Nice post, Guy.
Guy wrote:
> I think that it is important to realize that nobody gives you power and,
> within reason, nobody can take your power away. Power is something you have
> by your very being and living and/or it is something you create in concert
> with others around you. But you can opt out of a situation and take your
> portion of the synergy away; the total is reduced by more than the amount
> of your contribution.
I agree that the power is inherant, that it is created and maintained by
concert with others, that you can choose not to use it, and that opting out
reduces the total by more than the amount contributed. But I also think
you can give your power away in the sense that you can knowingly,
unknowingling or through confused thinking support others or causes or
trends that you do not necessarily agree with, or might not if you saw the
whole picture. Unthinkingly going along with the crowd often falls into
this category. I think consumer support of large corporations also falls
into this category. If we could really see the end results of supporting
large, distant corprations versus locally owned modestly sized businesses,
we would choose to support the local ones instead. If the consequences of
our actions were more visible or understanable, we would choose different
actions. The scale on which our economies, societies and politics work are
so large that we can not really grasp what is going on. This leads to
appathy and a feeling of helplessness. Smaller scales and clearer thinking
are necessary.
Guy wrote:
> The second thing I see about the discussion of the powerlessness of the
> individual unless backed up by the masses is that it is not really true.
> Throughout history, as I read it, the vast majority of change whether
> "positive" or "negative" has been produced by individuals or, at the most,
> very small minorities.
I believe in all cases the individual was assisted by many others. Without
such assistance their effect would have been severely limited. Perhaps
"very small minorities" can effect change to some degree, but again it
seems to assume that at some point the rest go along with it.
Guy wrote:
> I think that, in general, 20 or 30% of the populace
> is all that is necessary for radical change. The majority of people are
> fairly inert when it comes to the broader workings of society. Many because
> it is all they can do to get through the demands of their lives right now;
> others because the force of inertia is simply too strong.
Sounds resonable, but again 20 or 30% is not an individual and still
assumes the cooperation of the rest at some point, even if that cooperation
is in the form of no resistance.
I like the river analogy.
Guy wrote in response to Mary:
> Now as far as having to leave the planet, I cannot see that this is
> necessary or even desirable. Why should we think that we can run away to
> another planet?
Leaving the planet sounds at least as unlikely as my vision of people
living quietly in our own communities. I won't go too far with this but,
let's say you move on to "somewhere" else, then what? What if there turns
out to be some "bad" people there too, do you leave for yet another place?
It sounds like running away from problems not dealing with them.
Guy wrote:
> The earth is pretty good at pruning things/beings that get too far
> out of synch with the environment. So are cultures, though at present it
> might not seem like it.
> Our current age of greed and avarice is the merest blink of an eye.
> Eventually the pendulum will swing in another direction.
I strongly agree. Since prunning will take place, don't we want to choose
which branches will remain and to stay on the branches that will remain?
Don't we want to reduce the effects of things that promote unwanted growth?
Guy wrote:
> Our choice is the
> way of the dinosaurs or something like pre-agricultural revolution or
> something utterly different. But we have some small influence on the
> direction of the pendulum and we ought to choose wisely and act.
I thought you just said that individuals and small minorities had a BIG
influence : )
Guy wrote:
> As I said in an earlier post, the trick is the balance. How to dig through
> the dirt of our lives and shine the light of truth and self-examination on
> our lives; work to build what we want, or think we want; help educate
> others that they have a choice and show them possible alternatives; while
> remaining flexible enough to move the mountain realizing that we may decide
> we put in the wrong place and have to move it all over again.
Well said.
Eric:
