I've been thinking about you, Allan. Hoping that your are on your way to a pain free walking experience in your beautiful parrot filled spot. How are you?
On Oct 2, 10:02 pm, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
