>
>Replies Tom:
>
>Yes, it is the "either-or" nature of the dialectic that ties you up, friend.
>And don't hang up on semantics, either.
Dialectic: quantity into quality, interpenetration of opposites, negation
of negation. Where's the either-or? One thing we Marxies must continually
spend energy on--to our eternal frustration--is not the argument against
our position(s), but the effort to correct the perpetual misrepresentations
of those positions.
>
>You are mistaking "interdependence" with finality and direct 1-1 ratios. Ian
>Malcom's chaos theory notwithstanding, the storm on Manhattan Island is not
>directly dependent upon the flap of the wings of the chinese butterfly.
>What's involved here is NOT death of everything, NOT "the ecosphere as a
>whole destroyed"; but CHANGE of everything.
Very comforting. Very intellectual. Very detached. Hooray for you! Very
nice pose.
You must think continuums
>(continua?), not "either-or"; bell curves and the right-wall curve of
>evolution, not the total disappearance of the ecosphere. Worst case
>scenario: there will be SOME ecosphere supporting bacteria and roaches,
>despite us. (Biocentric viewpoints give us a handle to perhaps add to the
>list.) Most likely some "individual communities" will survive.
>
Academic quibbling. What do you propose we DO... NOW?
"Either-or", again Mark. You are arguing the "Perfect Storm" argument.
>The crash will not be perfect, not all communities will be wiped from the
>face of the planet. (It is a consequence-based argument in reality,
>different bioregions suffer different consequences.)
What do you propose we do? Now.
>
>You have also forgotten what you know about man's relation to nature and
>also what you know about evolution. Think about the word "adaptation" a bit
>and you will see both the problem and the solutions, ... locally ... one
>community (perhaps even one grandchild) at a time.
The speculative, detached academic pose. Very very nice. Youn know, of
course, that this is part of the problem and the antithesis of the solution.
>
>We can NOT save the totality, but we will NOT lose "everything".
>"Everything" will just CHANGE.
JUST!!! change? JUST!?!?!?
Just as one small example, for the first time
>in history the Inuit are seeing thunderstorms. This is not good for them
>unless they adapt. But they can .. and they will. Better than Wall Street
>will adapt.
>
>The ecosphere is not going away, it is merely changing ... and destroying
>civilization in the process. The more we understand about our
>interdependence, the more chance each of us has in our bioregion to preserve
>some part of humanity. NOT ALL humans are going to die, just most of them.
You sound as if this is okay with you. Are you willing to step up and be
first in line? Again, nice detachment.
>The Inuit understand their bioregion and the changes --, they stand a better
>chance of adaptation and survival. As a matter of fact the closer to nature
>you are, the better is your chance.
>
>It is those who depend upon civilization to feed them who are most at risk.
Who does NOT depend on civilization to feed them?
>The more you can focus on biocentric understanding, the better. The more you
>liberate youself and your community from that dependence upon the abberant
>culture we have constructed, the better. It will not be the Perfect Storm,
>just a very very bad one.
Quibble, quible, quibble. Okay, you proved your point. You're a really
smart intellectual. So maybe you can specifically explain how these
hypothetical communities can "liberate" themselves from dependence on the
surrounding society. I ask for this explanation humbly, as someone who
doesn't have any degrees, and has to look up some of the words on this list
in the dictionary. I'm not working in the academy... just in the world
where I can't see how this self-isolating community can happen.
>
>Some consequences can be dealt with.
>
>Some communities will benefit from climate change. (don't mistake that
>statement for overall approval!)
Can you be specific? Which communities and how? I dare you to back this
claim up with evidence.
>
>Many will die. One does not have to be among the dead.
All will die. And we will all eventually be among the dead. This is an
aspect of life. But your statement, even in the context within which it is
intended, is meaningless.
>
>Saving what we can of the ecosphere is intrinsically good, plus it helps us
>to perhaps save something of ourselves and restore the balance to status quo
>ante. (of course there are other alternatives other status quo, such as
>sitting back and watching it all fall down; but who wants a world with no
>elephants, Siberian tigers and whales? .... even if it's less than a few
>million of us there to witness.)
As a Marxie, I have to say your class origins are glaringly evident
throughout this entire studiously dispassionate discourse.
>
>We now know approximately how long we have, so we can look past the bars of
>our cage and save a bit of our culture, a positive bit, hopefully.
Better to think of how to construct an entirely new culture, I would think.
Where do you think this crisis emerged from?
>
>We have much to do.
Yes, and quibbling as a form of intellectual exhibitionism is high on the
"to do" list.
>
>Tom
>
>PS I know it often looks as though I am Red-baiting, but really I do NOT
>object to trying to establish class justice. I object to sticking one's head
>in the sand and whining a demand for the revolution before acting to save
>ANYthing, and I object to demanding class justice as a prerequisite to ...
>uh ... "ecospheric justice". It's all gotta work together, non?
The problem is rooted in a system. Get it? I've got some weeds in my
garden that proliferate underground through their roots. I can go out and
yank out every one of them--doing something now, so to speak--and the
garden looks very nice for about three days. Then they are all back up
again. We Reds aren't seeking class justice, an oxymoron at any rate. Any
reversal at all presupposes revolution.
Many so-called intellectuals (and I'm not anti-intellectual, by any means)
need to revist and think about the meaning of a simple word: necessity.
"If insurrection is an art, its main content is to know how to give the
struggle the form appropriate to the political situation."
-Vo Nguyen Giap
"Rather than seeking comparabilities in statistical terms among what are
all too often superficial features of different situations, comparabilities
must be sought at the level of determinate mechanisms, at the level of
processes that are generally hidden from easy view."
-Eleanor Burke Leacock
"Every day one has to struggle that this love to a living humanity
transform itself into concrete acts, in acts that serve as examples, as
motivation."
-Ernesto "Che" Guevara
"Mask no difficulties."
-Amilcar Cabral
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
