If you go back and look at old documentary footage of the early fifties, the striking feature that jumps out at you is the overwhelming homogeneity of society. The entire range of sameness blanketed the American social scene from everything from fashion, to hair styles, to architecture, and remarkably, to human behavior. The overriding manner could reasonably be predicted according to its orthodox proclivity to conform. To be bland, meant to be accepted, it meant that you fit in, and that breeding (at least good breeding) according to this standard, meant you had good manners. It meant that you listened and obeyed the priest or the preacher of your church, or the police officer, or your employer, or the president, without asking too many questions. The authorities knew what we needed and they then announced what that was and everybody simply followed their training (one might even characterize it as their grooming) without too much objection from the electorate. Those in the “know” simply delivered the seminal word to the passive body of the congregation and things went on just as they had always been. You got up, went to work, went home and listened to the radio or the television (and if you were lucky, maybe shagged the wife) and then did it all over again the next day.
Off course, homogeneity cannot caste itself without some anomaly rearing itself against its narrowness; the reason is because authority can be oppressive to some courageous souls who simply cannot bear to shackle their souls to the status quo. In the fifties, it was the Beat Generation that threw off the restraints, went their own way, and tested various boundaries that others considered taboo and frightening.
Things really don’t change much over the years, at least at its core. Psychotherapists will tell you that anomalous behavior represents pathos. Like everything to do with power, conformity brings its blessing, and dissent brings its condemnation.
The counter cultural movement of the sixties followed on the heals of the homogeneity of the fifties. The rebels of the Sixties outdid their irreverent brothers and sisters of the beat generation in spades. Their repudiation of social norms touched every aspect of human culture. These pathological children had something to say and they had something to experience. They were simply suffocating under the tightening restraints of their less pathological parents who knew what was best for them. Just like the priests and preachers, along with the politicians, knew what was best for their enlightened parents. The social archetypes, the various ways expectations form around pre-established patterns of behavior, are deeply interconnected to the economic order, and to its continuation or maintenance as it is tied to consumption.
The problem with these petulant children of sixties was a matter of obedience. They simply refused to play the prescribed roles the status quo had ordained for them. They were under the pathological idea that their lives may hold something more spiritual and more challenging than identifying with some pre-established roles tied endlessly to the economic order their elders bequeathed them, and suffocated under!
The significant global issue of the sixties happened to coincide with the misplaced wisdom of the Vietnam War. How many walking wounded are still our there? I can speak for myself, of course, if not for anyone else. Whereas in the 1950’s, conformity being the sacred dogma of a generation, in the 1960’s, millions of young people invoked an evolutionary new consciousness (despite its excesses). They began to renounce their identification with a collective paradigm, which in their eyes was seen as insanity.
The movement finally burned itself out, but not before introducing a new type of consciousness never seen before in human history. The positive development of this consciousness was the cross/trans cultural movement of new ways of being into previously rigid structures of being. Although, depending on where you stand, even the counter cultural rebels might be characterized as rigid.
Now here we stand in another era. The counter cultural rebels have integrated into the mainstream and tied themselves, both to the old economic order of their elders, but also to the same insanity – speaking of the war in Iraq and environmental degradation. Despite the lip-service they pay to both issues.
If you are able to read the signs of the times, then those signals are telling us in very loud pronouncements that human life is growing inhospitable to the planet. The advertising gurus will subconsciously turn your behavior toward consumption; and even the liberal gurus, will use subliminal messaging of the positive features of the sixties consciousness to steer you into conformity with the status quo of a broken two party system.
Prophets and Cultural Creatives are telling us that we only have maybe four or five years to turn this around before we reach the point of no return. Does anybody really believe it is going to happen in time?
If I were you, I’d start looking for a way out of the approaching chaos.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
Matters of facts are in fact abstract. Things have already reached the point of no return and beyond.
If 'we' keep thinking in terms of: "We need to act before it's too late" all 'we' might do is create more fear, and fear could paralyse 'us'. If 'we' realise that it's gone far past the point of no return, 'we' can, instead of trying to prevent something that is inevitable, actually start rebuilding!
Furthermore: Would the end of human (Western) "civillisatiob" be such a bad thing?
Also: 'We' destroyed the planet so 'we' have the power to rebuild it. If 'we' come to terms with our polarised awareness 'we' would see that the aggressor side and victimised side are both in 'us'. Instead 'we' are aggressors but act like victims who are scared of the so-called inevitable.
The balance seems so far off but in truth is so close.
What will it take, not for mankind, but for one single person to take action? Are 'we' all just waiting around for someone else to stand up?
How are you (aka *me*) in relation to 'the approaching chaos'?
u
Posts: 1927 | Location: pending | Registered: 18 December 2004
... This was the first time I spotted this thread of yours... Very clearly stated... The sixties thing always intrigues me... Why did it begin?... Why did it petter out?... Why did it not re-blossom?... Why does Ken Wilber think so poorly of these 'ol hippies?...
... Speaking of Ken Wilber, Ren was asking me a few questions about Ken Wilber, and the Integral movement... Would you like to share some of your own perceptions?... There is much that he says that I like and agree with, and much that I do not... There is even much more that I do not even have a clue about...
... Personally, I have to believe that we 'will' pull our heads out of our collective asses... If only to take the next breath...
________________________ "... He who is swimming against the stream comes to the Source..." -Gottfried Muller
Posts: 901 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 17 June 2003
Lawerence, I think Wilber is right on the money when it comes to the next leap in human consciousness/development. Until the Green meme is able to make the next leap in consciousness, our problems will continue to spin out of control with nothing else to show for it other than the same blame game we now listen to endlessly over the air waves. It's already too late to reverse climate change. Life on planet earth is going to be hard for people with too much comfort; those that are able to adapt will thrieve and those that cannot will suffer.
Perhaps the positive thing in all of this will bring about the next leap Wilber is referring to.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
My guess is the sixties movement pettered out because they wanted to change the system of which they were part. The system (civilization) does not change, especially since even those who criticize it are/stay embedded in it and depend on it. But this is a system of destruction; a system which favors production over life. Civilization is one huge pathological condition - and the sixties movement did not shed the condition; it did not drop this system altogether.
It's not that civilization is not going to follow its own route to destruction: it will continue to rush towards the cliff's edge and over it.
It's not a bad thing, I think, although I imagine the fall of civilization will be accompanied by quite a bit of horror... Either way -good or bad- it's inescapable. Which does not mean that there is nothing to do in the meantime.
The meek, who shall (for purely practical reasons) inherit the Earth, are gathering information from what remains of ancient knowledge, from what history tells us, and from (un)common sense. And there's always instinctive survival skills, which will eventually pop back up in us as it does with domesticated cats who are left in the wild - except what with our techno-addicted minds and all it's going to take us a wee bit longer. However, while we have some time left, we can do it the easy way: incrementally.
Right now, there are lives to be saved, preparations to be made, and most of all: there is much stepping away to be done.
Usha is right: we should not be dealing with civilization's inevitable downfall and all of its petty symptoms; we should now be occupied with a new way of living. Now.
A suggestion, though: instead of "rebuilding" the planet, I emphatically advise that we leave it alone, for the reason that it will do perfectly at rebuilding itself. Of course, in the leaving, we are actually joining it in harmony.
What we must do is live sustainably, value life, be creative, and have fun. Then once again will we be where we belong - actually living as human beings, which (knowingly or not) we have been craving for so long.
We will be home again.
Posts: 2736 | Location: Andijvie | Registered: 25 June 2002
Usha, when one has nothing to begin with, one has nothing to lose. Elementary, my darling!
That is actually my point, my Sweet. I think you and I think more alike than we think...
quote:
A suggestion, though: instead of "rebuilding" the planet, I emphatically advise that we leave it alone, for the reason that it will do perfectly at rebuilding itself. Of course, in the leaving, we are actually joining it in harmony.
Absolutely agreed, Andger, and that's a great post. What I intended to say was (and please excuse my lack of required expression skills at this point ) we could emphasise on rebuilding our definition of being. And maybe with that, we will create (rebuild?) a world around us, and a universe to hold that world?
Personally I believe the planet will never seize to exist, even when it does, according to 'our' perception of it. It is Humanity that is presented with the choice to either define or redefine, or possibly even both, as I like to think in 'and-and' rather than 'either-or'
'And-and' and/or 'either-or':
The planet is destroying Mankind - Mankind is destroying the planet? Destructing - Creating?
Posts: 1927 | Location: pending | Registered: 18 December 2004
It's not a bad thing, I think, although I imagine the fall of civilization will be accompanied by quite a bit of horror... Either way -good or bad- it's inescapable. Which does not mean that there is nothing to do in the meantime.
Nicely stated. So, what are your plans in the meantime?
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
That is actually my point, my Sweet. I think you and I think more alike than we think...
Yes, we are very much alike. Now, if we can just convince a few billion more to love their mother, and take one small step away from consumption and toward respect...
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
What if people got “involved” by not buying vehicles that are not fuel efficient… What if people learned to recycle all their waste and learned to compost… What if people began to experiment with public transportation: one or two days per week… What if people began to ride their bike to work instead of drive a car… What if people gave up jobs that are harming their psyche and the earth, and instead did the work of their heart… What if people started volunteering with organizations that serve the earth and the poor… What if people started to challenge politicians to a higher standard of accountability… What if people got off the grid and lived self reliant lives… What if people considered joining or starting Intentional Communities based on earth centered principles and values… What if every one took the time to do a Vision Quest and found the courage to live their vision out in the world… What if people got off the “me” plan and got on the “earth” plan… What if a grass roots movement could make modern politics totally irrelevant… What if people discovered that their interruptions were their work… What if people gave up their “toys” and tried to deepen the quality of their relationships… What if got over their addictions… What if people learned alternative uses of sustainable energy and integrated that into their homes, transportation, and energy expenditures… What if people accessed their creativity for the benefit of the earth and not for their bank account… What if people stopped buying newspapers and read them online… What if people started growing their own food or supported local organic farmers… What if people revision the meaning of their lives and created something else… What if people did an inventory of their waste and developed a strategy to downsize… What if people stopped going in debt… What if people picked up garbage in their wild places, parks, and neighborhoods… What if people learned to be naturalists and herbalists and learned the local indigenous plants and trees in their own bioregion… What if people started gardening by pulling out the grass and using it for organic gardens and medicinal plants… What if everyone planted 20 trees in their life… What if everyone donated twenty percent of their income to authentic organizations working on behalf of the earth… What if people learned some type of healing modality… What if the greed suddenly came to an end… What if the most important concern in a person’s life turned to others instead of their selves… What if people stopped watching inane television programming… What if people who hate corporations stopped funding them… What if people learned to live in harmony with the earth… What if people stopped blaming everyone else for their problems and changed their lives so completely that the POWERS were unable to reach into their lives again…
Overcoming corporate control is easy: stop buying their garbage and their influence would diminish and eventually disappear…
Hey Mark, how you doing?
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
The world itself changes and adapts to what she is given, she has room for all and shares with all as needed; she is the quintessential Mother of Unconditional Love. Modern human ‘civilization’¹, though – who needs her and is indebted to her for its very own existence – attacks her recklessly and relentlessly; why?
The human creature is cursed with consciousness and intellect, he can perceive a ‘problem’ and take action to correct it; he sees himself as cold and hungry so he does what he is capable of: he builds shelter and fire, hunts, and raises crops to bring himself comfort. And like all things with the essence we may call ‘life’, he harbors an instinctual urge for preservation of the species, which manifests itself within the individual as a preservation of self, and the psychological self – an integral part of human consciousness – helps to protect the individual’s physical being by use of the primal emotion of Fear.
All life manipulates its environment to make it more ‘comfortable’ for itself, this is part of its survival – its ‘preservation of self’ – and humanity is certainly no exception there as we all are well aware. So humankind sets out, with his intellect and consciousness of being, to manipulate his environment to improve his comfort to ensure the survival of species; some man-made changes in his surroundings is the natural course of events. Our host here at these forums, Thom Hartmann, claims that somewhere around the dawn of agriculture humanity diverged from what he calls the ‘Older Culture’ perception of its place in the world to a ‘Younger Culture’ perception/outlook²; I fully agree with this assessment, and believe the changes were/are of a psychological nature affecting the sociological outlook of the human communities.
A human being is generally capable, intellectually, of not only assessing his physical situation but of also taking action to make changes he thinks to be required. The human animal will attempt to control that which is around him because he has an instinctual desire for survival, his psyche is imbedded with a need for preservation of self. Yet with his increased level of consciousness and intellect, this ‘preservation of self’ also becomes a curse; the human creature – through his intellect – is capable of looking forward to realize that doing one thing will increase comfort (survival), and then that doing more things will further increase his comfort. As greater and greater ‘comfort’ is generated, the psyche itself remains insatiable; if a ‘comfort’ is threatened to be removed from the physical environment, the psyche manipulates the intellect through use of the emotion that controls the ‘instinctual’ need for the preservation of self: Fear. I find it to be quite a subtle manipulation, and easily rationalized by the ‘intellect’, but there nonetheless; I believe it is this manipulation of the intellect by the psyche, this irrational Fear for our individual and collective survival, that allows the human creature to rationalize its relentless attack on our environment, our Mother.
This is, yes, somewhat simple (and not fully satisfactory) explanations of complex psycho-sociological workings; and I’m sure to be questioned on it, but an in-depth discussion of this is beyond the scope of this thread. I believe it might be important, though, for myself to begin my participation in this thread with this, because this thread is about the state of the ‘human world’ and our interactions with what I like to think of as our ‘Mother’ – the world we live on; I hope we each take this thread seriously and look at what we are doing now and what our plans are for the coming years. I am quite interested in what others (you, my friends) are doing now and planning for the future.
Chris – the taste and touch and smell of life is truly amazing to me. You should drop me a line every now and again just to stay in touch…
-Mark.
== ¹which I believe to be several thousand years of age ²see “Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight”
------------------------------ "In a big country dreams stay with you like a lover's voice across the mountainside" - Big Country
Posts: 872 | Location: Western edge of the continent | Registered: 04 October 2003
Chris, I used the word ‘comfort’ to expand the reader’s perception on the human being’s minimal needs to survive on this planet; we don’t really need to build a shelter to survive the winter, we could get by with covering ourselves with snow, although only the most physically hardy of us, now, would likely live through it. Do you wear clothes to keep out the chill? Do you eat enough? Do you live in a covered building? Do you use energy? These are some of what I was alluding to with my specific and intentional use of the word ‘comfort’. I define ‘spirituality’ for myself as my connection (or relationship, if you will) to all that which is outside and inside the self; both the physical and emotional selves.
Miles, thank you for the compliment, but do you know why I posted that, in such a manner as I did? In order to correct what we might see as a problem, we must first try to understand the underlying mechanics of the difficulty – we must go to the very root, the absolute beginning of what is creating the problem. And, as I see it, the real root of the problem with the human creature overusing (and abusing) the natural resources of our Mother Earth is his misunderstanding of his Fear of Mortality (which is overemphasized due to his intellect. It can be really involved and I hope I don’t have to try to explain it in this thread, I really do have other things I want to get to). Once we truly understand where the problem originates we can then, perhaps, use appropriate language/communication with those needing instruction – language they can understand and accept – so that we might start rectifying the trouble. I’m probably being obtuse, but at least you understand that I’m keenly alive and exuberant!
-Mark.
------------------------------ "In a big country dreams stay with you like a lover's voice across the mountainside" - Big Country
Posts: 872 | Location: Western edge of the continent | Registered: 04 October 2003
what, according to you is our 'Morality'? Is it based on something absolute and eternal, like my discussion partner on the abortion thread is trying to argue, or is it an individual code? Doe we have an innate sense of empathy? And to what extent did civilization teach us about morality?
(sorry about the 'gay' thing, that's just my running gag for about 4 years now, to call random items 'gay'; little demonstration:
Miles, my good friend, I get the running gay joke/gag…it’s why I posted the link. Should’ve given you an annoyingly gay smilie face…
I never mentioned ‘morality’, and, although I do try to gauge everything I think and do through my moral filter (which is easy enough to do if you’ve written them down, and surprisingly, everyone I’ve ever tried to discuss morals with does not really have a definitive set of moral values and therefore are afloat on the sea of moral relativity…really…), I think morality does not need to come into play here; it may be beyond the scope of this thread.
I did, however, mention Fear of Mortality, which has its beginnings in the primal, instinctual fear of physical death but distorted by the human psyche.
-Mark.
Oh, did I ever mention that I have a niece who is gay?
------------------------------ "In a big country dreams stay with you like a lover's voice across the mountainside" - Big Country
Posts: 872 | Location: Western edge of the continent | Registered: 04 October 2003
I follow the gist of your ideas. With regard to energy expenditures, it was my hope to point out the extravagance use of energy consumption which is unconscious in the First World. Even those living in primitive conditions use energy. Life feeds off life, life cannot "survive" without using energy. A snake sunning itself on a hot boulder is using energy to warm itself, but its use of that energy is not contributing to climate change.
What is the root of the dysfunction you point to for modern people?
Do you suppose it might have anything to do with unconscious consumption patterns? Why do you suppose people have this notion they need everything to be new? New housing; new cloths; new cars; new furniture; new computers; new books; new appliances; the list can be endless. The problem is addiction. The drive to consume is the root of environmental degradation, climate change, poverty, corruption of the political system. All systemic oppression is rooted to dysfunctional consumption.
I am not sure what a new consciousness would look like, but it surely would include sharing rather than producing. It might include recycling of all those objects named above. It might mean re-visioning the way we treat people who do not dress as nice as some.
Let me give you an anecdotal story. When I lived in Michigan, I sometimes attended a church where the spiritual leader was Marianne Williamson. Williamson had deep spiritual insight and spoke about the environmental problem and other issues with depth and insight. She also happened to be a women who owned a mansion, drove a Lexus, and wore Armani gowns. She surrounded here self with a team of bodyguards. It always struck me as sheer hypocrisy.
At the same time, I did volunteer work at the Capuchin Soup kitchen where the Franciscan monks wore old jeans and sweatshirts, but did wonderful work in a decaying neighborhood in the inner city of Detroit. They too had spiritual insight, but embodied it in their lives. In years past, a neighborhood built a church; now, a church was rebuilding a neighborhood. Organic gardens were springing up; recycling classes; job programs and 12 step programs instituted; along with an army of volunteers to make it happen.
Hopefully the story speaks for itself and you understand the difference between abusing energy, and conserving energy.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
Good to see you back again. Don't venture down i this sector much these days, but I noticed you were on the board so I looked. Your thoughts on this subject are always a welcome addition. I'm sure I don't have anything to say that you wouldn't, but I may join in after awhile.
Mark, wondering why people cannot be "comfortable" with simplicity? And why "prosperity" cannot apply to non-sentient life? Perhaps if we thought in terms of prosperity for non-human life, things might start improving. But for that to happen people need to face their addictions. So that means cutting through denial.
Ren,
Really don't have much to say about anything. Change is lurking on the horizon; when economic change hits, a new wave of consciousness will take root. Will that be enough?
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
when economic change hits, a new wave of consciousness will take root. Will that be enough?
That's a good question. Seems possible that the motivation is too basic for deep consciousness change. On the other hand, when people have to get involved on a daily basis with where their next meal might come from, or how to keep the house warm, there can be a direct relationship with consciousness. I have to worry about having seasoned wood well in advance, for instance, makes some difference in consciousness. Detachment from daily life through the fantasy world of television makes another. That's one reason why there's been no television in my household for most of my life.
Hey you beautiful cats. Not been around much recently but good to see there are still some cool postings going on here
I just got asked to leave Uganda (wouldn't renew my visa) but the situation there is quite inexplicable in relation to the topic here.
Since I was last there in 2003 the power situation has gotten worse. No power or water (electrically pumped) every second day because of low water levels in Lake Victoria. The drought has been bad this year and there is talk of potential famine in Uganda and Kenya soon.
To remedy the power situation there however there is talk of using World Bank and IMF cash to build another two dams. Eh .... Duh.
Plus of course the sun shines EVERY DAY in Uganda.
Where is the World Bank and IMF dosh to fund solar energy projects.
We will only get out of this increasingly desperate situation if we can rise above our economics systems IMHO.
Anyway .... good to read you all again and I hope life is treating you all well.
K.
When the world is run by fools it is the duty of intelligence to disobey
Posts: 1723 | Location: Perth, Australia | Registered: 02 August 2001
Hello Chris - Another interesting thread, with lots of great input. I didn't feel I had anything to add upon reading through this, so I left and started on a task I had wanted to work on. Recently I decided I wanted to make a list of good quotes out of 'Freedom From the Known' by J. Krishnamurti (my first many K books), as I like to use quotes which seem to say things better than I might word the same issue. The first quote I came across seemed directly related to this thread, so I came back to post it.
Re: What is the root of the dysfunction you point to for modern people?
"The primary cause of disorder in ourselves is the seeking of reality promised by another; we mechanically follow somebody who will assure us a comfortable spiritual life." J. Krishnamurti
**I don't feel this statement is a denial of a spiritual aspect to life, but rather a focus on our human willingness to accept second-hand information. And I suspect it's attempting to shed light on this issue of "seeking" some comfortable state for the self-image (aka "becoming"), which may have the affect of disconnecting us from reality, or drawing the attention away from direct experience into the conceptual world. Or what is often called: "Confusing the Map for the Territory."
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
disconnecting us from reality, or drawing the attention away from direct experience into the conceptual world. Or what is often called: "Confusing the Map for the Territory."
Nice thoughts, Howard.
My assessment is that most all human beings were/are born in captivity - surrounded by the nearly impenetrable walls of civilization; delivered deep down in systemic pathology; enveloped by deceipt, division, domination, destruction, distress, death...
Yet there is love.
Posts: 2736 | Location: Andijvie | Registered: 25 June 2002
Andger - Thanks. I was just reading one of the excerpts that I downloaded earlier today out of the archives of SUN magazine. Preston had mentioned in another thread a series of interviews done by Derrick Jensen back in 2000. This particular one is with someone named Vine Deloria. It seems related to the point we were addressing. The article is called: How Science Ignores the Living World. Which might also be phrased: How scientifically-minded humans ignore the living world? http://www.thesunmagazine.org/buffalo.html
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
We can philosophize about the state of the world and society, which might help us organize our own thoughts and ideas, maybe even stimulate the creation of new thoughts within us, but this is ‘just’ thinking, and I might be interested now in the ‘doing’; what are we – as the individuals we are – doing now, and what do we plan for the future?
quote:
I have to worry about having seasoned wood well in advance…
Yes, that is it. The metaphor goes beyond the social into the personal…
We can philosophize about the state of the world and society, which might help us organize our own thoughts and ideas, maybe even stimulate the creation of new thoughts within us, but this is ‘just’ thinking, and I might be interested now in the ‘doing’; what are we – as the individuals we are – doing now, and what do we plan for the future?
Mark, I think this goes to Howard's quote. And, I think it goes to the heart of what my point is since I joined this forum. Namely, unless people embody their values/philosophy then everything else is a waste of time.
I have no idea to what extent any of this influences people to actor not; if it does not, then this forum is a monumental waste of our time. If all this is just fashion then G-d help us!
Without action, we are nothing more than disembodied clods in an endless wheel turning toward our own destruction.
Surely, the wonder of life is discovered in moments of awe, eros, love, and self-giving. When the meaning of life is distilled down to more debt and more toys, thus bypassing relationship, then maybe the human experiment has come to an end.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
Over at another group it is frequently asked: What have you done in the past few weeks?
Perhaps this is something to install here. It requires the active participation of each of us here (including the "bumping" of the/that thread) and in the world.
Format: In the past few weeks, [even though... and I couldn't...] I have... What have you done?
Posts: 2736 | Location: Andijvie | Registered: 25 June 2002
Re: but this is 'just' thinking, and I might be interested now in the 'doing'; what are we - as the individuals we are - doing now, and what do we plan for the future?
and: unless people embody their values/philosophy then everything else is a waste of time.
and: Without action, we are nothing more than disembodied clods in an endless wheel turning toward our own destruction.
**Here's my perception on all that:
#1 - People are always acting on their values/philosophy. Everyday, each human "acts" on their views/values.
The idea that they aren't doing this, I respectfully suggest, isn't correct. The "value" each human has about the "necessity or significance" of each view they hold determines to what degree they think action is required.
So I suggest that each human is acting in basically perfect accordance to their current level of understanding. And the understanding many people seem to have is that there "is no urgency". And if that's their actual view, than the response (lack of action) will reflect the 'lack of urgency'.
#2 - I agree that action is required, but I suggest that the "understanding" is lacking to produce a response which is greater than the current level of understanding is actually producing. The level of response simply reflects the underlying thinking/understanding.
#3 - How can the actions we take be truly effective, if we don't clearly understand the question: What is at the root of this disorder?
**I'm putting all these statements forward in the "spirit of dialogue". Which simply means: This is my perspective, what do other people see, or what objections might you have regarding my suggestions?
I used the Krishnamurti quote before to present one possibility of what this "root" might be. Not as something to be accepted as true, but rather to be questioned and explored (possibly).
Personally, my perception is that the quote does go to the root of the problem. It's pointing out the lack of 'critical thinking' going on. Far too often, it seems, humans "accept the authorities view", for a variety of reasons, instead of acquiring a direct perception for themselves.
Now, 'IF' there's some validity to this point, how might that impact the approach we take?
And if this root issue isn't clear, do we know if our approach will be adequately addressing this root problem, or just "re-arranging the deck chairs?"
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
Well... I just returned from a brief foray to the coast; a combination of business, and pleasure... More 'muted' an experience than last year, but good, nonetheless--.
Now I'm back to a bit of procrastinating my pointless production treadmill, by posting 'here'...
Getting by in this 'modern' world --let alone the 'glory of American life'-- compromises us, every day.
Could it be that 'non-action' is 'required'?
Posts: 5740 | Location: Exile | Registered: 24 March 2003
#2 - I agree that action is required, but I suggest that the "understanding" is lacking to produce a response which is greater than the current level of understanding is actually producing. The level of response simply reflects the underlying thinking/understanding.
In pointing out to someone that their entire daily existence depends on energy, where does that point connect with their understanding (assuming of course that it's even true)?
Does the action of turning the dial on a thermostat thereby automatically setting the temperature to a comfortable level in a modern suburban home correlate with the oil that comes from the Middle East and the systemic violence in that part of the world?
What does it take for a person turning that thermostat to be concerned about such connections and imagine all the underlying issues, including the entire philosophy of their government and economic system?
As long as people are comfortably sitting in their living rooms watching the version of reality produced by corporate media on their televisions after a long day of struggling into their cars, pushing the garaged door opener/closer buttons, driving through dangerous and heavy traffic to a heated or cooled office, then struggling back to their homes in the suburbs, why should they bother with the ""understanding" that is lacking to produce a response which is greater than the current level of understanding is actually procucing"? They are tired and the micro wave popcorn and refreshing cold beverage from the refrigerator tastes good.
Chris asked me this question:
quote:
Change is lurking on the horizon; when economic change hits, a new wave of consciousness will take root. Will that be enough?
My response was this:
quote:
On the other hand, when people have to get involved on a daily basis with where their next meal might come from, or how to keep the house warm, there can be a direct relationship with consciousness. I have to worry about having seasoned wood well in advance, for instance, makes some difference in consciousness.
It's a kind of Marxian-based economic relationship answer, or philosophically it's a Sartre-an existential one, in which the participants of a democracy fashion their ideological as well as actual world through direct articulation of their environment. The wealthy/Capitalists/neocons are free to play with non reality based vision because of the detachment of their wealth from their daily activities, which can rely on the reality based workers to make functional while they play with the world at a different level.
What is "actually going on", as Howard likes to say, is intimately and internally how that mental map/territory is fashioned moment to moment for each person. Can one of us ever change that reality another experiences for that someone else? Ever try to get someone to consider something they are not the slightest bit interested in? Howard. I know you have. I watched your pointless struggle with GG.
Hello Ren - I honestly don't know to what extent I may be able to contribute to a change in understanding for another person, especially if they appear to be very attached to their views.
What I do seem to know is that some approaches seem less problematical than others. Generally speaking, a friendly relationship seems much more conducive to sharing understanding than an adversarial approach.
Plus, regardless of whether I know anyone will truly listen to, or consider, what I suggest, it still seems clear that when a person perceives some potential danger that it needs calling attention to.
Now, even though I don't know to what extent I will be able to do this, I do seem to know that people have told me that something I said on many occassions has led to a change in the way they understood something. And, I also see how things other people say has an affect on my understanding as well. So I seem to know that this can happen, I just have no clear way of knowing the extent that it will or won't.
And please forgive me if I'm telling you something you already know. My intent is simply to share my internal perspective with regard to your question.
With regard to the GG communication, I suspect that "pointless" is a good word to describe any attempt anyone would make to try and change her deeply-held Catholic views, but I don't think that was all that was going on in our conversation. For one thing, I familiarized myself in greater depth with the issues. I feel there may have been some possible minor dent in any views she might have held about whether liberals had any good points to make on the issues. I think I may have also added a few small pieces to her limited view of the issue (maybe not). Over-all, it didn't seem like a very productive use of my energy, but I was curious to see what might transpire despite my reservations about the likelihood of any real understanding occuring.
Back to the issue...
This is how it seems to me: Regardless of how difficult it is to facilitate change another persons understanding, that's still the task before anyone who wishes to work toward fundamental change.
And to my observation, we are learning from one another in a similar fashion constantly. In fact, that seems to be how much of our human learning occurs. We hear something, and we either consider it or dismiss it. And if we find it interesting we look into it further. What I understand personally seems to be a collage of what my parents, teachers, friends, and acquaintances said to me, along with what I read and experienced on my own. Most of which was in the form of someone suggesting something. So regardless of whether we know how effective it might be, itseems to be the manner in which humans frequently learn.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
Just wanted to say, in response to your "now back to the issue..." that I had some notion what I was saying did address the issue, as did what you said in return.
What exactly is the meaning of fundamental change here? Is it seeing something fundamental in society or oneself? What is it to "work towards" it, whatever "it" may even be?
I agree that something seems to occur for me in these exchange of words here in cyberspace and elswhere, and it occurs both in listening and maybe even more in efforts to create words in response of my own, because of my own internal process that has it's own learning to learn consciousness. Each of us has our own characteristic way of presenting ideas and it's extremely fascinating to me to try to "look into" the grammar and syntax to see the non words out of which some of these ideas actually emerge sometimes. Other times it's sometimes possible to see that the words are prepackaged formulas used as boilerplate in a given circumstance. It's especially fascinating when I discover one of those prepackaged formulas are one of my own (an early one was "centered around"). One could just as well be talking to a computer in some instances, it seems, that works on some preprogrammed version of stimulous response. I find some real challenges in those situations to try to get past them to something deeper. I generally fail.
Re: What exactly is the meaning of fundamental change here? Is it seeing something fundamental in society or oneself? What is it to "work towards" it, whatever "it" may even be?
**I was using the word to refer to a "significant change." One that most people voicing discontent with the current lack of what they perceive as an adequate response to our serious challenges would perhaps view as an appropriate response. To use the issue in this thread, it would mean a change from the current lack of adequate action to a situation where, let's say, Chris would feel is an appropriate response. Which appears to be a "significant" change from the current level of response.
Or you might say: a change from people mostly resisting change to a situation where most people are more open to altering their views when faced with contrary facts.
With regard to whether it involves something fundamental in society or oneself, I'd say "both". But it seems to me that the only place one can directly see the root of this disorder with real certainty is in oneself. But that clarity, I suspect, would also involve the understanding that this process observed in oneself is essentially the same process occuring in other human beings in the society.
With regard to: What is it to "work towards" it, I'd say that it involves using an approach which is conducive to learning. One which encourages people to 'look for themselves'.
The "it" in this case would be a significant change in how humans in general respond to serious challenges. And it would be addressing the root causes rather than investing most of the energy at the symptom-level. Symptom-level responses bring about limited change, and a root level approach can lead to significant/fundamental change...to my understanding.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
I appreciate reading your point of view to my questions, but you know, I see that I could keep deconstructing with questions endlessly. Or I could just say Great! I suspect -- from hard earned experience -- there's a point where questions can stop and there is awareness of a kind of state of "no answer". Just an opening up to space, a sense of translucent seeing apart from the self constructed internal reality. That's where I prefer to be most of the time, just seeing; it's so peaceful! Know what I mean? I honestly do not know how to have a serious discussion about fundamental change. It's a mystery. I really wish I could discover an approach conducive to learning. For instance, I'm trying everything I can to get across then underlying features of this rather complex idea I ran across recently called the Unitary Executive Theory. No matter what I do, a couple of guys seem to be stuck on the notion I'm accusing Bush of being another Hitler. I'm not, I'm just trying to get the legal structural facts out so they can be examined objectively, but, well, that's not how it seems to them anyway, I guess.
Ren - I was pondering again this morning your question of what I mean by "fundamental change". When I use that term in response to another person making some sort of statement which seems to 'perhaps' imply a serious failure with regard to a serious challenge, I'm usually referring to a fundamental or significant change in that specific situation the person is referring to.
If I were to pick one area that I think would be a fundamental change, it would be this one:
A change from most of humanity thinking of themselves as an individual first, which is living in a larger whole, to the perspective that we are actually aspects of one whole, first, and experience ourselves as relatively separate.
But now I'd like to ask you a question. I was a little surprised that no one had responded since my last post. And it seems that this thread has taken a familiar path to many of my previous conversations where the issue of "root cause" arises, or when I raise the issue of "thought being the root."
Granted, this lull in participation may be due mostly to people's busy schedules, or some other good reason. But I still can't help but wonder...it seems.
Here's the question: What do you see in this issue of exploring the root causes of disorder that doesn't seem to be of much interest to more people?
My understanding is that the core issue of the disorder we observe has to do with 'human thought', and specifically 'incoherent thought'. But whenever I raise this issue, it seems to fall flat...to some degree. David Bohm suggested that 'thought says it's just reporting the facts', that it's not influencing the perspective'. Which means that humans generally 'think that thought couldn't possibly be the problem'. And that certainly would lead people to conclude that it would be a waste of time to examine what thought is doing.
The most common response I've gotten over the years when I've suggested that the problem is "in thought", has been: "You can't get rid of thought." But that's not the suggestion. The suggestion is simply to observe what thought is doing. In that way incoherence can be observed and corrected.
So I guess I'm also asking what your perception of this situation is? And, how does one call attention to this situation of addressing the root rather than the symptoms in a manner which will communicate clearly it's significance?
Or, if you think the whole notion of thought being at the root of this disorder is bunk...why?
Or if you think the way I raise the issue sucks, how & why?
Thanks.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
You've raised the issue in a way I think I can join you with some thoughts. Further thoughts, however, must wait a bit, because real life has called out for attention today!
So just a brief note, perhaps what I was alluding to in my quick post you may have missed just before you posted yours (it alludes to a bit of a puzzle of its own about my own internal observations about thought): I can say this after years of interest in the topic, my own thoughts do not seem to originate with words. I have a sense of a whole which includes feelings, and then as I pay attention and examine, I "discover" words (that's the best I can do to describe it), and the words articulate a kind of structure to the seeing. They also sometimes take shape in a conversational format with an imagined other(s) so that a dialectic emerges, which creates a sense of thoughts "rolling" themselves along. I enjoy this sometimes on long walks.
Ren, Howard, interesting conversation. Contrary to what you may think Howard, I sometimes find your dialouge with others very enlightening. Sometimes I think you are Socrates reincarnated.
Some traditions seek to train the mind to observe "thoughts" - what some call the inner dialouge - rather than allowing the mind and the egoic state to assert itself. No doubt a good thing.
While these methods result in the mind dropping the endless "internal chatter" and "conceptualizing" for the sake of entering a state of pure experiential awareness independent of any thought whatsoever. Such is the goal of all spirituality/mysticism.
Different schools of Buddhism use these methods along with the Toltec's, and the contemplative prayer methods of the Desert Fathers. In Judaism, different forms of meditation may take practitioners to direct experience. The goal is pure awareness which shatters the egoic state.
Regardless of the uselessness of conceptualizations and rationalization, we can observe environmental degradation. It seems to me that we need to also cut through the endless lip-service liberals and "new age seekers" bring to the dance.
While I do not go to many conferences these days, in years past, I did. One of the best of those happened about fourteen years ago, put on by the students of Prescot College. The Prophetic voice of the speakers was profound and insightful; about four hundred people attended that conference on Earth Wisdom. Those that drove to the conference, filled a parking lot with SUV's, and other gas guzzlers.
It is long past time to name hypocrisy for what it is. Do these conferences represent nothing more than fashion?
However one chooses to approach various egoic states, good intentions, and wishful thinking are not going reverse these problems. The only thing that will reverse these problems is people waking up (and rather quickly!) and start to live their lives in a very different way then they currently do. If your method gets them there, Howard, then I salute you!
Whatever we do, we better do it fast, because we are standing at the precipice.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
My personal 'precipice' feels more like being stuck in the mudflats of 'interpersonal' and beaurocratic BS, while the incoming tide approaches, relentlessly...
Not too long, now...
Posts: 5740 | Location: Exile | Registered: 24 March 2003
Ren - You're correct, I missed the earlier response while I was composing my second one.
Re: it's so peaceful! Know what I mean?
**Yes. As a side-note, awhile back you recommended the book the Guru Papers. Unfortunately the local library didn't have a copy, and I've already spent my limit on books for the moment. So the other day I was googling Joel Kramer and came up with an excerpt from the book called "The Holistic Path." I'd never heard of Kramer, despite all the books I've read, but apparently he's been around for awhile talking about some interesting stuff. The Holistic Path
Yes, I know what you mean, but "returning to the market place" seems to be the necessity, under the circumstances, most of the time.
Re: I really wish I could discover an approach conducive to learning.
**I suspect you are referring to an approach which seems 'much more effective' than the one's we are currently aware of? I'd like to find such a thing as well, but I'm simply referring to some significant differences in the current approaches which I feel we could easily see, provided we're interested in looking at them.
For example: What percentage of people do you guestimate are using an 'adversarial' approach? The exact percentage probably isn't important, but my observation is that it's a large percentage. And I suggest it would be a significant or fundamental change if more humans shifted away from the adversarial approach to a cooperative exploratory approach, because the latter is much more conducive to learning.
And my observation is that an environment conducive to learning is one which removes, 'as much as possible', the fear of personal judgment. And if our actions make people fearful of being judged, then we are basically hindering the creation of that 'safe, learning environment'. I'm not aware of any environment that will guarantee learning, but we can create an environment which is more conducive to learning, by our actions, by moving away from the adversarial approach...it seems to me.
Re: No matter what I do, a couple of guys seem to be stuck on the notion I'm accusing Bush of being Hitler. I'm not, I'm just trying to get the legal structural facts out so they can be examined...
**I can sure relate to that.
Your "sense of the whole" sounds interesting. The reason I seem to focus on the words, or more specifically "thought", is because that's where the incoherence appears to be. And by 'thought' I mean the whole thought/feeling process.
Looking forward to your further thoughts.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
Chris - Thanks for the kind words. Usually I think of David Bohm & J. Krishnamurti as the biggest influences on my perspective, but I may not have encountered either one of them had I not found the brief encounter with Socrates teachings in an early junior college class. It seems that the phrase "Know thyself" lodged itself into my memory banks way back then. Once I got really serious about playing guitar everything else took a back seat. Then when I became a father and realized I was clueless about being a father, I began my period of "excessive reading". When I picked up my first K book I was specifically looking to find out how to 'know myself'. Practically every sentence in that first K book (Freedom From the Known) seemed to be asking: "Isn't this you? Isn't this you?" It was precisely what I was looking for, a clear explanation of observing oneself as clearly as might be humanly possible. A 'direct perception' of oneself, rather than second-hand theories.
Your examples of "dropping the endless chatter", and entering some 'other state' reminded me of the difference between what K calls "mediation" and the many other ways of defining meditation. I'm not suggesting to end chatter or to enter a different state. I'm suggesting what K called a "choiceless awareness of what is". Basically a 'TAO approach'. Don't resist what is or try to change it. The clarity which then occurs when we 'stay with what is' will reveal the proper response. A response which stems from clarity rather than existing beliefs & opinions. The suggestion is not to do away with thought, but rather to see it's actual nature. If the actual nature is clear, the beliefs & opinions are no longer mistaken for something they aren't. In other words, the understanding puts them "in their proper place." They no longer can induce a person to fight and kill over these concepts when it's clear what they actually are, concepts, not an actuality (the map is not the territory).
Or atleast...that's my experience & understanding of it.
Re: However one chooses to approach various egoic states....
**If we were to go much deeper into the root causes of the disorder we see, I suggest that it would eventually require a questioning of this notion of "choice". This idea that most humans seem to share that "people should know better" or that "they could choose to act otherwise" is based on the idea that this "self-image" (the chooser) can stand outside of our existing knowledge & understanding and choose to act in a manner different than the understanding we actually have. And that's based on the belief that this 'chooser' is something more than thought, or something 'concrete or real'. But I suggest that a deeper investigation would prove this to be false.
I suggest that this change in understanding would have a profound affect on our approach. Basically it would remove the mistaken notion that "people should know better", which would free us to focus on understanding the issue clearly rather then giving energy to resisting the reality that people only know what they know, at that particular moment.
My perception is also one of great urgency. But I don't think we can afford to ignore the root issues if we are going to respond adequately, to some significant extent. We need to keep acting in whatever way we feel we can, but we also need to address the root or it will continue to produce more and more problems. A surface approach just won't produce any real change.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
So Howard, Chris, Ren, et al – we’re looking for the “root causes”, and looking at thought and the thought process, am I correct? And we do this so that we may better understand others’ perceptions so then that we might better ‘teach’ without being rejected outright at the onset of ‘instruction’, am I correct? This because we see a dire situation of the consequences of human overaction (overuse, depletion…) upon the environment, yes?
I must say that I pretty much agree with most all of what’s been said so far, and I am intrigued by the thoughts on thought; I, too, spend some time just ‘being’ – ignoring the impulse to form words within my ‘head’, and allow myself to just ‘be’…heh-heh, it feels like ‘art’…
It is also interesting that you guys continue to bandy about the word ‘feelings’; why would that be?
Look at the animals about you: they appear to accept the world around them, they accept (or do they ignore? I have considered that, but it doesn’t seem correct that the spider ignores the wind) the non-threatening creatures, vegetation and minerals around them, but do quickly respond with the ‘fight or flight’ response as they perceive physical danger. And the animals we might consider to be more complex – of ‘higher intelligence’, perhaps – are their actions of acceptance and response to danger more complex as well, but still their primary reaction to be of acceptance/fight-or-flight? Would the human animal, with all his complexity of intellect, would he really be any different?
So, to me, it seems there are two primal responses – instincts, if you will – by a living thing to the world it inhabits; acceptance (unconditional acceptance) or fear for the self’s physical protection (survival). For ease of conversation I label these primal instincts Love (with a capital L to signify it is the emotion of unconditional acceptance, full acceptance of a thing just because it is) and Fear (with a capital F to signify that it is the emotion designed for physical protection of the self, the emotion that elicits the ‘fight-or-flight’ response).
I believe the human creature, like all other living things with a central nervous system, to use these emotions in his response to the world. And because of the curse of his complexity of intellect – his ability to think – he uses these emotions to evaluate and respond to his inner self as well. Yes, I believe human thought (and all that a human does) springs forth from these two primal instincts, or emotions. I think that there, folks, is where the root lies – in the primal human emotions of Love and Fear. All thought, all politics, all interaction, all perceptions of self bubble up from those two wells.
I’m sure you’re sitting there rejecting this, using intellect and reason to formulate a counter-argument, but, may I ask, why? When you sit in a mind-clearing state, what are you attempting, really, to do? To clear your mind of words so that you might find yourself in a state of pure acceptance? And when you are formulating your reasoning, postulating your ideas – what are you feeling?
I’ve only scratched the surface of exploring emotions myself, and I’ve put up some stuff here you folks are very likely not going to agree with – and maybe even dislike – and now I have to tell you I’m leaving town for a week and will be out of communication during that time…sorry about that…but I felt I needed to respond with my thoughts on the very root of all our ‘problems’…
-Mark.
------------------------------ "In a big country dreams stay with you like a lover's voice across the mountainside" - Big Country
Posts: 872 | Location: Western edge of the continent | Registered: 04 October 2003
Re: And we do this so that we may better understand others perceptions so then that we might better 'teach' without being rejected outright at the onset of 'instruction', am I correct?
**My suggestion is to explore the root so that one is clear about what one is faced with. If a specific goal is desired when examining something, that desire will tend to hinder a clear understanding...it seems to me.
I would suggest that the reason we would do such an exploration would be to: Better understand the situation so that one can address it as wisely as possible.
I don't know if I'd use the word 'teach', but I suspect a clear understanding of something would facilitate being able to more accurately describe any insights that may occur regarding the root issues to our fellow human beings. If it's clear in our mind, then we can communicate it more clearly.
After one reaches a clearer understanding, and one realizes that the challenge will require other humans cooperation as well, then communicating clearly and not being "rejected outright" would seem to be also something the person would be interested in. But understanding how to communicate clearly seems to be a slightly different issue than the root of why we are destroying the planet. It may involve the same barrier (ego/thought) to effective action, but still slightly different.
Re: the word 'feelings'
**I understand feelings and thought to be aspects of one process. 'Not actually separate', but identified in thought as being two different "things". If a person 'thinks' "nobody loves me", they "feel" that way. If they think "my wife is cheating on me", that has a particular feeling. If I think the plane is going to crash and "I" am going to die, I "feel fear."
Regarding the issue of how animals and spiders and humans respond, generally speaking, I think the human response is similar to other living species but differs with regard to how complex thought affects this process...that's my observation anyway.
Regarding the "primal instincts" of Love (unconditional acceptance) & Fear, the emotion that elicits the 'fight-or-flight' response, my observation of these two instincts is that the first one seems to function extremely well (no significant problems involved), and the second one, in the case of human beings, has some "incoherent thought" mixed in the process that is producing incoherent responses.
Plus, I'd like to mention how I use the word "fear" slightly different than the more commonly-accepted definition you appear to be using.
I use the word 'fear' to refer to 'irrational thought'. Let me attempt an explanation:
If I step off a curb and I then see a bus speeding towards me, if I have knowledge of "what that means", the dots will be connected and I'll jump back out of the way.
I call that "intelligence" (connecting the dots) rather than fear.
Once I've stepped out of the path of the speeding bus succsessfully, then "thought" comes in and 'defines' what just happened. "Oh my God, "I" (the self-image), could have been killed!"
That's where "fear" enters, the way I'm defining the word. And the fear is in relation to a self-image that might have been killed, not the body (even though the image is identified with the body). I call it 'irrational' because the fear is about a conceptual identity which is being confused for something concrete.
Regarding where the root lies, I think the root is found in the operation of these instincts, but the instincts aren't the problem. The 'root of the disorder' is the incoherent thought which is leading to responses which won't produce the desired results.
Incoherent thoughts like: "I'm separate, and what I do is my own business." And: "I'm not destroying the planet." "You're just a Malthusian". Or: "Your a wacko, what could you possibly know." If the thinking is incoherent it will over-ride or interfere with a wiser response or instinct.
I'm not rejecting what you say, I'm suggesting we go deeper into the nature of what's going on with those instincts to determine where they don't seem to be producing an adequate response, and why? And my observation is that incoherent thought is causing the inadequate response. Instead of "an unconditional observation of what life is doing", thought is coming in and saying: "I already have the answer". But thought coming from memory can't possibly know the present moment, or the full complexity of the present situation, it's "limited memory." So it's incoherent for humans to think we already have the answer, instead of giving full attention to "what is now".
That's my observation.
Sorry to hear you're going out of town now. You usually bring in some great insight.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
...and we're still trying to 'understand' how the complex electro-chemical interactions and reactions within our mind/body(s) create these concepts and 'perceptions'... (or not).
Posts: 5740 | Location: Exile | Registered: 24 March 2003
#!*@ - The biology or physiology might prove fascinating, but I suggest a more useful exploration, for anyone wondering about why we respond or don't respond adequately to destroying the planet, would be to observe our own thought to see what exactly it's doing, and whether it's functioning coherently? How the organism actually produces thought seems to be a slightly different issue.
It seems pretty clear that most people don't intend to destroy the planet, but that seems to be what's happening. So the thinking is incoherent, because it's telling us we aren't destroying the planet. That's inherence in thought, not in what makes thought possible...it seems to me.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
Personally I did a huge amount of painting, constructing, building and moving and suprising myself and my own alleged intellect tonight when I managed to reinstall my internet connection which enabled me to go online even though the people of my adsl-server told me I'd be offline for at least three weeks due to the move.
Which made me quite proud of myself
As for what else I did which contributed to a more broad spiritual awareness: Not much as such. But it was all the more contributing to my own spiritual awareness so I guess that accounts for something, doesn't it?
I love reading everyone's contributions to this thread. Thanks Christopher, my love, for posting it
Posts: 1927 | Location: pending | Registered: 18 December 2004
Yes, we are very much alike. Now, if we can just convince a few billion more to love their mother, and take one small step away from consumption and toward respect...
Christopher - I am a few billion others as well as I am someone who loves her mother(s) and who takes one small step away from consumption and towards respect.
Maybe that in itself will help to create a different universe, maybe it won't. Personally I choose the planet as it is, as she resembles me, imperfect and wrong in every way. Close (or passed the point of no return) to destruction as well as the most amazing (re) creations I can conjure up.
Life is Me, in all aspects of being. Therefore I choose what I Am and was destined to be as will this planet.
Unless we won't be
This message has been edited. Last edited by: usha,
Posts: 1927 | Location: pending | Registered: 18 December 2004
"We have brought up the question of the society and the culture which is suppressing all these things, creating all this smog (disorder). The trouble is not primarily originating with the individual, nor is the individual able to handle it entirely by himself. The individual change has tremendous importance; but even if he did change, the change would still have limited meaning. We would still have this whole culture carrying on with the smog. Therefore, unless the whole culture is changed it's not going to have all that deep a meaning. Fundamentally, the whole question of identity, self-image, repression, assumptions, and all that, is rising in the culture, which is 'shared meaning'. We share all that; it comes in. We may reject some of it and accept some of it, but even to be able to do that is part of the culture. That's all the system. And the culture underlies the system."
"Just as thought separates the self into the subject and the object, into the observer and the observed - which is all one process - so thought separates people. But when people are really in communication, in some sense a oneness arises between them as much as inside the person."
David Bohm, Thought As A System
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
This idea that most humans seem to share that "people should know better" or that "they could choose to act otherwise" is based on the idea that this "self-image" (the chooser) can stand outside of our existing knowledge & understanding and choose to act in a manner different than the understanding we actually have. And that's based on the belief that this 'chooser' is something more than thought, or something 'concrete or real'. But I suggest that a deeper investigation would prove this to be false.
I suggest that this change in understanding would have a profound affect on our approach. Basically it would remove the mistaken notion that "people should know better", which would free us to focus on understanding the issue clearly rather then giving energy to resisting the reality that people only know what they know, at that particular moment.
My perception is also one of great urgency. But I don't think we can afford to ignore the root issues if we are going to respond adequately, to some significant extent. We need to keep acting in whatever way we feel we can, but we also need to address the root or it will continue to produce more and more problems. A surface approach just won't produce any real change.
Howard,
Excuse me for not articulating my ideas adequately. Contrary to the point above, it was not my intention to lecture anyone about "knowing better." The idea was to name hypocracyfor what it is. These two contexts are completely different in my eyes and does not contradict the point you are making.
People make choices emerging out of a complex matrix of developmental issues that extends from childhood to adualthood.
Here are some other views on the scope of what it means to "understand."
quote:
Undeerstanding comes through suffering. Aeschyus
Sigmund Freud had this to say:
quote:
Life, as we find it, is too hard for us; it brings too many pains, disappointments and impossible tasks. In order to bear it we cannot dispense with palliative measures.... There are perhaps three such measuress: powerful distractions, which cause us to make light of our misery; substitutive satisfaction, which diminish it; and intoxicating substances, which make us insensitive to it.
It seems to me that we need a comprehensive approach and understanding of these issues which merge social dynamics, observations of the quantum state (I believe the point you are making about "thought"), pschological knowledge, and radicalism - meaning "root" from the Latin radix.
A number of radical thinkers in psychology like Kovel, Ingleby, Jacoby, Lasch, Breggin, Cushman, and Prilelltensky accuse the cultural mainstream of being an instrument of social confomity; of propping up an oppressive ideological status quo; of obscuring the sociocultural and political origins of psychological angst by adopting and refortifying patriarchal models which perpetuate violence in the modern world. Freud suggested that "demonic terror" sits at the heart (or root) of the modern mind and he further demonstrated that "individual neurosis is a response to brutal social conditions." Furthermore, Marx suggested that "psychotherapy has in some respects been even more successful than religion in deflecting energy away from the need for radical social change." In this regard Krueger writes, "it is one of the ironies of contemporary psychology is that it fails to demonstrate a concern with the problem of man, that it allows its views of reality to be dictated to it by technology and its concomitant social structures, that it has hardly any historic dimension, that it is oblivious to the problematic past and blind to the agonies of the future."
Fisher notes that the central message of critical psychology is "the organization of society affects the organization of psyche" and "psychologists uncritically participate in, and so reinforce, many oppressive aspects of our society which themselves contribute to psychic suffering."
In terms of the social/ecological crisis we are now facing, these problems will not be solved merely by exploring the nature of thought alone, but ought to encompass a wider - some might say - integral approach. The next leap in human conciousness will not take place while issues of justice, power, and emancipation go ignored. Fisher further argues, and convincingly so, "that we discuss at the same time the violent social conditions that make a depersonalized self the more likely reality for most of us. Among those who do speak directly to social issues, there is nonetheless a tendency to reduce these to the outward manifestations of our inner state of consciousness, rather than to consider how socioeconomic and political forces themselves contribute to that inner condition."
With regards to the social condition and dysfunctional consumption patterns, Sarah Conn has suggested that the DSM be revised to include such diagnoses as "materialistic disorder," i.e., the need to consume. While I agree with the insight Conn offers, the dubiousness of the DSM is not without a polemic. The DSM has been used as a tool by psychotherapists to oppress people by medicalizing them and labeling them deviant, thereby serving the dominant power structure. And Kovel writes that the "age old dream of science , that of total control of man over nature, embodied here in the endless proliferation of categories, lists and decision trees, becomes thereby an instrument of domination."
Your approach Howard represents one line linking the wheel, but needs other lines of inquiry to complete it. That is not a repudiation of your approach, just a limitation of it, as all approaches also have their weak points and their strong points.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
I need to take exception to the way people understand the term "survival" in the modern world. It has been used to define a group of people who join together in militias, and then sit back to await armageddon. That is not how I use the term, nor is it the way I understand it.
Indigenous people who still live in traditional ways understand survival as the art of revering, giving back to the whole, and maintaining a reciprocal relationship with nature. The heart of survival practices not only provide the continuation of life, but does so by the fundamental act of respect for all life. One does not take anything without recognizing first a respect for everything! This is very different than the way First Peoples treat the earth as a category for the benefit of the "me" plan.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
Re: I really wish I could discover an approach conducive to learning.
**I suspect you are referring to an approach which seems 'much more effective' than the one's we are currently aware of? I'd like to find such a thing as well, but I'm simply referring to some significant differences in the current approaches which I feel we could easily see, provided we're interested in looking at them.
To be candid, Howard, it was you who first used the term in this phrase: "an approach which is conducive to learning" in response to my question of what you meant by working towards a fundamental change in society or oneself. I wasn't really associating it with anything in particular when I made that somewhat offhand and even slightly sarcastically depressed remark. I actually don't have much hope in a broad based effort at fundamental societal change with any of the strategies "we are currently aware of." If I see anything possible, it's what might occur in pockets here and there, we identified it as rhyzomic community growth in the Bhopal thread, where a kind of participatory democratic action at a local level creates an underground connection of survival strategies (more along the lines that Chris just mentioned) in the face of what many individuals perceive as societal long term insanity of mal adaption to the planet. It's as much in the doing as the conceptualizing that awareness change occurs in these communitarian settings. I don't know if this is what you mean by an "adversarial approach" but in terms of going with the flow of global economic trends, it would certainly seem adverse.
In general I admire your effort to develop a dialectical approach -- Socratic, as Chris said -- to raising consciousness in a shared communication process. My suspicion is it requires a constant process of learning on your part as you experience what's going on and find challenges that require innovation, along with the often prayed for and seldom returned epiphanies of shared understanding in the process. I think that's about as close as one can get to experienctial learning here in cyberspace. Though focusing on the words is necessary, since we have nothing else, approaching it with your: "And by 'thought' I mean the whole thought/feeling process" at least one person in the conversation is trying to bring the holistic process to the screen. I think we can all recognize when an honest effort is not being attemped from the keyboard at the other end, or when that effort is just hopelessly constrained by extremely rigidly held preconceptions.
Something struck me recently in regards to what Chris was just talking about in terms of indigenous survival values and what might be thought of as our complex societal values in this capitalist based society.
quote:
Chris: Indigenous people who still live in traditional ways understand survival as the art of revering, giving back to the whole, and maintaining a reciprocal relationship with nature. The heart of survival practices not only provide the continuation of life, but does so by the fundamental act of respect for all life. One does not take anything without recognizing first a respect for everything! This is very different than the way First Peoples treat the earth as a category for the benefit of the "me" plan.
Capitalism itself depends on a fundamental societal belief in property. Earlier Howard linked this interview with Vine Deloria: How science ignores the living world
While I believe the title is short suiting some of science, the point is made more generically to westernized belief structures which I saw well articulated this way:
quote:
Jensen: What would you say is the fundamental difference between the Western and indigenous ways of life? Deloria: I think the primary difference is that Indians experience and relate to a living universe, whereas Western people - especially scientists - reduce all things, living or not, to objects. The implications of this are immense. If you see the world around you as a collection of objects for you to manipulate and exploit, you will inevitably destroy the world while attempting to control it. Not only that, but by perceiving the world as lifeless, you rob yourself of the richness, beauty, and wisdom to be found by participating in its larger design.
Deloria goes on to say more, of course, and it's well worth reading, but the above statement referring to the "objectification" process contrasted with an imagery of poetic richness of immersion in life struck me as a "fundamental" if you will. It happened that just when I read that, I'd been through a little excercise in what struck me as exposure to the absurdity of objectifications. To experience it, you need to go to this link and watch a little video:
I have much to say about this, or more accurately, to wonder, but I'd like some others to have at least looked at it before I take off (if they haven't already, it was linked by someone on the economics forum, I don't want to call attention to who here, that's not my point). Always wondered how someone could come up with the notion that property was an inalienable right.
Chris - Your response brought out another reason to my awareness about why I feel making any of these issues goes 'off-track' when it becomes personal.
While it's true I was responding to what you said, what I was actually responding to was "my impression" of what you had said. This is another side of "The Map is Not the Territory" issue.
The reality is that this is what we each have to work with in conversation with each other. We each make 'our' interpretation of what the other person is saying, and we respond to that interpretation, which isn't always an accurate representation of what they are suggesting.
When I make a response it's very clear to me that I really don't know for certain exactly what another person knows or doesn't know. I wasn't suggesting you were lecturing. I do get the impression sometimes that you may think people should be acting other than they are, but I realize I really don't know if that's an accurate perception or not. But that 'guestimate' is what I responded to. Another reason that such a perception seems 'possibly accurate' to me is that it's such a common human behavior. It seems to be a ubiquitous aspect of human thought.
It's interesting that you brought up the issue of hypocrisy. One of my closest and wisest friends also feels hypocrisy is the important issue here. But my concern, as usual is about addressing it effectively. And to my understanding that means non-personally, or systemically. And looking at your opening post, that seems to be the nature of your approach.
Re: In terms of the social/ecological crisis we are now facing, these problems will not be solved merely by exploring the nature of thought alone, but ought to encompass a wider - some might say - integral approach.
**And I would agree with that, as I'm not saying only exploring thought is all that is needed. But I'll elaborate below.
Re: Your approach Howard represents one line linking the wheel, but needs other lines of inquiry to complete it.
**I suggest that a better way to look at this is that 'all' of the spokes in the wheel have 'thought' as their central structure. They all have that common nature. And if that common nature is more clearly understood, if affects 'all' of the other issues within the integral appoach. Yes, absolutely, it's a complex situation we face, but each of these situations (wheel spokes) has this common character to it. They are each resistant to change largely because of the confusion or incoherence in thought involved. If that nature is seen clearly, it doesn't just affect one spoke, it affects all of the spokes. That doesn't mean that it will then eliminate all differences of opinion. It just means that a greater degree of openness to looking at all of the issues together could then occur, to the extent that people stop confusing their abstract ideas for concrete reality.
This is similar to many other issues in life. Take 'fear' for instance. We can either go to the root of fear, see it's structure, and realize that all it's manifestations have a similar structure and deal with it - or -we can go around endlessly dealing with each variation of it's manifestation and treat it as something unique. And, as soon as we fix one manifestation, another one pops up, because the root is still intact.
Quite honestly, I don't feel it will be easy to get people to look at this. It seems about as appealing to people as letting go of all of ones concepts in order to experience who one actually is. But regardless of the difficulty, if one wishes to get at the root of the disorder, and go beyond putting out fires and applying Band-Aids, it will require understanding the nature of thought more clearly than currently seems to be the case.
I'm not saying that's all we need to do, I'm just suggesting it's the root, and if we stay on the surface level, as is usually the case, then nothing will change in any significant way.
And I also think you made some really great points. I'm just trying to emphasize an important area that seems to continually lack adequate attention. I'm not saying that's all we need to do.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
Re: To be candid, Howard, it was you who first used the term...
**I'm not sure what difference who said this first has? I was merely trying to clarify how 'you' had perceived the statement, or how were you using it? And as we've touched on before, I'd hope you would continue to be "candid." I don't have much hope either, I'm just looking to see what degree is possible. Apparently I missed the sarcasm.
Re: the adversarial approach
**When I raise this issue it's almost always referring to the manner in which we are communicating with each other. It's not a referrence to having contrary views, it's just about how we address those differences...if that's what you were asking?
Re: a dialectical approach
**Thanks for the kind words. Your assessment was excellent. Yes, it requires a constant process of learning on my part, but that's probably one of the most enjoyable aspects of it, aside from the occasional connection that seems to occur. The not so great parts are when the attempts don't go so well, or when someone becomes convinced I'm being judgmental or arrogant. Obviously, I still have a great deal to learn about how to raise sensitive issues and avoid this misunderstanding of my intentions.
Now I'm going to look at your link on property ownership. Right now I'm half-way through down-loading shockwave so I can see it.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
Howard: I'm not sure what difference who said this first has?
I only meant to point it out with some humor that I was parroting back something you said with a bit of sardonic spin on my part. The dryness of these cyberspace conversations can be abominable at times.
Notable too is how I took your term "adversarial approach" in what might be a positive way.
in the face of what many individuals perceive as societal long term insanity of mal adaption to the planet.
... When I first read this 'mal adaption' I thought it was a misprint on 'male adaption'... Hehehe, I'm sure Riane Eisler would chuckle as well...
quote:
I'd been through a little excercise in what struck me as exposure to the absurdity of objectifications. To experience it, you need to go to this link and watch a little video:
I have much to say about this, or more accurately, to wonder, but I'd like some others to have at least looked at it before I take off (if they haven't already,
... Well, I better go look at it again then -I mean, just in case there's gonna be a quiz...
________________________ "... He who is swimming against the stream comes to the Source..." -Gottfried Muller
Posts: 901 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 17 June 2003
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Read-Only Topic
