Neil, the world will always be rooted in THE PAST, via power and wealth rights with individuals who dispense it to create more of their own kind. It requires a Buddha, Jesus or a Gandhi, God's mercy, to loosen this root for a few months, years or decades. No scientist or philosopher or public activist ( say, Marx' ) can do that.
But we, individuals, can live without a past, indeed. That's how " reasonable " we need to be. You are in no danger whatsoever if ever you visit India and meet me. I have no relatedness with either space or time, or history and evolution ( which include both space and time ). The relatedness exists in the body, as its pathological needs, and in the mind, in the of relationships it craves for. I am neither of the two ! On 21 Feb, 18:42, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Orson Scott Card was unknown to me - thanks Gruff. I need to focus > more on writing now than reading, but will be searching Green > Metropolis. I believe life could be much better than it is - one can > obviously spend one's time doing this for oneself and family - but > this isn't remotely enough for me in a society armed to the teeth and > prepared to do what it does. We do not seem to be able to arm > ourselves for peace or reward what needs to be done. Hegel thought > the availability of history gave us the ability to transcend - though > I'd agree with Popper that available notions of history tend to be > meaningless. One only has to think of the dross I was taught about > the British in India to know how dangerous "history" can be. Almost > non of us now would want to serve the British Empire or be a Nazi or a > fascist, yet one can wonder how many of us would have been given a > general tendency to soak up propaganda. When I started teaching > management, the discipline was critical and aimed at industrial > democracy - it has ended-up placating the wealthy and as a rhetoric > only fit for ridicule - despite readings of Habermas, Foucault, > Gramsci and others - their work just some kind of gloss over business > as usual. I go a long way with Molly, though her words are not my > bag. > > What strikes me is that we live in a society (strikes came out via > typo to stirkes - this seems descriptive!) capable of massive waste. > Millions on sports players (the Indian Premier League is destroying > cricket however much I may like the instant appeal of Indian dancing > girls - sorry Vam - the sport has collapsed under the spectacle), > packaging everywhere - our ability to throw money at everything > unimportant is dire. Yet there could be beauty in realising we could > re-channel all this. > A recent Horizon (BBC "science") standardly annoyed me for its cursory > "science" (hot fusion) - but it did put forward an interesting model > on power consumption suggesting developed countries need to reduce to > allow developing countries to increase - and just how impossible this > would be with existing technology. It raised a certain light about > being in things together. Science of this kind tends to ignore > political intrigue as only fit for ridicule - for me it is the > gutter. We tends to crave leadership to help us through to something > better and fairer - but leadership is generally a corrupting force in > need of control - with control another complex in need of unpacking in > a clearer view of history. CH Waddington said we had succeeded, > through the use of science by unscientific men, in producing the > modern factory from the medieval bear garden. We need a sense of > incompetence and mistake through science, history, art and literature > and more sense of when rationality-decency has prevailed. This raises > questions about how we evaluate everything - and nothing - through > targets and the rest - an area that connects Stalin, Mao and the Nazis > to American Management By Objectives - on in the UK to New Labour. > These are not philosophical issues in my view - no sensible system > would be started where we are. The beautiful and the ugly was taught > to me by a police sergeant. 'Always remember Neil', he said, 'When > chasing down the bad guy it's only by the grace of god that you aren't > chasing yourself'. What we lack is trustworthy science, history and > the rest. This rather suits existing vested interests. > Somehow we don't recognise that one can teach Gramsci on hegemony and > be teaching another Thatcher how to destroy the interests she doesn't > like. Modern forms of this tend to be called public choice theories. > Working them out on paper tends to exclude real choice from most > people - and also responsibility whether one wants it or not (for > there must be an element of contribution where this is possible). > I always hope that if I get to India and meet Vam, that he doesn't > hang me from the nearest tree in virtuous reprisal for the misdeeds of > my countrymen. I know he won't - yet there is something in British- > Subcontinent history that needs to be remembered and forgotten in some > reconciliatory and purposeful move of deconstruction. A couple of > peach vodkas will be enough between us, because he will know I know > and feel shame. This is not to belittle the tragedy - but perhaps a > recognition we can move on even from such ugly blots. I believe that > only world government can help (Russell thought much the same) - the > matters are only decidable through practice and it's practice we are > barred from, not philosophising. There is much of this ideal > impossible we could create - though The Lords of Poverty at the UN > present a counterpoint of almost exactly what we don't want. I think, > in these areas, we cannot cross the t's and dot the i's. Courage > would help, but much of current practice encourages high cortisol and > the stress monkey alphas generate. > > On 20 Feb, 15:18, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I wanted to get back to your thought on this, Justin: > > > "Why is it that we separate everyone into those with whom we wish to > > associate and those with whom we will refuse to have anything to do > > with? Why is this pecking order thing so big? Our finite beings can be > > either "pretty" or "pretty ugly" and when we get into a room there is > > such an arranging of everyone into those that are "in" and those that > > are "out". I have been so attracted lately to the ugly, old and infirm > > and so turned off by the beautiful lately. Where does that come from?" > > > I think here, you are still working your way toward the infinite, > > through the finite. I thought it was interesting that when you set up > > your place of being, you included so many aspects of the beautiful > > that I could see the beauty there reading your description. Yet, > > surrounded by beauty, up came the ugly. And now, turned off by beauty > > and attracted to ugly, you are hearing the same calling of the > > infinite. Because, I think, it is the charge we have on what is > > beautiful or ugly that restricts us to the finite and separates one > > from the other. That charge that tells us that our own shadow nature > > is drawing us into a transcendent experience so that we can include > > more of our infinite nature into our everyday living. Somewhere along > > the line, as we recognize ourselves in both the beautiful and ugly, it > > all becomes something more (yet the artists continue to call it > > beauty) and we can connect our individuality with that beauty in all > > of life. > > > On Feb 12, 12:01 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > I guess ultimately what I mean by viable is "is true". I am concerned > > > about some issues that have to due with questioning and answers and > > > the effect of answers on questioning. Often "the alternative to > > > fundamentalism" is expressed as an answer. I think that its not so > > > simple. Why is it that one who experiences real enlightenment does not > > > stay in that blessed state, or stay aware of it in the same way > > > (because in fact we are always "in" it in a sense), even though the > > > memory of it remains and determines ones world view? Yes I know that > > > only recognition separates me from the truth... perhaps the answer is > > > the foundation of ethics and what is needed most is courage. But > > > intellectually I have trouble reconciling the notion of a truth that > > > takes more than just knowing in a purely intellectual sense to > > > realize. I have questions about the meaning of knowing in relation to > > > these matters and more importantly I am afraid that I see that the > > > process of asking and answering questions which is the foundation of > > > philosophy itself, may be inadequate to the task. I am concerned that > > > "Just In Truth" may be a distortion... that the "Just" is an unwelcome > > > limitation or rather a limitation that prevents the "In Truth". > > > Perhaps I need to change my name to "Hello" or something like that. > > > The debates of Greece lack something. > > > > I recently attempted to set up a kind of secular monastery. A place > > > for Being. I had visions of those around me working together and being > > > able to be alone when they felt the need to withdraw. Not a somber > > > place but one full of art and culture. I envisioned beautiful private > > > spaces where you could withdraw to be completely alone and public > > > communal spaces that you could go to to be with those you love. Lots > > > of gardens. I even bought a sizable piece of land to begin on. It was > > > not a public thing. I wanted my friends to all be able to live > > > together. What happened was the whole thing became a kind of clash of > > > limitations. The finite aspects of everyone ... it was as if when > > > confronted with each other we find we can't stand each other. Love is > > > not transitive nor is it reflexive. Each wants to determine the other > > > in order to determine his or her own self and their ideas conflict. I > > > could not communicate well enough or maybe the whole thing was just my > > > idea and not what others wanted. Why is it that we separate everyone > > > into those with whom we wish to associate and those with whom we will > > > refuse to have anything to do with? Why is this pecking order thing so > > > big? Our finite beings can be either "pretty" or "pretty ugly" and > > > when we get into a room there is such an arranging of everyone into > > > those that are "in" and those that are "out". I have been so attracted > > > lately to the ugly, old and infirm and so turned off by the beautiful > > > lately. Where does that come from? God I sound like a whining > > > teenager! Communal living can be successful but only certain forms > > > have worked and even those, even in the monasteries there is trouble. > > > Some day maybe we will understand better. I actually think that > > > neurology may in the end help us > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
