Some have held it was a philosophers duty to change the world - but
then Marx drank and smoked a lot. The fear the thought brings is
interesting - if we had democracy its hard to believe we would shy
away from the notion so easily. There is an argument that argument is
the coward's way out. But the weight of those crying freedom and
change only to become the next tyrants hangs heavy, as does the
tyranny of being told what we must do by 'authority' (or even that of
telling others what to do - I wince when I have to tell my grandson
off). Some of the links one can follow from here do show that there
are people around (as Francis mentions) beavering away. What I find
in short supply is something to join in with. Phone in seem terrible,
and media types wave email print outs, even play with live, moderated
on-line discussion rooms - but not much changes for the better. Years
ago, Thatcher was exposed to a housewife from Bristol, asking her why
the Belgrano was sunk whilst running away. This direct contact with
the public was quickly swept away. Moderation in here is usually an
unseen blessing, but the media generally seems to reduce all to
nothing worth hearing. One can get drunk on a lot of 'small beer' and
my sense of change is more about that - it has to be in practice
before 'they' can stop it. It's been two months since I had any beer
- this may explain a lot!
My point is missed here - I'm not concerned to turn our 'knitting
circle' into the Revolutionary Front (The Life of Brian said all that
Francis). Hardly anyone under 30 is seen with a newspaper. I don't
read them any more, other than online for free. The London Standard
is now a free-sheet. Pubs used to have their 'lets change the world
corners' - not now - they are grim places in general. TV and film
have an 'ersatz' quality about them. If we want real mundanity then
we can go to open chat rooms (argh!). At one point, 98% of commercial
Internet traffic was porn and even now most searches produce vast
mountains of useless, irrelevant dross and some prat trying to sell
one enough Viagra to keep up with all the porn! Dull old revolution
happens, but I guess not through heroes as presented to us. I'm more
interested in accident and unintended consequences. Even this
backwater is an accident stemming from a few scientists wanting to
communicate in real time. I would seriously contend that the
moderation in here is something of an example of 'good smallness'.
The Wittrs episode is the only time I've been really annoyed by
something that got through (spam). There are some fresh voices in
here - no doubt there are in the wider electronic context - but for me
they are killed by not being able to find them in the dross.
Somewhere, even in our exchanges, there is a 'model' of communication
that might be more democratic than we realise. I am, of course,
hobbled by years to behavioural teaching in universities, trying to
make 'kids' (18 to 80) realise they ('we') are the ones who
stereotype, halo and horn and don't do critical reasoning well - that
'education' is not all nice and bonnie and so on. I think we are
doing something 'right' in here. Allan, of course, has just declared
himself far too tolerant for the 'old farts special interest section'
I've been meaning to start up with me and Orn as founder members ...
On 3 Oct, 03:02, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree with you Francis, There is no realistic way that I could ever change
> the world. Here at ME there is a chance for me to share my views of the
> world and spirituality. At the same time I am nourished by the views of
> others helping me grow in my on going travels through this realm of life.
> Thank you to everyone for your tolerating this old man and my views, as well
> as sharing yours with me.
> Allan
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:41 PM, frantheman
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't have any expectations we are going to change the world here
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
