>From: "Richard Mochelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: FW: The Ecology of Eden >Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:32:53 +1000 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >HERE, HERE, EVA > >Eva wrote > >>What is the point of digging up old recipees that sufficed the requirements >>of past communities? We have to solve today's problems, with today's >technology and today's scientific and ethical awareness of the importance of >the environment. We have to respond to our reality, not to a virtual >world - whether past or imaginary. > >>We need to develop the social structure that is able and motivated to be >longsighted, coherent, >>consistent, integrated/cooperative for planning to cater for the present >populations with the >>projected (hoped for?) levelling out of populations. > > >I would add that we also need, at the same time, to develop a new >linguistic structure appropriate to the new, that is coherent and >consistent. We cannot solve today's problems using old, seriously >dysfunctional words (communication tools), such as 'work', 'worker', >'working class', etc, which sufficed the requirements of medieval >communities, but are serious obstacles to the creation of the new. > >Your own words above nicely answer your address to me about this time last >year, in the thread 'working alternatives'. You wrote: > >>The main aim is not changing the language usage, but changing the economic >system, >>that forces people to spend most of their time with things they don't enjoy >doing. Language follows reality, >>not the other way round. The word socialism was coined before it existed, >you might say, but at a time when >there were already pointers to the >faults of capitalism and a rational (reality based) >interpolation to such a possibility. > >Constructing a new language in order to effectively talk about the new >economic system, will save having to deal with the inevitable the semantic >baggage that is carried with the words of ye olde worlde. I find it the >resistance on this list to changing the language usage, to the possibility >of trashing the word 'work', deeply puzzling. The conservatism is >extraordinary. Why should every word be preserved forever? I'm not a bible >believer, but there is some truth in the statement, 'in the beginning was >the word'. With new words, as for new technologies, new beginnings become >possible. > >And thus may Eva in a new Eden become (re)born. >
