the great age of materialism (in the sense of not caring about raw material resources for production) is largely already over (thank goodness) but we seem to be replacing it with something just as bizarre and irrational- namely sustainability. To sustain an ecosystem basically means that humans are putting in time and effort to ensure that that system remains stable or unchanging. I don't believe that sustainability in this sense holds any value whatsoever. When floods occur they deposit and refresh the topsoils with new clays, silts and sands- but sustainability is anti-flooding (a result of allowing homes to be built on flood plains- total stupidity in an age with computer GIS mapping) and puts up barriers to prevent it. When a forest or heath fire occurs it reduces the plants to nitrogen rich ash which re-fertilises the soil, but sustainability is anti-accidental fire. The irrationality of it came out on the news the other morning when they showed volunteers in Dorset collecting lizards and snakes from a burnt heathland and depositing them all in an unburnt area- I still can't get my head around who thought that would be a good idea- fires happen all the time and these landscapes always recover quite happily by themselves. It's also well known that many farmers today are paid more to keep their land looking the same (usually for tourist reasons) than they are to actually produce food- there's no sanity in this. The natural world has been beset with us destroying habitats for years and now we won't even allow habitats to change naturally. I doubt this policy will end well because as usual politicians have misinterpreted the science behind it. As you say, we've become too far divorced from the natural world, (to the extent that the government has just created a paper that puts a monetary value on every UK environment and landscape (in preparation for a great sell off?)), that we can't seem to understand the real value of it anymore. In the end, we'll just have to keep working harder and harder and spending more and more money to try to prevent nature from doing what nature does- treating the symptoms and not the causes of man made climate change- and we used to be so adaptable. If only they would spend the money re-educating people about the true value of habitats and raw materials then perhaps we would see some real benefits. Still, I try to share your optimism in a mass awakening of people regarding social and environmental issues. With the arrival of the internet people have been able to share more widely their novel or radical ideas and these ideas have always been the main catalysts for important changes in society. Unfortunately they do have to compete with entertainment and many people would rather be entertained than educated. I've put together a couple of links that might interest you (if you're not already aware of them): 'Collapse'- a documentary that looks at the impact diminishing resources (particularly cheap oil) will have on the world: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/50078/Collapse__part_1_/ 'The collapse of the Middle Class'- a 2007 lecture by Elizabeth Warren that looks at why middle class families in the US are much worse off economically than those of the 1970's despite women joining the work force and adding a second wage- most of it resonates in the UK: 'The Crash Course'- a lecture that examines data relating to the modern (mostly US) economy, the environment and energy resources. Draws some scary conclusions: http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gormenghast Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Yes, all that's OK, but don't you think that in the grand scheme of things evolution will have it's way, and we'll just die out as a species as a result of natural selection. We reap what we sow as a species, and take the consequences. It can't be changed by our actions, it's too late, whatever some people would have us believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Yes, all that's OK, but don't you think that in the grand scheme of things evolution will have it's way, and we'll just die out as a species as a result of natural selection. We reap what we sow as a species, and take the consequences. It can't be changed by our actions, it's too late, whatever some people would have us believe. I don't tend to think that no, because I'm sane and sanity doesn't mean being purely rational, it means that I try to engage in behaviour that is both beneficial for me and my species. You go stare nihilistically into your abyss- personally, I see a certain value in being alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Again Rowan you made some great points and there's lots here that I would like to expand upon. Firstly, I think the great age of materialism (in the sense of not caring about raw material resources for production) is largely already over (thank goodness) but we seem to be replacing it with something just as bizarre and irrational- namely sustainability. To sustain an ecosystem basically means that humans are putting in time and effort to ensure that that system remains stable or unchanging. I don't believe that sustainability in this sense holds any value whatsoever. When floods occur they deposit and refresh the topsoils with new clays, silts and sands- but sustainability is anti-flooding (a result of allowing homes to be built on flood plains- total stupidity in an age with computer GIS mapping) and puts up barriers to prevent it. When a forest or heath fire occurs it reduces the plants to nitrogen rich ash which re-fertilises the soil, but sustainability is anti-accidental fire. The irrationality of it came out on the news the other morning when they showed volunteers in Dorset collecting lizards and snakes from a burnt heathland and depositing them all in an unburnt area- I still can't get my head around who thought that would be a good idea- fires happen all the time and these landscapes always recover quite happily by themselves. It's also well known that many farmers today are paid more to keep their land looking the same (usually for tourist reasons) than they are to actually produce food- there's no sanity in this. The natural world has been beset with us destroying habitats for years and now we won't even allow habitats to change naturally. I doubt this policy will end well because as usual politicians have misinterpreted the science behind it. As you say, we've become too far divorced from the natural world, (to the extent that the government has just created a paper that puts a monetary value on every UK environment and landscape (in preparation for a great sell off?)), that we can't seem to understand the real value of it anymore. In the end, we'll just have to keep working harder and harder and spending more and more money to try to prevent nature from doing what nature does- treating the symptoms and not the causes of man made climate change- and we used to be so adaptable. If only they would spend the money re-educating people about the true value of habitats and raw materials then perhaps we would see some real benefits. Still, I try to share your optimism in a mass awakening of people regarding social and environmental issues. With the arrival of the internet people have been able to share more widely their novel or radical ideas and these ideas have always been the main catalysts for important changes in society. Unfortunately they do have to compete with entertainment and many people would rather be entertained than educated. I've put together a couple of links that might interest you (if you're not already aware of them): 'Collapse'- a documentary that looks at the impact diminishing resources (particularly cheap oil) will have on the world: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/50078/Collapse__part_1_/ 'The collapse of the Middle Class'- a 2007 lecture by Elizabeth Warren that looks at why middle class families in the US are much worse off economically than those of the 1970's despite women joining the work force and adding a second wage- most of it resonates in the UK: 'The Crash Course'- a lecture that examines data relating to the modern (mostly US) economy, the environment and energy resources. Draws some scary conclusions: http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse I couldn’t agree more to be honest brilliant!. I can’t believe that with all the supposed sophistication of modern technology the applications are still about doing a King Cnut and commanding the tide to turn back. Wouldn’t it just be so much easier if we availed ourselves of the kinds of technology we already have! And put it to uses which recognise the futility of fighting against the totality of nature. Why not as you say use computer mapping technology which can create sophisticated models based on good solid data, to avoid the futility of trying to arrogantly control forces which we will never do. It cuts to the central core of what I believe is behind this total myopia. There is a profound dissociation within many human beings. A separate emotional cognitive existence. This belief is born out I believe by the continual conflict with nature which is the paradigm being played out. It mirrors the ego driven objectification of the self on so many levels doesn’t it? The idea that knowledge is something which can bring you a Ferrari but not bring you peace? It is a profound kind of inner disquiet I feel. And is very culturally embedded. More than that, cultivated. The values are all competition and external validation. Can this help but drive a wedge between our own intrinsic sense of self worth and our own valuing of that? Our whole lives seem determined by what television says we should be, feel, think. The saturation of others deciding what the next socially determined priority is? Rather than the fostering of personal modes of meaning which themselves reinforce the importance of intimacy and from that community? You can’t prescribe or condition mental health can you? No more than you can prescribe or condition love and respect for other people. These (for me) are all attained through being. Being closely contacted to other human beings. Receiving the validation and warmth which is the foundation and fuel of cohesive family and community. Not the rhetoric of “New Labour” but the passion and the authenticity of something like the Anarchist movement. Whose unapologetic advocacy of the right of people to be people is food for the soul, on every level of our lives? Be angry, be passionate be properly human. But let’s not just go into oblivion with a whimper. And the resignation that we cannot do anything to halt this disaster. We are infinitely creative, infinitely resilient. As well as infinitely in need of close human contact and the absence of alienation which is so crippling to human life. P.S I will certainly read your links Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Cg & R22 - what a meeting of minds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Cg & R22 - what a meeting of minds! ROFL! You are funneh! Isn't it a great example of how we don't ALL have to argue ALL of the time though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 ROFL! You are funneh! Isn't it a great example of how we don't ALL have to argue ALL of the time though You know the old saying saying "Do unto others" You don't have to be a Christian to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.