Life...
- Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), p48
It is simply out of the question to lose temper unless there is a dignified reason for doing as much. If the expression of temper being lost is wild and uncontained like the London riots several months ago, empathy becomes difficult and people lose trust. At large people are not angered but rather carry an overbearing disdain for the wordless yet destructive statement. Comparitively, the London occupation of more recent times has been calm, concerted and an attempt to address issues which the country is worried about at large. This patient process based around understanding and overall empathy and concern for more than the self is completely welcome, yet politically it is disruptive.
Now, the question bears being asked: have the politicians been involved in anything of the like? Has a single soul seen a politician serving lunch to a stranger, welcoming dialogue and open criticism of a constructive nature. Despite its inevitable fate, Occupy London (and I admit of its green-faced, and bright-eyed naivete) is an instance of global outreach and determination to form feasible solutions to issues that governments cannot conceive of because of their socio-economic foundations. Governments are so concerned with debt and trying to level off deficits that they do not address even the most basic needs of the governed, and it begins to show, like a familiar fractal pattern that is only familiar once it emerges in full form.
Now, the question bears being asked: have the politicians been involved in anything of the like? Has a single soul seen a politician serving lunch to a stranger, welcoming dialogue and open criticism of a constructive nature. Despite its inevitable fate, Occupy London (and I admit of its green-faced, and bright-eyed naivete) is an instance of global outreach and determination to form feasible solutions to issues that governments cannot conceive of because of their socio-economic foundations. Governments are so concerned with debt and trying to level off deficits that they do not address even the most basic needs of the governed, and it begins to show, like a familiar fractal pattern that is only familiar once it emerges in full form.
The government has of late been selling forests to private ownership, conceiving of extending Margaret Thacher's "sell everything" mantra to the extent that as a matter of course private companies will be building on green-belt land and forgetting how little potential for growth there actually is. It is simple to see what the problem is; the British government for many moons has rested upon Adam Smith's contention that capitalism offers great growth potential through the specialised use of labour. However, the difficulties surface when one begins to note that Adam Smith himself was critical of his own system and not enamoured of the government's policy at the time either (his arguments concerning slave labour were a very astute criticism of colonialism and mercantilism). There is no growth that does not reside in education, re-establishing cultual networks, focussing on a transition from high and unsustainable energy production, the cultivation of forests and dissused land for farming purposes. The only benefit of capitalism has been an extraordinary rise in the quality of living and the abolition of famine.
But it has not given us liberty. Reading Vladimir Lenin's sharp and derisive criticism of market economy in the West when he was writing at the beginning of last century one anticipates the fateful Great War. History is the universal conscience; it has been established first as propaganda and for self-aggrandisement of nations and subsequently as gathering understanding of the history of a species. The other humanities courses broaden this understanding and science alleviates current problems and sets a solid groundwork for the quality of human life ahead. We have the knowledge, the literature, the science, the culture that we have never had before, but we assign these roles to specialists and we prioritise the worthless books over the substantial. Our society falters because it is not acting in a natural fashion; complex global communities cannot be fashioned or folded like a square into a circle. The shape remains square and remains linear, with anticipated consequences which never arise because that isn't how life works.
And I am not enamoured of Lenin's political thought. I am currently in the midst of research to establish what he might not have understood or what he understood very well, but an the expense of the other. These great men that are revered through history do not know how to contain their ideas or practices; rather they fluctuate through time, and time does not behave itself. One cannot simply project the future he idealises onto reality. I have been paying attention to Milan Kundera's questions in "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting" here. Life is so simple and so complicated at the same time, and to forget the duality is to forget precisely what this is. One cannot specialise and understand the entirety at the same time. To understand economics one must also understand the psychology of peoples, and must have a firm grasp of much more that market fluctuations. Economics at this very moment is a question of how to maintain free market capitalism, and it will doubtless bend and fold when nature resolves that its elasticity is gone. But these questions are not nearly close enough to the kind we ought to be asking.
I say "economy" and you all run a mile. It's understandable. When economics comes into discussion we think of massive elastic development which we all have a no handle of, but we are part of it and it is part of us. Without the consent of swathes of people (this is questionable, but we will assume here that consent was offered in the first instance) the man-made economy which exists at this moment would collapse. This is no threat whatsoever. This, as a matter of fact, is a natural process which has taken place since the world began; whenever there is over-consumption or a threat posed not just to species but to environment, the edifice either disappears or is changed. Now, to speak of the unfathomable; natural economy.
Natural economy is what is truly at risk. This species has plumbed the depths of this earth, swept its oceans, caged its animals, dried its earth and spilled oil over beautiful azure oceans. Children understand this; they are probably the most viable source of opinion because they haven't been so initiated into the cult of the consumer. But we are losing our ability to interact with earth.
Now, let's break the structure a little.
Let's
break it
up.
What?
Bemusement. Confusion.
Why?
Enquiring. Questioning. Insquisitive.
Children represent humanity at its peak moment of potential. It can be debated that humans only reach a very good learning curve when at university-level, but this sort of learning is irrelevant for the purpose of living a practical life. To be a specialist, or to be a generalist: that is the question. Children are generalists, are inquisitive, and are, ultimately, confused. Social amnesia, absence of strong actual bonds of friendship, formal distance between teachers... the pattern is exquisite as it is disheartening. One must strive against the general cascade of human tradition or else all ability to discern meaning from natural environment is destroyed. Children are plied with entertainment and their value systems are bent out of shape, their ability to interact is marred by strict social conventions. Natural intimacy between friends is frowned upon and the list continues...
They understand creativity. They understand the world is a bright, very complex place, and they ask endless questions and get fewer answers. Rather than dwell in their world, we bring them into our own, and then we have the finest contradiction against nature that could ever be conceived. The human species has created its own world through imagination but fails to see that the world is much grander and productive than it could ever be on its own. Humanity is entirely contingent on the flow of nature for its longevity and so many things that "developed" societies attest the denomination of progress to are in fact just corrections of modes of thought which naturally we would have been opposed to in any case. But the system cannot be questioned; it is the way it is. Nature has no role to play here, except for the role of which we all must have realised she would play eventually; to break us out of our imagination and present us with the true image. This is not a forecast of benevolence from nature, but simply a statement of the way things truly are; nature holds no contempt for us, and equally no nurturing role other than to be. Life is a precious gift; we are of it, and we can also see outside of it.
The theories of the philosopher Buckminster-Fuller are apt here. Humanity is in final exam, states he, and this is of whether to maintain mind as our form of existence or whether we let that disappear into history. Mind or short-term gratification? Real growth or artificial growth? These are also issues which also threaten our humanity. And not nearly enough people are writing urgently enough about this. Mind is precious, and it connects us remarkably with our earth; reflection, dialogue, expression of sentiment. If we let our culture and relationship with nature slide then we will go the way that many other species have; we will be replaced.
It is that sort of a situation.
And, let's see now, natural economy. It exists. It exists, one could say, perfectly and there is great order in the universe. Yes, there were once famines occuring in cycles and we have moved past that, but the earth is fertile and our species- or at least the irresponsible side of it- do not respect it adequately. Life cannot be contained, and nature will not be imprisoned. Either the species chooses to side with natural economy, teach its children how to be generalists and ask questions, raises culture as opposed to mass production, adopts local farming and production on a wider scale or... well. I am not a prophet. But I will say this, and I will say it with sincerity and kindness: if you sympathise you are not alone. Keep reaching out to people; even strangers harbours a love of you and your world. Too many people don't know each other and don't make discussions with one another. Keep reaching out to people.
And I am not enamoured of Lenin's political thought. I am currently in the midst of research to establish what he might not have understood or what he understood very well, but an the expense of the other. These great men that are revered through history do not know how to contain their ideas or practices; rather they fluctuate through time, and time does not behave itself. One cannot simply project the future he idealises onto reality. I have been paying attention to Milan Kundera's questions in "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting" here. Life is so simple and so complicated at the same time, and to forget the duality is to forget precisely what this is. One cannot specialise and understand the entirety at the same time. To understand economics one must also understand the psychology of peoples, and must have a firm grasp of much more that market fluctuations. Economics at this very moment is a question of how to maintain free market capitalism, and it will doubtless bend and fold when nature resolves that its elasticity is gone. But these questions are not nearly close enough to the kind we ought to be asking.
I say "economy" and you all run a mile. It's understandable. When economics comes into discussion we think of massive elastic development which we all have a no handle of, but we are part of it and it is part of us. Without the consent of swathes of people (this is questionable, but we will assume here that consent was offered in the first instance) the man-made economy which exists at this moment would collapse. This is no threat whatsoever. This, as a matter of fact, is a natural process which has taken place since the world began; whenever there is over-consumption or a threat posed not just to species but to environment, the edifice either disappears or is changed. Now, to speak of the unfathomable; natural economy.
Natural economy is what is truly at risk. This species has plumbed the depths of this earth, swept its oceans, caged its animals, dried its earth and spilled oil over beautiful azure oceans. Children understand this; they are probably the most viable source of opinion because they haven't been so initiated into the cult of the consumer. But we are losing our ability to interact with earth.
Now, let's break the structure a little.
Let's
break it
up.
What?
Bemusement. Confusion.
Why?
Enquiring. Questioning. Insquisitive.
Children represent humanity at its peak moment of potential. It can be debated that humans only reach a very good learning curve when at university-level, but this sort of learning is irrelevant for the purpose of living a practical life. To be a specialist, or to be a generalist: that is the question. Children are generalists, are inquisitive, and are, ultimately, confused. Social amnesia, absence of strong actual bonds of friendship, formal distance between teachers... the pattern is exquisite as it is disheartening. One must strive against the general cascade of human tradition or else all ability to discern meaning from natural environment is destroyed. Children are plied with entertainment and their value systems are bent out of shape, their ability to interact is marred by strict social conventions. Natural intimacy between friends is frowned upon and the list continues...
They understand creativity. They understand the world is a bright, very complex place, and they ask endless questions and get fewer answers. Rather than dwell in their world, we bring them into our own, and then we have the finest contradiction against nature that could ever be conceived. The human species has created its own world through imagination but fails to see that the world is much grander and productive than it could ever be on its own. Humanity is entirely contingent on the flow of nature for its longevity and so many things that "developed" societies attest the denomination of progress to are in fact just corrections of modes of thought which naturally we would have been opposed to in any case. But the system cannot be questioned; it is the way it is. Nature has no role to play here, except for the role of which we all must have realised she would play eventually; to break us out of our imagination and present us with the true image. This is not a forecast of benevolence from nature, but simply a statement of the way things truly are; nature holds no contempt for us, and equally no nurturing role other than to be. Life is a precious gift; we are of it, and we can also see outside of it.
The theories of the philosopher Buckminster-Fuller are apt here. Humanity is in final exam, states he, and this is of whether to maintain mind as our form of existence or whether we let that disappear into history. Mind or short-term gratification? Real growth or artificial growth? These are also issues which also threaten our humanity. And not nearly enough people are writing urgently enough about this. Mind is precious, and it connects us remarkably with our earth; reflection, dialogue, expression of sentiment. If we let our culture and relationship with nature slide then we will go the way that many other species have; we will be replaced.
It is that sort of a situation.
And, let's see now, natural economy. It exists. It exists, one could say, perfectly and there is great order in the universe. Yes, there were once famines occuring in cycles and we have moved past that, but the earth is fertile and our species- or at least the irresponsible side of it- do not respect it adequately. Life cannot be contained, and nature will not be imprisoned. Either the species chooses to side with natural economy, teach its children how to be generalists and ask questions, raises culture as opposed to mass production, adopts local farming and production on a wider scale or... well. I am not a prophet. But I will say this, and I will say it with sincerity and kindness: if you sympathise you are not alone. Keep reaching out to people; even strangers harbours a love of you and your world. Too many people don't know each other and don't make discussions with one another. Keep reaching out to people.
Comments
Post a Comment