We need a complete rupture and departure

WISDOMfromPO-MO

In the last hour I read this and some of the comments after it:

http://www.economist.com/node/15108593

and then started reading this:

https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21715636-original-attempt-explain-todays-paranoid-hatreds-deep-roots-modern-resentment

But before I could make it through a few paragraphs of the latter I stopped. If I had a print magazine in my hand rather than a smartphone I might have violently slammed it on the ground and said "Enough!".

Wow, I just made myself conscious--for the first time--that things have me flirting with violence. It's not the kind or amount of violence that would get a movie "rated R for violence" or fill a horrible documentary or news report--it's just throwing reading material to the ground. It may be harmless (paper and electronic devices do not feel pain or suffer, as far as I know). But it is violence, nonetheless.

Call it an epiphany, I guess.

A few minutes ago I completely saw something for the first time: I don't like this trajectory we are on. I guess I have been in denial until now. There's a way to make it better. There's a way to rehabilitate it. There's a way to work within it. I subconsciously thought--but didn't really believe--those kinds of things.

No. Forget about doing anything else with it. We need to stuff all of it in a box, wrap every square millimeter with several layers of duct tape, and fire it on a rocket as far away from our memory and sight as we can.

If you're thinking "Hit the 'Reset' button and start over again", you've come up with the wrong metaphor.

We need--or at least I personally want--to transcend all of it. We need a complete rupture and departure.

All of this talk about automation; AI replacing humans; the latter resulting in lives of nothing but leisure for everybody or resulting in an apocalypse; ecological collapse; conquering death (transhumanism); is progress a myth or are we living in the most peaceful, prosperous period ever and things will only continue to get better?; is same-sex marriage in the U.S. evidence of the latter?; is the United States of America an empire that has started to collapse? (was the 2016 presidential election the beginning of the end?); etc.--get rid of all of it.

We need a completely new perspective. A completely new spiritual and intellectual framework.

My subconscious efforts led me to postmodern theory, Christopher Lasch, David Smail, Ken Wilber, the Zapatistas and the First Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism, and other outlets over the last 15 to 20 years.

Outlets are not enough. A complete rupture and departure is needed.

There is no light at the end of the tunnel of all this fighting over free will, religious fundamentalism, technology, free markets, neo-liberalism, feminism, sentient beings' rights, veganism, democracy vs. tyranny, scientism, queer theory, dualism vs. non-dualism, secularism, darwinism, evidentialism, and every other point of bitter, the-sky-will-collapse-if-the-other-side's-worldview-is-not-eradicated childishness.

The light is outside of the tunnel.

I am sure that this makes me a lone wolf, but I want out of the tunnel.

Here's a suggestion, rest of the world: instead of trying to master manipulating, controlling and dominating, try to master mutually respectfully co-existing for a change.

Who knows, maybe even the briefest, most harmless eruptions of violence will follow the tail end of all of the anger, hate, disagreement, etc. as they are pushed to the farthest margins of our individual and collective memories and experiences.

Rich

Here's a suggestion, rest of the world: instead of trying to master manipulating, controlling and dominating, try to master mutually respectfully co-existing for a change. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It has always been, since the dawn of time, a matter of some trying to dominate others because that is what that they are good at. The Mongols a good case study. Nowadays it is different. If people want to retain freedom to choose they have to be aware of how it is being continually taken away, mostly via a collaboration between big industry and the government they control.

unenlightened

I am sure that this makes me a lone wolf, but I want out of the tunnel. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It doesn't. Plato wanted out of the cave; Freud decided that civilisation is identical with madness; Jesus declared that it is necessary to die and be reborn in the spirit... There is a long tradition.

Here's a suggestion, rest of the world: instead of trying to master manipulating, controlling and dominating, try to master mutually respectfully co-existing for a change. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well with all due respect to one who cannot read a few paragraphs of another without becoming angry, it is easier said than done. In fact, it is worse than that, it is a continuation of the mistake that got us here in the first place.

To put it very briefly, thought, intellect, science, philosophy, is a superb tool for mastering the environment. We accumulate knowledge and understanding and learn to manipulate the world. The mistake is to turn this mastery on thought itself - I think that is what you are suggesting, that we must master our own being so as to end conflict? But this simply recreates the conflict internally; the master is angry at his own anger and another's anger, and so anger is sustained in him even as he fights it.

The first step is for thought to understand completely that it cannot solve this problem, because itis the problem. And if that is clearly and completely understood, then there is an end. Thought stops. And it is the silence that follows that is the solution. But one must be very clear that this silence cannot be reached by any kind of effort or mastery; it cannot be practiced or achieved. All one can do by way of approach is to seek to understand the limits of thought and will.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

It has always been, since the dawn of time, a matter of some trying to dominate others because that is what that they are good at. The Mongols a good case study. Nowadays it is different. If people want to retain freedom to choose they have to be aware of how it is being continually taken away, mostly via a collaboration between big industry and the government they control. — Rich

So Enlightenment progress means "Thanks to medical advances some of you get to live longer lives and therefore get to be manipulated, controlled and dominated even longer. You get to live in a fool's paradise even longer."?

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well with all due respect to one who cannot read a few paragraphs of another without becoming angry... — unenlightened

I didn't say that a few paragraphs made me angry.

I haven't been angry enough for 45 years.

A few seconds of anger after suddenly becoming fully conscious of a lifetime of denial amounts to the inability to "read a few paragraphs of another without becoming angry"? If you say so.

I'd be disappointed if I wasn't angry or disgusted. I probably haven't ever been angry enough.

But feminism, identity politics, etc. have probably more than compensated for my lack of anger. They seem to be based almost entirely on anger, and not just their radical elements. Like a ball carrier in football who looks for contact, they seem to look for something to be angry about at all times.

Maybe little respect is due to me. But it's silly to say that because of some temper that I don't have and have never had--especially when there's no evidence of me having it or ever having it. If there's any reason that I am due little respect it is because I apparently have been extremely naive my whole life.

I think that is what you are suggesting, that we must master our own being so as to end conflict? — unenlightened

No.

I am suggesting that we all cooperate, respect one another, respect non-human life, and respect the Earth as the home of all life.

I am suggesting that we stop seeing humans and non-humans as things to be manipulated, controlled, and dominated.

But this simply recreates the conflict internally; the master is angry at his own anger and another's anger, and so anger is sustained in him even as he fights it. — unenlightened

Making mutual respect in all human relationships and respect for non-human life and the Earth in all dealings with them may not end conflict, but it will be more realistic.

No more Enlightenment promises of a better world through power--the power of the autonomous individual, the power of reason, the power of science and technology, etc.

Just a simple non-pre-modern (superstition, mysticism, ecclesiastical authority, etc.), non-modern (freedom, rationalism, technology, etc.), non-postmodern (diversity, multi-culturalism, local narratives, etc.) idea: we can choose to do our best to all get along, or we can choose not to.

The first step is for thought to understand completely that it cannot solve this problem, because itis the problem. And if that is clearly and completely understood, then there is an end. Thought stops. And it is the silence that follows that is the solution. But one must be very clear that this silence cannot be reached by any kind of effort or mastery; it cannot be practiced or achieved. All one can do by way of approach is to seek to understand the limits of thought and will. — unenlightened

I think that the first step is to break free from the shackles of denial.

Who is in greater denial, people who do not heed what science tells us about human activity and climate change or people who try to pin the whole problem on the latter behavior of the latter group when there's abundant evidence that the entire modern Western lifestyle--insatiable consumption; preoccupation with and obsession with the individual's "pursuit of happiness"; reliance on objectifying and manipulating everything through math, empiricism, etc.--is the problem?

I am saying that for the first time I no longer buy any of it. We don't need more science, more of the philosophy of the past thousand years, more laws, more institutions to enforce and implement those laws, more technology, more social movements, etc. We need a complete rupture and departure.

In other words, a wise person does not respond to climate change by ignoring or denying science and praising the virtues of unregulated business, nor by vilifying business and being condescending towards common people while praising science as the breathtakingly amazing arbiter of safety, longevity, justice, etc. A wise person responds to climate change by recognizing that it is the creation of both business and science and looking for ways to act outside of business and science. A complete rupture and departure from the worldviews that have created and sustained modern business and science might be a no-brainer once people start looking outside of them.

BC

I am suggesting that we all cooperate, respect one another, respect non-human life, and respect the Earth as the home of all life. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Right. Keep it simple: Like Micah 6:8 says it, "What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love tenderly, and to walk humbly with your God?" One could lead a good life by following what you or the prophet Micah said.

A complete rupture and departure from the worldviews that have created and sustained modern business and science might be a no-brainer — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No brainer in more ways than one. Obvious, on the one hand, brainless on the other.

I agree that there are times when one wants to chuck the whole sickening mess. But, pause...

One of the things that intelligent, well read, and maybe over-informed people need to do is selectively cut back on the data feeds that are plugged into their heads.

There are tons of agencies out there serving up bad news about the world: the environment, the economy, the education system, the government, white supremacists, racists, and sexists, liberals, republicans, conservatives, democrats, private prisons, ISIS, lead poisoning, and on and on. It isn't all fake news, but it is very tendentious, and they don't generally offer any solutions. One is just left with more and more discontent and disturbance. We are overstimulated with bad news.

I am not optimistic about the future, but I find some peace in the realization that there is nothing significant that I can personally do about most of the problems I know about. I get further peace from cutting back on hearing once again about x, y, or z problem. It also helps to cross some concerns off the list. I'm just not going to worry about the Alberta Tar Sands industry for instance. It's not that I don't care that it is an extremely filthy way to get petroleum, it's just that there isn't room in my agenda for the tar sands problem.

Yes, I know there is a lot of plastic particles in the ocean screwing up ocean life. Again, I can't solve that problem. It doesn't help to read about it again.

If the world looks like it is going to hell, it probably will--if for no other reason that it has been picking up a lot of momentum, and who is going to stop it? There are problems that I can make a dent in. Small and local, but I'll just have to settle for that.

I too once felt we should have a complete rupture. Let the Revolution begin! It would be a bad experience -- at least as bad as the crap we are already putting up with. People would not be brand new beings after the rupture. It would be back to business as usual.

unenlightened

a wise person does not respond to climate change by ignoring or denying science and praising the virtues of unregulated business, nor by vilifying business and being condescending towards common people while praising science as the breathtakingly amazing arbiter of safety, longevity, justice, etc. A wise person responds to climate change by recognizing that it is the creation of both business and science and looking for ways to act outside of business and science. A complete rupture and departure from the worldviews that have created and sustained modern business and science might be a no-brainer once people start looking outside of them. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If we were all wise, or even most of us, there would be no problem. The solution to climate change is well known, and not difficult to implement. But wise people have been turning away from consumer society and promoting sustainable living at least since the sixties. Indeed vilifying and condescending does nothing, but nor does being wise unless wisdom acts to become vegan, stop using fossil fuels, reduce transport by consuming local products, insulate homes, fit solar panels and learn to live without waste.

But all that is straightforward. It is the wisdom that is in short supply. And that is what I am interested in trying to manufacture.

Harry Hindu

This is so typical of the socialist/liberal logic of making oneself feel good about themselves by promoting the idea, "can't we all just get along?", "can't we just be nicer and more respectful to each other?". Sure, those are great ideas, but all I see are these ideas without any means of getting there. Is it because we already know how to get there but realize that the means would be the manipulation of others, which is what you all are saying you want to depart from? Wouldn't you need to start determining who gets born and how children are raised and wouldn't you need a deep state to do that (and it seems that is what we are heading towards)? People are the way they are as a result of their genetics and upbringing. To change that would mean that you'd need to manipulate them (their genes and upbringing).

0 thru 9

... our backs to the wall.

Rich

A wise person responds to climate change by recognizing that it is the creation of both business and science and looking for ways to act outside of business and science — WISDOMfromPO-MO

All people have to do is consume less, but industry/government have become very good at marketing consumption. Let's take a look at the sales pitch of the medical device industry: "Take this test, or you will die!". Pretty effective sales pitch especially when the lobbyists have successfully passed laws to help them push their products and drugs.

Maybe environmentalists can take less trips to the environments they are trying to save? There are many ways to look a simple, healthy, interesting life without constantly consuming.

Rich

People are the way they are as a result of their genetics and upbringing. To change that would mean that you'd need to manipulate them (their genes and upbringing). — Harry Hindu

And I suppose you have some evidence of this? I change all the time and it had zero to do with my genetics and upbringing. The WHO says only a small percentage of chronic ailments are due to genetics, while 80% or more are due to lifestyle choices. Choices.

CasKev

I change all the time and it had zero to do with my genetics and upbringing. — Rich

The knowledge and experience you use to make your choices are based on past choices and outcomes, the earliest of which were dependent on various influences over which you had no control - parental, societal, environmental. The person you are today and the choices you make would be very different, given different parents and place of birth.

Rich

The knowledge and experience you use to make your choices are based on past choices and outcomes — CasKev

No, I am constantly adding novelty to my life.

I am beginning to realize that there actually may be people who are purely robotic in their life and without actual experience otherwise have come to believe that everyone is equally robotic.

The mind not only had the capacity for creative novelty, for many it is the primary experience. Creative evolution is the essence of Life.

CasKev

@Rich

The 'I' you speak of only exists because your parents had sex. The desire you have to add novelty to your life only exists because of the experiences that have led you to that point, and your biological instinct to love and create.

I agree that many people live as part of 'the machine' of society without realizing that there can be more to life, but this 'awakening' normally comes about as a result of first becoming a miserable robot, and realizing that something needs to change if your life is going to continue. Unless you have very aware parents, whose influence is strong enough to combat the effect of society, there's a good chance you will live as a robot before you are able to shrug off the chains of the personal identity that you've formed throughout your life.

Rich

The 'I' you speak of only exists because your parents had sex. The desire you have to add novelty to your life only exists because of the experiences that have led you to that point, and your biological instinct to love and create. — CasKev

No. I am creating and evolving everyday in my life. Are you creative? Do you create new things, new ideas, new directions in your life? Allowing the creative mind to express is good for the soul. I live and breathe creativity. The major issue is that people have been trained since kindergarten to suppress creativity and play follow the leader. I was pretty much my own person for most of my life. Never needed to be or wanted to be one of the crowd. Never a robot and always creative in the direction I followed in my life.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

This is so typical of the socialist/liberal logic of making oneself feel good about themselves by promoting the idea, "can't we all just get along?", "can't we just be nicer and more respectful to each other?". Sure, those are great ideas, but all I see are these ideas without any means of getting there. Is it because we already know how to get there but realize that the means would be the manipulation of others, which is what you all are saying you want to depart from? Wouldn't you need to start determining who gets born and how children are raised and wouldn't you need a deep state to do that (and it seems that is what we are heading towards)? People are the way they are as a result of their genetics and upbringing. To change that would mean that you'd need to manipulate them (their genes and upbringing). — Harry Hindu

Apparently I am not making myself clear.

I will try again.

All of this Marxism; liberalism; "progress"; conservatism; Enlightenment rationalism, autonomy of the individual, rule of law; empiricism/"science"; technology; transhumanism; postmodernism; feminism; queer theory; identity politics; neo-liberalism; "the logic of free markets"; globalization; populism; "democracy" vs. "tyranny"; dualism vs. non-dualism; overconsumption vs. prosperity; Malthus vs. Adam Smith; etc.; etc.; etc. needs to be stuffed in a box, bound with several layers of duct tape, and fired on a rocket as far out of our sight and memory as possible.

Garbage in, garbage out.

If we are tired of getting garbage then we need to grow up and throw away the garbage.

The garbage is gone, what do we do now?

How about listening.

Listening to each other.

Listening to non-human life

Listening to the Earth.

How about empathizing.

I said let's break the garage-in-garbage-out cycle, and you responded with more of the garage.

We don't need more politics, laws, philosophy, science, technology, etc. We need to get a grip.

We need to try, gasp, being nice.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

All people have to do is consume less, but industry/government have become very good at marketing consumption. Let's take a look at the sales pitch of the medical device industry: "Take this test, or you will die!". Pretty effective sales pitch especially when the lobbyists have successfully passed laws to help them push their products and drugs.

Maybe environmentalists can take less trips to the environments they are trying to save? There are many ways to look a simple, healthy, interesting life without constantly consuming. — Rich

But then we will be told that if consumption is dramatically decreased then the whole system will collapse, prosperity will disappear, and we will all be living short, miserable lives like feudal serfs or prehistoric cave dwellers.

Someone will then reply that if we don't dramatically reduce consumption the whole biosphere will implode and all life, not just humans, will become extinct.

Ad nauseum.

We need to break out such patterns. We need to stop spinning our wheels.

We need a completely different conversation.

Rich

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO

It's true that is we consume less we will need to produce less, which is fine. The only one hurt will be the profiteers. They'll have to live in billions instead of 10s of billions. The point is, if one is if one is concerned with pollution just consume less.

BC

No, I am constantly adding novelty to my life. — Rich

Your genes are driving your novelty seeking behavior. Other people's genes drive familiarity seeking.

BC

I said let's break the garage-in-garbage-out cycle — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Like I said, most of us are just too over-exposed to all this stuff, most of which is way beyond our capacity to control, affect, stop, change...

Once you've become informed, you don't need fresh doses of this stuff. It's like if you eat a healthy diet, there is no need to take vitamin pills. For instance, there is nothing new to say about Marxism; liberalism; "progress"; conservatism; Enlightenment rationalism, autonomy of the individual, rule of law; empiricism/"science"; technology; transhumanism; postmodernism; feminism; queer theory; identity politics; neo-liberalism; "the logic of free markets"; globalization; populism; "democracy" vs. "tyranny"; dualism vs. non-dualism; overconsumption vs. prosperity; Malthus vs. Adam Smith, etc. etc. etc.
It's pretty much all been said. Several times a day it is repeated. Unplug, tune out, turn off (as opposed to Timothy Leary's advice to Turn on, tune in, drop out).

WISDOMfromPO-MO

If we were all wise, or even most of us, there would be no problem. The solution to climate change is well known, and not difficult to implement. But wise people have been turning away from consumer society and promoting sustainable living at least since the sixties. Indeed vilifying and condescending does nothing, but nor does being wise unless wisdom acts to become vegan, stop using fossil fuels, reduce transport by consuming local products, insulate homes, fit solar panels and learn to live without waste.

But all that is straightforward. It is the wisdom that is in short supply. And that is what I am interested in trying to manufacture. — unenlightened

It sounds like more of the same.

It sounds like more Enlightenment faith in our ability to intervene and manipulate and control things to optimal circumstances/conditions.

I would argue that it was such faith that led to climate change in the first place.

Maybe it's pride. For whatever reason, we can't seem to admit that objectifying everything and removing ourselves from everything else and thinking that we can be some third person molding our bodies and the rest of the world to create great stories has failed miserably.

Culture wars, disagreements between strangers on internet philosophy forums, etc. are simply people quarreling over how the story should be written.

We can't go back.

We can't go back to existing like the first primates or something like that.

But we don't have to be trapped in the present way of existing either.

If we have ever listened rather than dictate, I have never heard any account of it.

There's probably a lot--from past humans, other forms of life, and the non-living Earth--that we have not heard because we were not and are not listening.

Reason--specifically, Enlightenment human reason--has spoken. It has been a very long monologue. Maybe it's time for it to hand the microphone over and listen for a change.

Rich

Your genes are driving your novelty seeking behavior. Other people's genes drive familiarity seeking. — Bitter Crank

I love stories that people just make up. Genes are just little humans doing everything that we do? And who does it for the genes?

WISDOMfromPO-MO

It's true that is we consume less we will need to produce less, which is fine. The only one hurt will be the profiteers. They'll have to live in billions instead of 10s of billions. The point is, if one is if one is concerned with pollution just consume less. — Rich

The problem is that consumption isn't the sum of the choices of individuals.

It is an indivisible whole that is part of a system and is required for that system to function.

As consumption behavior changes the system adjusts--and takes all of us with it.

A contraction in output due to decreased consumer demand will likely result in unemployment, crime, more incarceration, more military conflicts, and other misery to bring things back to equilibrium. It is not likely that it will merely result in common people living happily with less and the owners of capital not missing a beat as economic inequality contracts.

We need to think outside of that system, not tell the system "We are changing the rules! Deal with it!".

The way the system deals with it probably won't be pleasant for many people.

If subverting the system is your game plan, things like quietly restoring local economies, quietly restoring the extended family, and quietly restoring local communities and anything else local--control of education; neighborhood churches (as opposed to mega-churches); culture; etc.--would probably be a more prudent strategy.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Like I said, most of us are just too over-exposed to all this stuff, most of which is way beyond our capacity to control, affect, stop, change...

Once you've become informed, you don't need fresh doses of this stuff. It's like if you eat a healthy diet, there is no need to take vitamin pills. For instance, there is nothing new to say about Marxism; liberalism; "progress"; conservatism; Enlightenment rationalism, autonomy of the individual, rule of law; empiricism/"science"; technology; transhumanism; postmodernism; feminism; queer theory; identity politics; neo-liberalism; "the logic of free markets"; globalization; populism; "democracy" vs. "tyranny"; dualism vs. non-dualism; overconsumption vs. prosperity; Malthus vs. Adam Smith, etc. etc. etc.
It's pretty much all been said. Several times a day it is repeated. Unplug, tune out, turn off (as opposed to Timothy Leary's advice to Turn on, tune in, drop out). — Bitter Crank

Okay, then we need the conversation to be about how to tune it all out.

As far as I know, no such conversation has ever taken place.

And we will be talking about a formidable opponent, because no matter what you do--shop, go for a walk, eat a meal--or where you go--work, church, the gym--you will be on that aforementioned trajectory and from every direction something or someone will be reminding you of it.

It seems to me that the more prudent thing to do to would be to use whatever power and resources one has to change the conversation, not ignore the conversation or have a preliminary conversation about how to ignore the conversation.

There's nothing that says anybody has to accept the way things are and should not do anything to disrupt the order of things. That sounds like fatalism or something else from ancient times.

This is 2017. We believe now that we can change course, not that it is some kind of blasphemy to not accept the way things are.

Capitalism, science, technology, etc. are sorry excuses for the sacred anyway. Blaspheme against them all you want to. I doubt that many people will care. They'll probably say, "The most that I do is curse at my laptop or the grocery store self-checkout. You are more honest than me!".

Now that might be the conversation we need to be having. Instead of splitting hairs over things like free will vs. determinism, we probably ought to all be having open, honest conversation about how we really feel about this way of life we have been told repeatedly since our birth that we are extremely fortunate to experience. Just getting it off of our collective chest will likely yield a lot more good than hours and hours of debate over, oh, dualism vs. non-dualism.

BC

There's nothing that says anybody has to accept the way things are and should not do anything to disrupt the order of things. That sounds like fatalism or something else from ancient times. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Indeed, there is not. And I am not advocating that anyone just accept the way things are and not do anything to disrupt the order of things. I disapprove of many aspects about the established order of things. When I was younger I was much more devoted to disruption. When the opportunity presents itself, we should (figuratively speaking) take off our wooden shoes and drop them into the works (sabots = wooden shoes, dropping wooden shoes into the gears = sabotage.)

At 70 I don't disapprove of disrupting the bad things about life, I just don't have as much energy as I once did. During the 40+ years that I was working, I resisted unreasonable authority and unthinking adherence to the dominant paradigm as much as I could. (Naturally, that made me a less than highly desired employee.)

I don't use any fertilizer, weed or insect killer on my lawn. I use a minimum of energy keeping the grass short (it's not very short; in fact it looks like hell -- but there is no good reason to keep grass 3 inches short. See Thorsten Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class). I let weeds that I like grow. If I don't like them, I pull them up. I recycle yard wastes, food wastes, plastic/paper/metal. I produce very little "garbage". I bicycle and use public transit. I eat a minimum of meat and fish. I live in a small house.

I spent about 15 years working in a socialist organization educating "the public" about Marx, De Leon, economic justice, the meaning of class, and so on and so forth. I donated to the cause. I wrote material.

People need to find the area in which they can make a difference, and go do it. Become informed, but don't keep listening to and reading the same old bad news every day. It's just too demoralizing. Keep abreast of what is happening, but that doesn't take a lot of time. Things, like the disasters, don't change that much from month to month.

Do I believe that 'the people' can change the direction away from certain disaster that we all seem to be heading for? Sure I do. Do I think 'the people' will rise up, smash the corporate dictatorship, take over the government, and usher in a period of progressive ecological, economic, educational, et cetera policy which will get us all collectively out of the shit hole we seem to be sliding into? No, I think that is fairly unlikely.

So, I continue doing what I can do and recognizing that my power to effect change in the world is quite limited. It's more limited than I would like, but there's not much I can do about it. Got a magic ring or something you could give me to enhance my powers?

BC

We need to think outside of that system — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Right. Because...

BC

things like quietly restoring local economies, quietly restoring the extended family, and quietly restoring local communities and anything else local — WISDOMfromPO-MO

In response to your comment to Rich:

You think "the system" won't notice if you quietly reorganize the economy, quietly institute changes in the family (like establishing extended families), and quietly restore local communities to a state of former vitality? News Flash: making these changes will create an enormous amount of noise and disturbance. Do you think Target, Walmart, Macy's, et al are going to sit still while the behemoths of centralized manufacturing, transportation, and merchandising are taken apart? BTW, just how do you plan on getting the single women with children and the nuclear family couples back into 'the extended family'? Grandma probably isn't interested in becoming the live-in babushka, taking care of the children. Restoring local communities? Again, you're talking about a massive change in the modus operandi of late capitalism. You think the powers that be are going to sit still for all that?

If you want to achieve those goals (and they are, actually worthwhile goals) you'll have to get rid of the richest 5% and then the government that enabled them to exercise their power.

Good Luck!

Gotterdammerung

@Posty McPostface

What your really asking here is whether the human condition can be shaped and formed like Playdough. I don't think that is something that can be imposed or forced onto people, only cultivated and nurtured

Completely agree with you we cant impose wisdom/knowledge and im not saying that we should. It wouldnt be very wise. But i think that the school systems completely ignores that most central aspect of human development and so public schooling should try to "nurture" wisdom/knowledge. it wont be successful 100% of the time, but it will make a difference.

Shawn

↪Gotterdammerung

Well there is no reward for being wise and a good person. It's a rather selfless desire and pursuit. Not many people are motivated by selflessness but tend to go down into the history books for some reason. Rare people they are.

Gotterdammerung

@Posty McPostface

Woops totally meant to post that on the American school sytem thread. Im smart :s

Noble Dust

We need--or at least I personally want--to transcend all of it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Me too. That's why I've taken a break posting on this philosophy forum.

Here's a suggestion, rest of the world: — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Perhaps a better place to begin would be to address this adage to yourself, rather than the rest of the world. The "rest of the world", after all, begins with you.

I'm with you.

We need a complete rupture and departure

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions