I think we’re both in agreement here.

I think it’s true that education may not solve economic problems for all individuals.
So if it’s the economic problems for individual we’re addressing, and education doesn’t necessarily do it, then what does? And I do think that economic well-being comes before ideas about self awareness, growth and meaningfulness. — Brett

And what if ideas about self awareness, growth and meaningfulness would ultimately provide the solution to economic well-being? — Possibility

This is an example of reading lines out of context. But it’s possible I hadn’t been very clear about what I meant.
What I meant was that economic well-being is essential and possibly a right. Even if an individual fails to learn the skills required to get by they should still have some sort of financial security which they’re unable to achieve through their own efforts. I’m not suggesting that money comes before self awareness.

And what if ideas about self awareness, growth and meaningfulness would ultimately provide the solution to economic well-being? — Possibility

Then that would be everything we could hope for.
My reference was to those who for some reason cannot keep up, or gain the life skills required to be part of the economy, to accept that this is a reality and the fault no one in particular.

The use of the word ‘facts’ was a bit lazy. I should have said ‘fully informed’.

This connection may be that they think there needs to be a change in the way society works. T — wax

They can think what they like, it’s still not proof. I say that in relation to people readily believing in the catastrophe of cc without really knowing the facts.

The proble most people have with Jung’s concept of “archetype” is the difference between conscious and unconscious contents. We can say nothing of the unconscoius content other than by way of conscious manifestation. To say this or that archetype exists is sometimes taken to mean it exists in the unconscious. This is an unknown. Jung’s evidence of unconscious archetypes is based on conscoius contents alone - as it must be. That is a fault he admits to. — I like sushi

Yes, I agree with that.

why? — wax

I just think that connecting littering to climate change is a big stretch. So I replaced littering with the experience of climate change. Only having read about the problem could they then accept the connection of littering with climate change. Otherwise they would make no connection.

Yes, you’re right: http://jungiancenter.org/wp/jung-and-the-archetype-of-the-apocalypse/

Take a person who has witnessed an increase in local littering, and who then reads an article about man driven climate change. — wax

This would depend on someone actually experiencing the effects of climate change.

I don’t think you read my post very carefully.

Nobody with any sense denies that the climate changes and has been changing. — I like sushi

From the perspective of this conversation it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. All they have to do is believe. I would think that most of the people who believe in climate change haven’t read the science papers, nor would they understand them if they did, and nor would they have read the work of scientists who challenge those papers.

Just regarding Jungs archetypes and your comment of them being misunderstood, and I’m not sure what you mean, but there is an apocalypse archetype:

“On the collective level the archetype of the apocalypse seeks to reorient humanity away from the illusions of a civilization that has grown stale and inappropriate, so as to permit a new, more viable way of life.”

BUT, there is no guarantee it will solve economic problems for individuals. — Bitter Crank

This conversation has reached an interesting point, that education may not be the answer for everyone. And if it’s not then what a waste of resources. But who would admit such a thing?

I think it’s true that education may not solve economic problems for all individuals.
So if it’s the economic problems for individual we’re addressing, and education doesn’t necessarily do it, then what does? And I do think that economic well-being comes before ideas about self awareness, growth and meaningfulness.

If you mean you didn’t get what you wanted, then that’s another thing altogether.

what I do know is that my generation has been fooled. — Ilya B Shambat

Actually the point I’m trying make is that you weren’t fooled, you traded something at the crossroads.

But it does seem to me that more elaborate automated processes, greater bureaucratic complexity, technological 'churn', and so forth make it more difficult for the average worker (white/blue collar) to find a niche in which to succeed. — Bitter Crank

I think most people would agree, (an assumption on my part) that something has happened in the relationship between people and their jobs. Possibly the biggest issue is their desposability and consequently their permanent insecurity. That, it seems to me, is a bigger issue than the idea of success you which I assume we mean financial success. In the past many people had low paying jobs but they felt secure that the job was theirs. Not always, I know, hence the actions of unions. So in some ways, then, I begin to wonder if things really are any more difficult now than then.

But this is all in relation to education, right?. My feeling is that people are quite possibly better educated than they’ve ever been. They certainly have more choices in what they can study going through the early years up to and including university; these are subjects not necessarily driven by job opportunities. This might differ from country to country. But on top of that they gave more opportunities to extend their education and they have the internet to serve them in their endeavours.

Technology gives and takes away, some win, some lose. That seems to me the common thread throughout history. We thought we could change that, but all we did was create another version of it. Social Welfare was one way of mitigating the inevitability if this.

Petrichor beleives that the education system is a natural extension of society in that it has no choice but to serve society. But if I look at the education system today I see a system that allows people to chose their own future. Obviously some take the easiest route to some sort of security, but people still have the choice over what they will be.

I know others will point out the circumstances of the poor or those who gave few opportunities. Those are the ones who have always been there and always will. Apart from helping them out economically what else can be done?

I’ve come in a bit late here and I’ve read through the posts. So I hope I’m not going over cold ground here.

The question is the goal of art. But to answer that question, even in part, you need to address it through eras.

What was the goal, the objective, of the cave drawings of Lascaux? I don’t think we could even come close to understanding that; our modern minds trying to comprehend the mind of someone who lived approximately 30,000 BC.

We can begin to understand the goal of Michelangelo: he had to produce a commission for the Vatican.

We can understand the goal of Velasquez: he was employed by the Spanish King Philip IV.

We understand the economics and transactions. We we still don’t understand the artist. And we don’t understand him any more than the individual sitting next to us on the train. But because they produce a piece of art we feel that there is something revealed about them. That’s our position in relation to the artist. But if the goal is not financial, or aclaim (which is ultimately financial), or fame (ditto), then what’s left? What could their goal be?

Who said there was another goal that you could take part in? Who said the art had anything to do with you and your thoughts? Who raised that question?

I think a certain level of individual failure in life is inevitable--more inevitable now than in the past when the technical demands of work, play, learning, etc. contained more -- and simpler -- options. — Bitter Crank

How do you think these demands make failure in life more inevitable today over the past?

Those who do as the education system tries to get them to do hardly question authority. Their understanding of the world is therefore rather impoverished. But they generally do okay. They get enough to eat. They stay warm. They get retirement benefits. They see their grandchildren grow up. But their lives are hardly their own. — petrichor

And this is patently untrue.

Unless they regard themselves as psychological cripples, unable to act reasonably and reach out for what they want, then the education system they went through was either okay, or failed to impose its normalisation on them.
— Brett
— petrichor

You seem to suggest here that the only way of becoming something other than a psychological cripple is to be educated in such a system. Not so. — petrichor

What I was saying was (and you know this because you can read) that you obviously got a good enough education to take part in this forum and that this is because a) the education system worked for you, and b) it did not destroy your spirit through ‘normalisation’. And I emphasised this by saying you would have to be a failure if you could not do this, which you aren’t.

We get tested and then directed toward various slots in the big machine. — petrichor

I never claimed any of it is planned. — petrichor

Well actually that’s exactly what you claim. But you’re right it’s very planned, but not for the reasons you assume..

Of course the years at school are very planned. 1) because of time, 2) because the curriculum changes from age to age, 3) because children have different learning skills that need to be addressed, 4) because exams are required so teachers can assess whether their pedagogy is effective.

Public schooling is basically a mass education program. It may not be ideal, but it’s an attempt to give every child in the country an opportunity to learn. At the least a child will come away with a rudimentary education. Unless they resist and then it’s more than likely that child will come away with nothing. The system is not really built for all that personal time, which is why there is the standardisation. Of course it would be ideal if it was better, like the private education system, but it’s not and it was never meant to be.

The corporations are somehow held responsible for the standard of education that is developed only for their purposes, but it’s the corporations who have commented on the poor levels of literacy they observe in the people they employ, or refuse to employ, and the problems they have with it.

You probably take for granted what you learned at school, you may even be unaware of how much you did learn. You probably didn’t teach yourself to write, or spell, or recognise words, or add up numbers. You were probably unaware of how you learned to work with other individuals, how to give and take, how to share and compromise. You probably didn’t understand what you learned about people who knew so much more than you about the world and what can be learned from watching and listening.

You probably wouldn’t be half the person you are without that education.

And the other 99% went along with it?

And what was it that enabled you to do that?

Well that’s a change from being a victim of the Capitalist system.

I read a lot about these sort of experiences, the idea of normalising and standardisation and making us behave in particular ways that serve one objective, economic growth. But it seems to me that everyone who writes about this suggests, by their comments, that they have escaped the planned control and are able to express themselves quite well. Unless they regard themselves as psychological cripples, unable to act reasonably and reach out for what they want, then the education system they went through was either okay, or failed to impose its normalisation on them.

But you can’t fool the children of the revolution.

I want poetry to become as big a thing in the English-speaking world as it is in Russia. — Ilya B Shambat

The best way to make poetry a big thing in the English-speaking world is to produce real poetry. Poetry that aims for – and achieves – things such as beauty and passion. People in Russia read poetry that is being produced in Russia. Using similar styles to produce poetry in English should create poetry in English that people actually want to read. — Ilya B Shambat

If I’m right in understanding where you’re coming from, you want poetry in the English speaking world to achieve the same level of affect as poetry does in Russian, such as beauty and passion. And you also talk about style being the way to achieve this. You also talk about ‘real poetry’, presumably meaning Russian poetry, or something of that standard.

But you’re also talking about two vastly different cultures: Russia, and the English speaking world. If poetry is meant to express thoughts and feelings then the way that’s done most effectively is to speak ‘the language’ of the people, otherwise it’s an introduced, or alien, idiom.

Contemporary works need to speak to people in a form that reaches them, not just reaches out, but convinces them. Consequently poetry in the English speaking world (though not restricted to the English speaking world) broke out of its traditional form and content and developed what was regarded as more immediate and contemporary way of connecting. Obviously, as you observed, along the way some of it went off the rails.

To produce work like the Russians (and I don’t know what years you are referring to) for the English speaking world seems like a formula for failure, or a very small audience.

Your distinction between generations may not be very accurate.

In the 60’s and 70’s many, many people were fooled. Looking back, some of the things that happened are hard to believe. So I don’t think this is specific to your generation.

But, it does seem to me that if your generation has been fooled then maybe they’ve made a trade-off somewhere along the line. They had opportunities for an education and they have access to far more information than any previous generation. True, some of the information is unreliable or false, but you still have a choice. So that, alongside an education, has to be an advantage.

So why, if it’s true, have so many been fooled?

My generation has been the Fooled Generation. And while many are perfectly comfortable with that state of affairs, I for one am not. — Ilya B Shambat

You, for one, are not fooled, or you, for one, are not comfortable with being fooled?

Marcel Duchamp said “I don't believe in art. I believe in artists.“ I take that to mean that art is that which is created by artists. His work “Fountain” (an old urinal) was art because he said so, he turned a urinal into a piece of art by his action.

Being creative is not the same as making art. Children are creative in their playing. We all go through that. When we are making art we’re making creativity an “art”, as a verb. It’s an action that the individual makes. Duchamp made the urinal a piece of art by his creative action. You can decide to call it art when you see it, and some regard this as the step that makes it art, the viewer, but it became art immediately by his actions.

An A. I. doesnt have the desire to take that action. Neither does anything else. The A. I. might do something creative, but it’s not yet art because the A. I. doesn’t chose to regard itself as an artist.

I don’t think art needs to be understood, unless it’s very obscure, then it might need some sort explaining for those who like things to be clear. It might be interesting for someone to write about art, but it’s not necessary for the art itself to exist, and the writing about art is another creative act itself, so in some ways it’s removing itself from its subject.

It doesn’t need to be understood except to know that as humans we create it. No other life form does that. Someone might chose to analyse it or measure it, but it’s not necessary. It exists with or without our understanding.

So, being responsible for defining art seems unnecessary. Only humans create art, so why do we need to define it? To explain it to other life forms who don’t create art?

An A. I. is not human, so it can’t make art. What it does create, if it does, is something an A. I. produces. Let the A. I. define it.

Yes, I did realise I’d made a mess of the whole thing. Cheers.

I’ll think about redoing it.

Yes, I regretted it because I felt it was going to get stuck on whether climate change was real or not.

So if I had elaborated on Jungian ideas of collective consciousness, would that have made a difference?

Okay.

But not well written; in what sense?

If someone is a sociopath and does not have emotions, he would not be attracted to a pursuit that extols feelings; he would be much more likely to become a businessman or a lawyer. — Ilya B Shambat

This is an amazing statement. Wallace Stevens and T. S. Elliot both worked in a place of business. Of course you may not think they’re actually poets.

Now it’s gone again. I can’t even find it on search.

Strange. I just found it. I’m confused.

Same with my post ‘Is climate change real?’ Though in retrospect I’m not concerned. I’d just like to know what happened.

Actually, my comment was unnecessary. But I was thinking that ‘followed’ was probably not what they were doing, because there was not much choice about the matter. But then again it might be the right word because people ‘follow’ orders. So ignore everything I said.

yet for a long time two thirds of the world followed his (Marx) ideas. — Ilya B Shambat

Followed? Hardly.

For a long time I’ve wondered how, or in what form, this headlong cultural rush towards destruction we are in: cost of living, cost of resources, environmental damage, psychological damage, stress on families, etc., is going to be changed.

It seems to me that climate change is the thing that will do it. The cost of fighting it will be high, something that will be passed on to the consumer/citizen. Decisions about what we want as opposed to what we need will have to be made. Where will our wages go: in paying for energy or paying for a pair of torn jeans?

The cost of ignoring it will have virtually the same impact.

So my earlier question of who we want to be will be answered by what is available, what can be sustain, what’s lost and what’s gained. This is evolution in action, right?

Over the years I’ve developed a feeling that the whole idea of diversity is something that cannot be managed, that it contributes to a greater fragmentation of society that can’t be managed politically. By politically I mean the ability to serve all groups as they see their due.

What happens is that you end up doing a sort of dance trying to accomodate these different ‘cultures’ and trying to find some thread you can apply. So there is great support for one group because of their minority ethnic position, but a problem trying to address some aspect of their cultural you regard as wrong.