Pete,
At 14:45 19/09/02 -0700, you wrote:
<<<<
. . . . However as far as real liberalization of spiritual thinking, I
don't think the west as a cultural entity has a lot to offer in the way of
advancement, if the Russian experience is any guide. I think the young
Islamic fundies would gain far more by simply embracing their own
indigenous sufism. At least in some schools, it is one of the few
disciplines which is not afraid to accept "I don't know", and "let's look
and see" as an acceptable position on spiritual matters.
>>>>
You ended your last message by saying that you thought we were drifting
fairly far afield. So I'm proposing a new thread sparked off by your first
sentence above (with which I agree), 'cos I think there's an important (and
relevant!) point to be made here.
But first, just a brief comment on the remainder of your paragraph. I can't
agree that Sufism or similar "acceptance"-type religions (e.g. Buddhism,
Taoism) would satisfy the young in the less developed countries. They're
never going to be content until they've sampled what appear to be the
enormous attractions and benefits of western civilisation. I suggest that
the Sufi-type religions are what you might expect in agrarian societies
where a relatively small establishment wishes to keep the mass of the
population in a peaceful, conditioned state and not to ask questions
concerning inequality of wealth, etc.
These religions didn't arise for that reason -- they were the product of
brilliantly innovative philosophers -- but were subverted by the powers
that be. Of course, the same happened to Christianity in the West -- "the
rich man at his castle, the poor man at his gate", etc.
However, let me move on to your statement about the paucity of what the
West has to offer. I think we're rapidly approaching a desperate dilemma
because, in all sorts of ways, I think many people are sensing that we're
approaching some definite limits to further advancement. There's a trivial
(but true) law pronounced by Parkinson some 40 or so years ago. Parkinson's
Law says that "work expands to fill the time within government and business.)
I think Parkinson's Law can be usefully generalised to something like: "Our
culture ramifies to absorb the productivities available." The ability to
mine deep coal in England two centuries yielded such immense productivity
that it powered the industrial revolution, in the middle of the last
century and, even more recently, natural gas.
I hope it does not sound patronising, but without a sufficient knowledge of
thermodynamics then most people are not able to conceptualise the
importance of energy into their thinking about economics, about the
affluence around them and so on. But one can hardly exaggerate the
productivty that's been gained by the injection of so much new energy into
what were previously largely closed economic (agrarian) systems (apart from
solar energy which for my present argument I'm regarding as a given).
My version of Parkinson's Law suggests that the enormous productivity gains
from fossil fuels have not only been fed into (apparently) higher standards
of living for most people (in the developed world) but also into vast
extensions of traditional institutions (e.g. governments, academe,
protective practices) but have also paid for the vastly expensive and
negative GDP aspects of our typical way of life (e.g. pollution control,
costs of commuting, judiciary and penal system, etc).
However, the facts seem to suggest that cheaply available sources of energy
are now coming to an end -- peaking perhaps in about 20 or 30 years' time
and then tailing off. There are no more great gains in primary productivity
in sight (at least not coming along rapidly enough to continue the economic
growth of the past 200 years). I feel that, at present, there's a slowly
growing desperation that future hopes and dreams (inchoate though they may
be in the public mind) are simply not going to be realised -- with the
possibility that we might also damage the Earth so considerably in the
coming years that it will have no more charm and beauty, or even
sustainability for lifeforms. (We've already had one close shave. Life as
we know it would have gone close to disaster had not the destruction of the
ozone layer been discovered in the 80s -- and the timely action of
scientists and business [long before government legislation was enacted].)
So what's going to happen? Two things are certain, in my opinion. Firstly,
there'll be an unwinding of those institutions which have been able to grow
so effortlessly in the last 200 years. (The contraction of government
spending in Europe is a preliminiary indication of this, in my opinion.)
Secondly, there'll be steadily increasing competition for the remaining
critical resources. (The present Bush policy in the Middle East is a
forerunner of much warfare to come concerning oil and gas. The present mild
"warfare" between Israel and Lebanon is a forerunner of warfare concerning
freshwater.)
But, when all the dust has settled down (in a century?) and if we haven't
completely destroyed ourselves in the process, where do the new desirable
post-Western values come from? Those values which truly envigorate the
human mind and give hope for the future? Well, I don't believe that values
derive from idealism or philosophical notions. I believe that values are a
consequence of practical modes of living. (I think new values arise so
spontaneously and so quickly that they seem to precede new patterns of
living but, no, I think they are a consequence.) (If there *are* real
values somewhere -- and I'm inclined to believe there are -- then they're
at a far deeper level within the universe than we're capable of
understanding at this stage of evolution.)
If it's a new practical mode of living that's important, then we're back to
thermodynamics. We will need a new energy source -- and of considerable
proportions. And this can only be solar. It would be tedious to go on any
more about this -- whether in the form of "alternative" technologies (such
as weather-based windmills, etc), or electro-mechanical (such as
gallium-based solar cells) or biogenetic (DNA-controlled material
production). Suffice it to say that none of these will be able to replace
the shortfalls in fossil fuels anytime soon. Hopefully, they'll be emerging
in sufficient quantity in due course, say in a century or so -- enough to
enable mankind to continue his restless curiosity about the universe around
him -- but I fear that we'll be in statis for a considerable time to come.
Now it's dogwalk time.
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
