There is much to agree with in what you say Francis. I have an overbearing desire to see some of the change I thought I was promised as a 'boy' (when does that end!) - yet there are smaller mercies. Sue and I had a flat back at the 'millennium' and were broke on New Year's Eve having just escaped fairly terrifying relationships. In the distance (through the window) we could see Bolton celebrating with some fireworks across the damp sky, a few mates were probably drunk down at the pub with guitars playing, and Blair and his cronies were on TV holding hands with an embarrassed Queen and other worthies at the Dome of Doom. The patheticness of the Dome with its third rate arties was only outdone by the 'River of Fire' turning to the 'Damp Squib Barge' on the Thames as its fireworks failed. Pictures from Australia and Paris where they were able to do such spectacles successfully brilliantly illuminated the 'Blair Witch Project'. Our entertainment was Shaun escaping repeatedly from his cot, insisting on sharing the exciting times with us! He's eleven now and in his first year of secondary school - one would hardly swap this for the visual splendour of the French Pouffe Celebre's setting fire to the Eiffel Tower or even being close enough to the Queen to assassinate the Royal Family, or travelling back in time to keep Guy Fawkes' powder dry! (this, sadly, was an anti-Scottish plot anyway)
It's not ME or what we might do here that concerns me - I'm happy enough to think of us as The Water-Margin (remember that show, contemporary with Monkey?) - it's whether there is something to do with 'argument', something emerging in it and its new technologies that is more than we easily see rather can grandiosely plan. If you follow me, the 'Damp Squib Barge' was so much more significant an icon than even the brilliant display in Paris. The unintended failure just said it all about the Dome of Doom and what our public aspirations have become, crass failure promoted as magnificence - Blair and New Labour all over. I feel, in a sense, that the 'Age of Lying' could be at an end, yet we are caught in a destroyed world of the Undead. Students (not really how I see anyone) have listened to me wander into Habermas, Foucault and even the drier zones of what statistical methods are if we don't cheat, some thinking I was some kind of deluded fool (perhaps Fool given the way I present) who believed we could really tell the truth at work, before realising I was just encouraging them to do what little they could not to feel so bad about the day-to-day deceptions of management and find a little space with me to have some kind of say. The key around the world is many have recognised the apparatchiks become the entrepreneurchiks, that power is barely challenged. The brilliant quote from Orn on capitalism above says it all. We know about the invisible tailors and that the springtimes of declarations of nakedness are short. I know many in here know and its important we do - and that we know we are a ragtaggle army facing trained battalions. The Samizdat knew its limitations too. After years of teaching behind the Iron Curtain (with open agreement - and behind other forms of closed doors), I was back working for the World Bank (and Soros) and the laugh now was that it was this 'democratic vestigial virgin organisation' that was sending its spies to check on me as 'off message'. I am just wondering what we might be able to say if we took more of what we know for granted - almost in the sense that to criticise like Chomsky is to support the oppressors (I must be a serious culprit here!) - what 'new world' might we at least open to words, is there an opportunity for a little more connection without opening ourselves up to fighting the blackhole forces. You must be doing more than I at the moment simply because you are nursing. I have met my 'defrocking' moment with teaching (if you will forgive the dreadful term for the sake of brevity). I cannot, honestly, do any more. I've been to Wittrs - and my email is now suffering spam. I have, of course, been to the academic chapples and found little other than some brilliantly cutting wit (similar to between overs chats with my old vicar). I am probably done with television, newspapers and a wad of stuff that seems to lack any insight, and am not finding alternatives. I suspect professionalism is the killer, the desire to ask too much and yet sense something is stirring and don't want to be incompetent (perhaps through old skills) to find it. I am no further on than Orn's plea for help, perhaps feeling there is only a memoir to leave for a future turn against the Undead. I just wonder what our business might be even in imagining the swamp of business as usual was drained away. On 2 Oct, 22:41, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't have any expectations we are going to change the world here on > ME. I don't think that's why most of us are here anyway. In my own > life, I find myself more and more in tune with Candide where he > replies to Pangloss's final inanity about the best of all possible > worlds with the comment, "Il faut cultiver notre jardin." My > participation here is just one of the plants in my own garden, which > has changed pretty drastically in the past couple of years; some of > the major plants dying off quite unexpectedly, others growing, > flourishing and producing all kinds of unexpected, wonderful beauty. > That's the thing about gardens; with the exception of the depths of > winter, there're always things to do and, depending on the season, > different things which claim their own priorities in terms of time and > care. And they're always about life and growth, cycles of birth and > decay, becoming and withering. > > Neil wonders about the amount of "practical significance between any > of us." I don't think this is so important. Maybe it's enough that - > in this rather rarified virtual environment - we occasionally provide > one another with a little inspiration, an idea, a thought which helps > the one or other a bit farther on his/her own journey. When thinking > in such directions the hasidic comment about the man who, in saving > one life, saves the whole world often comes to my mind. > > There is, of course, a lot of dilettantism about much of what we do > here - but this is probably inevitable, given the open, eclectic > nature of the site. With regards to practical politics and political > themes, many of us are fastidious - with very good reasons. Most of > us, I suspect, have known people who decided - often for the best of > reasons - to become more directly involved in the political process > and have frequently observed their idealism and moral integrity > steadily and inexorably melt away under the grind of neccessary > compromise, the pressure of party conformism and the need to actually > achieve power within our systems in order to effect change. A few even > manage to retain a core of basic decency in the process, although you > often have to dig deep to find it. But then, they were the ones > prepared to get their hands dirty - what a shame that dirt is also so > corrosive. Nevertheless, we should take care not to simply finish up > like Statler and Waldorf in the box seats at the Muppet Show. > > One doesn't need to agree with Chomsky on everything to find him an > inspiring character. Despite being ignored, derided and belittled by > the mainstream, he still keeps slogging away. There are many other > such characters in private and public life all over the world. Here in > Germany, the Green parliamentarian, Hans-Christian Ströbele, is one > such (in my opinion anyway - like to comment on that, Gabby?). Aung > San Suu Kyi is another. > > Of course there are better ways to do things than the ways they are > done worldwide at the moment. This will always be the case. But, to go > back to my original image, maybe all each of us can do is to go on > cultivating our gardens and, occasionally, invite others to see and > enjoy some of the beautiful things we have helped - a little - to grow > there. Who knows when someone - maybe even a visitor here - will take > one of our flowers to market to create wonder and delight in a wider > world? > > Francis > > On 2 Okt., 18:01, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think we may well get off on the wrong foot in our discussions. I > > don't mean by this that anyone's opinion is unwelcome or deluded, but > > I have a suspicion our general talents might produce something > > different and better. It's a matter of some regret that we aren't all > > neighbours working to some common purpose (in our diversity of course > > Molly) beyond our electronic connections. I don't quite mean that we > > should up sticks to form a collective in Chile (perhaps near the town > > of some of Orn's spiritual inspiration), though I must say I wouldn't > > discount this from dreams. I wonder whether we could achieve more in > > our discursive arguments, though I'm conscious trying this might spoil > > what we have. It was nice to be invited for a curry down at Lee's the > > other week, though the minicab return from Manchester to London might > > have made this the most expensive meal I have ever eaten! When I have > > a new thrundge-grommet for the jump jet perhaps I could nip for rather > > different forms of spiritual cleansing chez Molly and Jenkins! > > I've been reading some comparative philosophy of late and re- > > discovering there is a world one can find our diverse voices being > > subject to scrutiny in. What I sense 'wrong-foot-wise' is the obvious > > fact we are talking, teasing, chattering, perhaps laudably without too > > much 'intent', yet somehow a purpose we all share about 'real change' > > is somehow deferred and the point we all share is somehow 'elided'. I > > think I may refer to this as 'secular democracy' and as Orn says > > above, or at least gestures at in dog-tail wagging, this cannot be the > > right term. I remember some years back that a group formed calling > > themselves 'New Paradigm Researchers'. Their manifesto was truly > > awful calling everyone 'co-researchers' (meaning 'patronised mugs') > > and calling on us all to allow the world to directly impinge on our > > unconscious, apparently not realising this was a very perverse form of > > positivism with the mind redefined. It was all upper-class twittery. > > With this rather deflationary proviso, I do wonder about the extent to > > which we are following a rather scientific agenda in terms of trying > > to exclude much of the world in order to have the space to talk at all > > and it might be interesting to work out what we are excluding (perhaps > > simply by default) and how this defines us. > > One can read Chomsky, Rawls, Habermas and on (most don't) and find > > elaborate expositions of a 'clean politics', but none of this 'cleans' > > the human nature defaults from the 'dirty world'. One can find public > > choice theories that accept selfish human nature and seek to marry > > individual selfish decisions with public interest. Most of us will > > have seen what happens to 'integrity' once guns are pointed in its > > direction (or threats from bosses etc.) and I guess we have some shaky > > ideas about 'deep politics' too. One might wonder how our 'flowers' > > can bloom out there in the 'world of weeds'! We might just understand > > more of what is going on by reflection on what we think stops our > > ideas from working - I sense our very thinking is constrained by > > having to fight an enemy that is unseen in plain view sapping our > > energies and courage. For all our diversity, I would suggest there is > > very little of practical significance between any of us - we want > > democracy in a fairer form, would want its Guardians under democratic > > control (not like Bush, Blair or the Mad Dinner Jacket) in public > > scrutiny and don't want to become the next leaders to be corrupted by > > power ourselves or to elect the next Mugabe. Our ideas might turn out > > to be so simple that it would only be possible to assume something > > complex, nasty and mystified prevents them being theories-in-action. > > > On 2 Oct, 14:16, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Democracy clearly isn't just about voting occasionally for parties we > > > probably think are corrupt. In the UK we have slipped to the cynical > > > position that all candidates are broadly the same, self-interested > > > jobsworths - I used to hear this regularly in years gone by and think > > > it was a very unworthy position - now I believe it is the sensible > > > position, though only if we genuinely want to change the system. The > > > changes needed are 'big' but not impossible or ideological. It's > > > obvious our main political parties do not want to take part and are > > > really only interested in 'business as usual'. > > > Our government is focused in Westminster and one has to wonder why > > > this has to be the case given electronic communication. There is no > > > real way to monitor what our MPs do or to get rid of useless or > > > corrupt ones. My guess is that most of them are both and that this is > > > inevitable because of the party system, but I would stress I don't > > > know this as the information for informed decisions is not generally > > > available to us - we have to make 'guesses'. The media is little > > > better than an adjunct to 'business as usual' rather than a fourth > > > estate. > > > > I want to see a smaller State. We have massively expanded the public > > > sector - so much so it is impossible to gauge the real size as we have > > > all kinds of off-balance sheet finance initiatives, QUANGOs and > > > charities providing basic services. Sweeping this away would almost > > > certainly cost 2 million jobs and I have no belief private sector > > > entrepreneurialism can fill the gap - this kind of economics has long > > > been a lame duck itself. My guess is that 6 million people are > > > already unemployed and many others under-employed. There are massive > > > deficits in our pensions and welfare and at the same time we have a > > > very large body of jobsworths on very high salaries adding to the > > > pension burden. The answers are miles away from any proper public > > > dialogue. > > > > On 2 Oct, 13:16, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Great point, rigsy. The structure of government and function of > > > > leadership of any group should be determined by its developmental > > > > needs. I think what Chomsky is calling for is more purity in > > > > democracy, less corruption, more voice for citizens and organizational > > > > opportunities for subgroups. Democracy in the true spirit of > > > > democracy. The challenge, is to create a form that will serve the top > > > > and bottom levels of > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
