Alright Pat, continuing to ‘uplevel’ the conversation, I’ll say that I agree that in more ultimate terms it has to do with ‘view’. As to your most likely rhetorical questions…such things are innate. Yet, I’ll post something about ethics in a different thread today too.
However, returning to the level of your previous post, when you ask “… what are the options?”, on an everyday relative and practical level, I repeat my observation…the way change (assuming the more common cyclical form of change) occurs is most often through revolution in the most common parlance of the term. And if a book is used to this end, examples include the Qur’an, The Bible, Mao’s Little Red Book, Tao Te Ching etc. And, while a bit more integration of science and theology is appropriate and necessary for today, my bet is that other books to that end will be more effective. On May 24, 4:17 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21 May, 21:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Pat, you appear to reject out of hand the seemingly rhetorical > > questions you opened this post with. Since we know that most > > revolutionary change takes just that way…I find that the ‘problem’ > > lies at the feet of those who won’t accept let alone discuss the > > obvious. And all too often the obvious is the banality of > > evil.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns > > Ahh, but when does a necessary evil become banal or a banal evil, > necessary? I still say the best way to change society (alluded to in > my original statement) is to change the way people VIEW their role IN > society and, to change the way society views the role of the > individual. These are revolutionary changes that can take place > peacefully (with any luck) inside peoples' minds and to spur THAT is > one of the purposes for my book. I'm no Little Eichmann, but my plan > may take a while to materialise. > > > > > On May 21, 5:16 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 21 May, 11:06, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The UK now has coalition government - we might call it ConDem(n), One > > > > wants to see some kind of success, beyond the honeymoon period, > > > > Currently, it's a relief not to have Nulabour (possibly a place near > > > > Ulan Bator) drones churning out denials under phoney positive spin. > > > > Nulabour had become functionally Stalinist without the blood-lust. We > > > > will no doubt discover they have fiddled the books, though the extent > > > > of this may never be known despite bringing in independent audit. My > > > > own belief is that it may be so bad we should have joined the Euro so > > > > we could ask the kindly Germans to bail us out. > > > > > Currently, we are being promised a referendum on proportional > > > > representation - this should happen next year, not become subject to > > > > delay. > > > > A tough budget is coming soon. I would prefer Angela Merkel did this > > > > and put in some bwanker-screwing. It would be good if this wasn't a > > > > typical 'new CEO' blaming the old regime thing. > > > > Utter crud like police targets are being scrapped, but we have no plan > > > > to really make things better. > > > > > After this stuff, which looks like typical flim-flam, I have heard > > > > nothing about how we will change practice. In the background, our > > > > Parliament is still full of vested interest, public school products > > > > and the same old, same old. More people voted against the Speaker > > > > than for him in the public vote, yet MPs elected him unopposed. Some > > > > expense scandal creep has been re-elected because we were not told of > > > > his impending arrest. All the arguments remain at bulldung- > > > > undergraduate levels, and no one is really engaging public debate. > > > > > How long before this lot become as vile as the Tories after 18 years > > > > and Nulabour after 13? Both these governments turned the instruments > > > > of power against the people through performance management and > > > > spin,and the leaders all played this childish game to the hilt. How > > > > long before this lot start denying reality and play games through > > > > lying statistics, the legal and media systems and blaming the last > > > > administration? How long before we (as the Big Society) get blamed? > > > > We ARE to blame insofar as we elected the people who govern us. But > > > what are the options? Civil War? Revolution? Gunpowder Plots? It > > > seems to me that the problem lies in the fact that only arseholes run > > > for election, so why be so surprised when arseholes get elected. Real > > > reformation will not occur as long as 'people with much to lose' are > > > in the position to lose that which they must in order for the > > > reformation to be effective. Until you have decent people in power, > > > you can expect institutionalised indecency. But 'decent people' > > > aren't running for election; or, if they are, they don't have the > > > money/backing to get enough publicity to get elected. Money talks a > > > lot louder than ethics. Change THAT fact and you can begin to hope.- > > > Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
