| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Joseph H" |
| Date: |
01 Jan 2005 07:24:15 AM |
| Object: |
MND OF MATTER |
Publius wrote:
Well, you seem determined not to explain how your theory might apply
or
what it might entail for any of the particular problem areas you
mention.
You seem to think that if you can persuade people to recite "we can do
better," then they will do better, even though you offer them no
acccount
of what "doing better" would consist in, or how to do it.
Joseph H replies:
Oh dear, you are determined to be provocative!!!
I think that in my last posting to you - or Ralph - I made it
abundantly clear in my final paragraph what kind of society I want. It
is hardly the type you ascribe to me below. But I don't see myself as
a "problem-solver". Instead, I offer a view of human existence which I
hope will assist the process of solving problems.
Why should I hope that a mere "view of human existence" would have
such power? Certainly, throughout our history consensus or agreement
or - yes - coercion has been facillitated by an idea or a faith or a
goal. Time and time again we have responded to the "big idea". Most
big ideas to date - to do with salvation, some notion of a putative
"mission", some dream of being "chosen", some hope for a "thousand
year rule", some fantasy of "equality" - have been monstrous
falsehoods. It is more difficult - though not impossible - to
perpetrate falsehoods on such a scale nowadays. We are less ignorant.
Equally, it is more difficult - though not impossible - to include
coercion as part of the package today. We are more aware of our
individuality. We also have a strong sense of what we call our
"rights".
But I don't think we've changed, not really. We are still a creature
who responds - endlessly and repeatedly to every whim and fashion. So
I think a "big idea" will still have power to influence our behaviour.
I know our global society is infintely more complex and more
fissiparous than the communal or tribal societies of old. But our
means of communication are also infinitely more complex. Two hundred
years ago ten miles, even less in some places, was the outer limit of
our awareness-zone. Today we are in touch with the entire globe. We
assist every part of the globe when trouble strikes - witness Sri
Lanka, Thailand etc today.
So, I think we can respond to an idea.I think an idea can bring
clarity and meaning. I think an idea can make it easier for a
leadership to implement sensible policies. In some of my postings
lately I have referred to the difficulties of leadership in a
democracy. Unpopular decisions spell defeat at the next poll. But
unpopular decisions often need to be taken in areas such as pollution,
conservation, social inclusion, infrastructure, national defence etc.
An idea, a view of ourselves as a species, a vision of human
possibility,can assist people in seeing the need for such actions and
thereby make governments less timorous in implimenting such actions.
That's my case for my case! What's left is the idea. How valid is it?
How valuable is it? Does it offer a truth? Is it a new way of seeing?
Or is it just a string of banalities? I think in some of my postings
lately I have been so nervous about being "long-winded" that I have -
literally - sold myself short.I'll now have another go at stating my
view. You will see that it has evolved, to some extent, at the very
least, in response to the probings of you and others. You'll be happy
to note that I'm now down to 4 points, but rather more complex points
than hitherto.
1: We emerged, a creature with so many gifts, a complex, individual
creature who could organise, could plan, could visualise, could
create, could imagine,could manufacture, could know, could be aware of
all that went before; a phenomenon among species, with the capacity to
control all species
2: We moved out, from wherever, for whatever reason. We spread as we
needed to spread or as we wanted to spread. We learned as we went. Our
skills increased. Our numbers increased. We developed our
organisational and our social skills. Our knowledge was still very
limited. We knew little beyond our immediate reality. It was a time
when will and imagination held great sway. Powerful leaders
constructed vast empires. Powerful ideas of meaning and hope took
hold. These particular gifts - of will and dominance and creativity -
were in the ascendant. Any quiet truth was beatne down. Millions of
lives, of individuals, were beaten down. Across the globe vast
superstructures of dominance were set up. We constructed empires - I
use the word constructed almost in an engineering sense. We built them
up, locking in millions of lives. They were never quite rigid, never
like anthills, for example. Human beings are too volatile and varied
for that. There were always individuals and groups at odds with the
leadership. But the style of the time was mastery of people and of
truth.
3: And then, when?....1500, 1600, began the counter movement,the
assertion of rights and, eventually, of individuality. It came through
religious conflict, through traders and manufacturers, through groups
of peasants and citizens. Again, it was a fraught process. Again, many
of the same abilities,leadership, dominance, imagination, were to the
fore - but now at the service of the group instead of the state. And
knowledge was added; also printing, also travel; also science. The old
ignorant enforcement was breaking down. And views of human possibility
were now listened to - Rousseau etc; and views of human justice were
also listened to and were given momentum by the gathering together of
workers. And the old empires broke up under the strain, thus allowing
new people-based states to form. It was a time of vast energy and
intelligence, but often rude intelligence, hastily conceived rights
without analysis of our true situation on the planet. But then that
came too. Derrida, Foucault and so many others examined all our
assertions and saw how tentative they were. But the momentum only
increased. A vast global society - of wealth and privilege and
pleasure and rights took hold; and once it took hold those outside
found it increasingly difficult to get in. And once it took hold those
INSIDE it found it increasingly difficult to see anything but their
own frenetic effort to stay part of the swirl.A new greed took over
and a new stupidity - not of ignorance but of indifference to
knowledge. People genuinely seemed lost in the powerful swell of this
vast new society.
4: Ah-ha, this'll be where the ol' Humanisation comes in!!!!!!
It asks us to oversee the entire process, to recognise that that
gifted creature of some 50000 years ago has (a) set up a global
society and has (b) come to some knowledge of its own precise place,
its own precise rights ( still to be decided), in that society. It
calls this society Humanisation, this society where human beings have
finally colonised their planet and have finally come to a sense of
their own abilities and have finally created societies based not on
power or ignorance or will or necessity but on principles founded on
our natural abilities and individuality.
My hope is that awareness and acceptance of such an achievement and
such a society will move us beyond our current greed and
shortsightedness and will encourage leaders to come forward to effect
the changes we need today.
We'll see,
Joseph H
www.humanisation.org
.
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: MND OF MATTER |
01 Jan 2005 10:23:55 AM |
|
|
In message <2b0ce0c5.0501010524.13117d67@posting.google.com>, Joseph H
<joseph@humanisation.org> writes
My hope is that awareness and acceptance of such an achievement and
such a society will move us beyond our current greed and
shortsightedness and will encourage leaders to come forward to effect
the changes we need today.
OK, Joseph. What changes should they effect?
And a happy 2005.
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MND OF MATTER |
04 Jan 2005 01:00:58 PM |
|
|
ralph wrote:
In message <2b0ce0c5.0501010524.13117d67@posting.google.com>, Joseph
H
<joseph@humanisation.org> writes
My hope is that awareness and acceptance of such an achievement and
such a society will move us beyond our current greed and
shortsightedness and will encourage leaders to come forward to
effect
the changes we need today.
OK, Joseph. What changes should they effect?
And a happy 2005.
--
ralph
Hi Ralph, on the very sunny island of Lanzarote, delaying my response
What changes should they effect?
Politicians, as we know, mirror the concerns of their electorate. This
can lead to the poverty of imagination and vision I wrote about in my
last posting. Anything which augments imagination and increases vision
surely will inspire politicians to take the decisions required to
improve our societies and to secure our future. I mentioned many of
these concerns in my posting: endemic poverty even in the midst of
riches, poverty elsewhere, poor education, poor health services,
irresponsible overuse of fossil-fuel. What disturbs me about your
frequent re-iteration of this question is that you seem to imply that
(a) there are no problems to be solved and (b) there is no action that
leaders can take to solve them. I dispute both views and i also hold to
the opinion that a leader driven by a particular vision of humanity, a
particular BENIGN vision, of course, must, all other things being
equal, be a better leader, be less prone to corruption and cronyism, be
more ocurageous in taking the tough decisions, in taxing if she/he
feels the need to tax,in tackling energy lobbies, and all
lobbies....and so on.
Thanks for posting.
Joseph H
.
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: MND OF MATTER |
05 Jan 2005 11:54:06 AM |
|
|
In message <1104865258.384808.275470@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
joseph@humanisation.org writes
ralph wrote:
In message <2b0ce0c5.0501010524.13117d67@posting.google.com>, Joseph
H
<joseph@humanisation.org> writes
My hope is that awareness and acceptance of such an achievement and
such a society will move us beyond our current greed and
shortsightedness and will encourage leaders to come forward to
effect
the changes we need today.
OK, Joseph. What changes should they effect?
And a happy 2005.
--
ralph
Hi Ralph, on the very sunny island of Lanzarote, delaying my response
Enjoy, but watch that volcano, it's still active.
What changes should they effect?
Politicians, as we know, mirror the concerns of their electorate. This
can lead to the poverty of imagination and vision I wrote about in my
last posting. Anything which augments imagination and increases vision
surely will inspire politicians to take the decisions required to
improve our societies and to secure our future. I mentioned many of
these concerns in my posting: endemic poverty even in the midst of
riches, poverty elsewhere, poor education, poor health services,
irresponsible overuse of fossil-fuel. What disturbs me about your
frequent re-iteration of this question is that you seem to imply that
(a) there are no problems to be solved and (b) there is no action that
leaders can take to solve them.
I really don't think that's fair. My questioning has always been
directed towards getting you to address specifics, rather than
generalities.
I have recently repeated Mr. Clinton's idea of competitive support for
developing countries and advanced my own for conspicuous donation.
I dispute both views and i also hold to
the opinion that a leader driven by a particular vision of humanity, a
particular BENIGN vision, of course, must, all other things being
equal, be a better leader, be less prone to corruption and cronyism, be
more ocurageous in taking the tough decisions, in taxing if she/he
feels the need to tax,in tackling energy lobbies, and all
lobbies....and so on.
So, the US should raise taxes on fossil fuels? I completely agree, and
have been saying this for years. No-one has agreed before, but welcome
to this little club.
Now, where do we find the politician to drive this forward?
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
