Argh, Lee, you fell for Molly's imagery and forgot to put enough wax into your ears!
Do you remember how proud you felt when your younger son apologized for being selfish over not wanting to lend the PS3 game to his brother to take it out of the house? Although his saying no in the beginning was probably the most sensible reaction considering the experiences he had made and had heard of up to that day? Seeing Rome burn and asking oneself what does this mean for me and mine could have been the incentive to grab the bucket and extinguish the fire! Which would have been a very social thing to do at that time! Another moral: Give your children time to find their own words for their/they're meanings of our brandings. On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Lee Douglas <[email protected]>wrote: > Because as a speices we are all rather insulare. We can't help but > think and act according to 'how it effects us' as individuals, as > small family units. > > Instead of seing Rome burning and asking what does this mean for > humanity we see it burn and ask instead, what does this mean for me > and mine. > > On Aug 20, 1:51 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > Creating order from chaos requires entering into the chaos. We are > > often too content to rest in outdated but comfortable social orders. > > The balance of individual and consensus reality becomes infinite in > > mutual creativity. Finding and maintaining that point in experience > > is a real challenge. Once found, old orders fall away, new orders are > > created, the circles of familiarity become smaller and at the same > > time eternal as folks capable of sharing the unseen unite in action. > > Rome burns, and a new order emerges. Yet all we can see or feel is > > Rome burning. Why? > > > > On Aug 20, 2:57 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/08/civil-disorder-and-loo. > .. > > > > > We had riots in England a couple of weeks ago. Our media was full of > > > people, including reporters, stating this was a new issue and > > > unprecedented. I did not believe this as I watched - though I did see > > > a great deal I recognised from GTA games. The above link to the > > > Economist makes use of a book by Pearson I read years ago - it casts a > > > very different view that our riots were really only history repeating > > > itself. > > > > > I don't believe human thought can 'rid itself' of emotional response > > > (or should). I do believe we can do better than 'knee-jerk reactions' > > > - but I also believe this is quite difficult and beyond many people > > > left to their own devices. I believe our democracies are weak at the > > > moment and that this is because we can't argue very well - hence > > > politicians appeal to much that is populist and wrong using highly > > > dubious techniques. > > > > > I'm sure I could identify the protocols that appeal to 'ignorant > > > Idols' that lead to situations of 'nopolitics' in our societies and > > > thus the rule of the very rich through "economics" in a way far more > > > centralised than any politburo. > > > > > I've pretty much given up on democracy. Teaching is very frustrating > > > because you want to encourage self-learning and resourceful human > > > beings and also know this is too much for most - democracy is > > > similar. The struggle is knowing this and not wanting to be elitist > > > and sneer at others. I succeed a bit in 'adventures with ideas' but > > > the same mistakes in reaction crop up time and time and time again in > > > wider social action. > > > > > I wonder if outing the protocols of the dreary positions people take > > > in reaction could help us actually find dialogue?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - >
