A useful critique. Thanks. On Tuesday 07 June 2005 03:04 pm, Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade wrote: > Against better judgement, I feel I must step in on a few points. > > On Jun 7, 2005, at 2:05 PM, boblq wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 June 2005 11:59 am, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > >> I don't go in with the attitude that they are my inferiors. But I > >> also > >> don't go in with the attitude that they are superior because they are > >> "happier". > > > > You don't have a clue do you? Ever wonder why they are happy? > > How does it follow, that simply because Andrew decides not to presume > that another people is superior/inferior simply based on happiness, > that he doesn't have a clue?
My intent was to say he did not have a clue about the people that I was talking about. I continue to believe that is true. > How can you assume, as it seems implied here, that because what makes > Andrew happy isn't what makes you happy, that Andrew's life is > somehow "less" than yours? Did I say that Andrew's life was less than mine? How did you infer that from what I said? > There is a common affliction among all people which frequently gets > described as "All the world is and/or should be as I see it." Well, > hate to burst your bubble, but what works for you doesn't work for > everybody. :) Clearly true. No bubble burst here. Indeed I think a significant part of my problem ( I do admit it, I have a problem. ) is that I see a nation many of whom are leading lives that you describe brilliantly later on in this critique as "horrible implementations of delusional dreams." I see this "fact" as having all kinds of negative consequences both for the people living those lives and for the rest of the planet. What "works" for them is antithetical to a decent future for the rest of us and our children. I find the descent into massive consumerism backed by a imperialist militarist foreign policy as a disaster. And the heartland of that disaster are these "horrible implementations of delusional dreams" which occur on a personal level, over and over again. > > I found that I learned as much from them as they did from me. > > What I learned from them was about those values of relationship > > and caring directly, rather than abstractly, for real people in real > > situations. That people matter more than objects. > > > > That who you are is defined by your relationships with other people > > not by the amount of money you make, nor your job, nor the house > > you live in or the car you drive. Not by your intellect but by your > > capacity for compassion. What I found was that people living with > > those values were happier on the whole than my intellectual friends > > many of whom had exaggerated opinions of themselves based upon > > minor academic and intellectual accomplishments. > > Dude, you're preaching to the choir. Turn around and preach to the > congregation, instead. :) > > What seems insulting in your statements, however, is not what your > saying, but rather that you imply you're the only one here that truly > understands it. Surprise, but you're not. OK. But my impression, which I get by direct comparison of life experience here and there is that I find a lot more people with those beliefs there than here. BTW, I do wish that you would not confuse your inferences with my implications. They are not the same though I do accept responsibility for not always right clearly enough for one to be certain as to the distinction. > Surprise, but there are > plenty of people here in the evil, sadistic US that actually _care_ > about other people, and are happy in their lives not because they > drive cars and own homes and have lots of things, but because they > found people in their lives that they care about and care about them. > > This is not a quality of people that you only find in the boonies. I agree. I do believe though that, having spent time both places, that you will find a lot more of it in my particular sample of the boonies than you do here in SoCal. > >> In addition, *you* were the one who pointed out that their happiness > >> stems from inward focus to the exclusion of outside influence. > > > > It stems from the community they live in and create, which is > > basically a small village, very poor by western standards, but > > relatively self sufficient, and where most people actually seem > > to like each other and live happy and meaningful lives. > > However, that is not the only wellspring of true happiness in this > world. All I'm asking is that you recognize that fact, and admit > that it is possible to find happiness no matter where in the world > you may be, if you find yourself with all your basic needs met and in > the company of good people. I don't disagree with that. But I find that is a minority view here in Southern California, hence my generalizations. > > >> Finally, sheep are quite happy right before they get slaughtered. > >> Just > >> because you ignore the world does not mean the world ignores you. > > > > So you don't think you are in that same boat? LOL. If you really > > think your education and awareness will shelter you from all > > of the worlds potential difficulties then you certainly have stepped > > outside the realm of history. Just look at what slaughters were > > _not_ avoided during the last century by well educated and > > well meaning people. > > I'm not really sure what either of you meant by this bit. So, moving > on... What I mean is this. The world has often been wracked by cataclysms e.g. WWII which were of such a magnitude as to make those aware as doomed as those who were not. > >> We don't look down our "long intellectual noses" at them. Most of > >> these > >> people, in fact, labor out of the hope that their work benefits us > >> all. > >> But, neither do they pretend that the larger world does not exist. > > > > But you take a ver > POT. KETTLEy condescending attitude to all kinds of people > > who do not share your background. I wonder why? > > POT. KETTLE. BLACK. MOVE ON. Not really but I suppose you see no distinction. That is my fault for not writing with more clarity and for not being specific enough in my criticism. > >> I'm glad your relatives think differently. Perhaps 100 years of > >> technology bought on the backs of those who worked in the "Satanic > >> mills" is rather important to their opinion. > > > > Not much. I suspect that my father-in-laws great grandfather was not > > a lot different. Nor was his life hugely different. > > So, he has or uses no tools or implements yielded by the past 100 > years or so of technological advancement? No clothing manufactured > in plants? No clothing with zippers? Okay, okay, so those are > _small_ differences in life. What about tools for the fields? > > Just wondering. My brother in law Rod tills his field with a Caribou. Not a lot of mechanization. They do use Jeepneys to take the product to market. That is probably the largest single impact. Not a lot of chemical fertilizers used (too expensive). The farming is pretty simple really and while a lot of physical work at times it is seasonal and so there are lots of times when people have significant free time. More so I would say than here. > >> If we choose simply to breed, be happy, and die--our existence is > >> pointless. The goal is to *improve* life for us all. > > > > Total bullshit. Life has intrinsic meaning and is rarely pointless. > > The fact > > that you have your compulsions is simply not my problem. Who are you > > anyway to judge the value of the lives of others? > > Likewise, who are you? You judge us (and Andrew, specifically, in > this case) critically for the society we live in and then question > who we are to do the same for you and yours? If you are going to lay > criticisms on life in the western world, be prepared to accept the > same for life in a "simpler" place. Allow me to repeat myself from > ealier: > > POT. KETTLE. BLACK. MOVE ON. Ok. I will give you this point this time. I suspect we could benefit from a less adversarial view of each other. He did espouse a set of views I have heard many times though and which I consider ill informed and suspect are based on a rather limited experience. Maybe he will elaborate. Or may be not. > > OK, you asked for it. > > And the pissing contest is on. Bob made the bigger puddle, 'cause he > had to walk up hill both ways to/from school in the snow with no shoes. Well I will admit that when I hear how "hard" someone worked in high school my usual reaction is to laugh. Mostly I have found it represents a true ignorance of physical work. Maybe I am wrong in this case. Andrew seemed to want to impress us with his deserving status. I am just not that impressed. Sorry. > > I appreciate your contribution but do not appreciate your attitude, > > which is > > both arrogant and elitist. I can make a distinction between the > > contribution, > > which I respect, and the attitude, which disgusts me, which is why > > I refer to > > such people as pigs. You do not seem to be able to make any such > > distinction. > > And yet you're consistently arrogant in your own right, decrying our > lives as horrible implementations of delusional dreams while your > family has it right and you're a better person than all of us for it. OK. I should make a distinction between what I see as a problem common to much of life in the USA today and some occasional individuals who seem to have avoided what I do believe are "horrible implementations of delusional dreams." (Damn, that is a good description. I will steal it for future use since it does articulate my opinion rather well.) > Likewise, your attitude towards us disgusts me. You counter > generalizations with yet more generalizations, never once stopping to > think that you've become, in essence, the mirror image of what you so > despise: one who disdains all who disagree, simply because their > world views are different from your own. I want to think about that. I need a better articulation that does not paint with such a broad brush. Useful critique. By the way, disgust is not the same as disdain. Onward, boblq -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
