Eric, i see in my last post too much use of the word "you"
which personalized it. Sorry, it is difficult for me to
juggle ideas and watch language at the same time.
Let's see... there were a bunch of leading questions <grin>
in your last post and my responses keep trying to go in a
different direction. I'm still trying to go in a different
direction.
Anyone who does not enjoy philosophical struggles might want
to skip this.
Eric:
>1) Are you saying that we should just do what we choose to do and let
>others do the same, without any intentional influence on others?
Your question tries to create two positions (dichotomy) and
assumes trying to find an answer would be useful to those
seeking a sustainable path. It also uses the word
"influence" which can consist of many things and is difficult
to define.
I think we have already agreed on ethics such as: "treat life
and earth as you want to be treated". Do we need to keep
expanding these ideas till we have volumes of guidelines
about how to handle each situation? I think this isn't
sustainable and leads to stagnation.
The idea that each site requires a unique solution may apply
here.
What if we said... We don't know all the answers at this
point. We have some clues. We need a flexible way to move
forward without bias that can grow and explore the path to a
sustainable future. It needs to include ways of passing
knowledge to others (education). For me this suggests a
process with the goal of sustainability.
I see this in many of the newer ideas about sustainability.
Permaculture, Bioregionalism, Deep Ecology, and my ravings
about paths are all process with feedback that adjust and
grow. They all accept limits and try to cycle with nature.
There is also the idea that one size does not fit everyone.
Each site is different. Bioregions are different. If an
area has excessive population then it might need to influence
people more than other areas. If we stay with process then
when the need for influence changes so does our behavior.
Laws do not get locked into place and we can develop cultural
ways to limit growth.
If someone called Eric just happened to be a teacher the best
influence method might combine their skills with the role of
teaching. They would be limited by societies rules and will
need to find a balance between the march of sustainable ideas
and the constant change of societies rules.
Someone who lived in the woods and hugged trees might write
daily thoughts and post them to an internet discussion list.
They would have a different environment and balance their
interests with what other people find interesting.
So, do these two people need common rules about how to
influence others. One person is in a teacher role and
society expects them to influence others. The other person
has few constraints from society and argues with trees. What
they share are rough ideas about sustainability and interest
in exploring. This could be viewed at a common process and
objective. It seems to work and avoids struggling with
issues that try to set levels of influence. The idea that we
need to influence others is another tricky assumption,
because we are the others. Some of our views are wrong and
we need to influence ourself. How would we like to be
influenced?
There is also the question of passing ideas and knowledge to
each generation, thus continuing the movement towards
sustainability. To me this gets into free exchanges of
information without cultural controls. Like nature this
would involve randomness and diversity. When you add things
like influence and pressure it gets more difficult to keep
the ideas objective and maintain the random diversity.
Today our choices are limited because of existing cultural
structures and our responses need to match the local
environment. Once again a process fits nicely, but fixed
rules don't.
There is also the question: if people had objective
information and viewpoints would they all begin to lean
towards sustainable ideas. I think they would and
influencing would be the same as sharing objective ideas.
Knowledge might be the answer. Showing others how to see
past cultural biases might be part of the answer. We don't
have to tell others what to do, we just need to communicate
the joy of learning and the skills to see clearly. Is this
influence? In some cultures it might be considered
influence, in others probably not.
One concussion from all this is to avoid rules if a process
plus objective works better. This thought brings us back to:
"just do it".
>2) If you agree with #1, do you feel it is enough to bring about a society
>that can live in harmony with Nature?
This question seems to be saying; letting others decide may
be a weaker/slower response than filling others with all our
best sustainable knowledge then setting them on the path.
A contrary viewpoint is suggested by this quote:
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of
folly is to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer
My response would be to look at an individual situation. See
what rules are imposed by the dominant culture. Look for
places where sustainable ideas can be introduced. Try to
find places where everyone benefits and the process isn't
forced on anyone. The goal would be to create self directed
thinkers who cling tenaciously to sustainable ideas and
methods.
If someone was drafted into the military and told to teach
nuclear warfare, what can they do. How about teaching
process and ways to seek truth? I don't think we can find a
better approach.
So... what is the strongest way to influence others? I
don't see any simple answers to this or the need to define
them for every situation. We don't need debate and rules or
leaders telling us what to do. Neither rules or leaders
last. Knowledge from process has a better chance.
This is getting too long, time to stop.... jeff
>3) Are you saying we can ONLY do #1, as opposed to "should"? And, if so,
>do you feel it will be enough?
>
>4) Do you think it is possible to intentionally influence people without
>"forcing" ideas on them?
>
>5) Do you think it is best to restrict our "influencing" to the processes
>of change, rather than specific ideas?
>
>6) If you agree with #5, how then do you feel about books which tend to be
>more about specific ideas?
>
>7) Am I still missing something and way off base?
>
>I thought I knew what you were saying a few times, but phrases like "I
>don't know what anyone on this list should do." and "Most of us know things
>we can do." and " We learn, we adjust, we accept feedback, we let others do
>the same." make me think you are trying to say "We shouldn't try to
>influence people, but instead let them figure things out for themselves."
>
>If you ARE saying this, then I am not sure if you think this because you
>believe everyone will naturally move toward harmony with Nature, or believe
>it isn't important that we move toward harmony with Nature, or believe the
>future to be so unpredictable that we shouldn't worry about what it will be
>like.
>
>You wrote:" We learn, we adjust, we accept feedback, we let others do the
>same." Do you feel we can/ can not / should / should not / must / must not
>"help" others do the same?
>
>I'll drop this thread after I hear your responses. I'm sure it time to
>move on to other things. Thanks for your patience.
>
>Eric:
>
>
