Part one, OK but some of the most productive members of society happen to belong to meditation groups in these religions. I think you shouldn't assume that a synthesis isn't possible between their Western life and "sitting" once a day for stress release and good mental health.
Part two, wonderfully said. REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 4:06 AM Subject: Stasis (was Memes . . .) > 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] > ________________________________________________________________________
