Even the simplest conflicts, we find so trouble in resolving them. *Scoff*. Husband and wife, brother and sister, friend and friend, man to man, woman to woman. Solve your problems at this level before you move to solve those at the higher, more populous level. All of you arrogant twerps here, including myself, who care for no one or no thing, you think of all the conflict in the world but realize not the fundamental place it begins from and that man and woman fighting on the corner with the scissors and the knife at close hand. *Scoff*
For me, it’s all good, I always have something to watch
Life In Every Breath 
I might assume you’re at least partly responding to the conflict I’m having with OM. If so or even if not, I can add my perspective on this.
I don’t see the problem as the conflict of views. I’m fine with a conflict of views. I don’t think this ‘conflict’ is a problem that needs to be resolved, although I realize it may seem offensive, tiresome or just plain odd to some especially those with Fe. But, as an INFP, I passionately fight for what is important to me.
There are problems, but this kind of disagreement isn’t really a problem or else isn’t a primary problem. I’m concerned with one thing and one thing only: truth. The thing about truth is that it’s an issue that exists on all levels.
I’m not a New Ager. I don’t overly care about New Age visions of such abstract ideals as peace and love. They are interesting, but not of my central concern. I will defend truth by any means because to me a lie or even simple ignorance is the worst kind of violence, the violence against reality and against the highest human potential. Love or any other such ideals is meaningless without truth.
I don’t know if that makes sense to you. I can be an observer like you, but when it comes to truth I’m a fighter. I don’t pull my punches. Truth isn’t just a game to me, not just pretty words and intellectual masturbation. If you don’t take a stand for something, you will fall for anything. Imagine a world where no one was willing to risk anything for the sake of what they believed in. Maybe it would be more peaceful, but it would be a world without soul.
I grew up in a house full of conflict, this thought is an old one and stems from there. I was only incited to post this and break my silence due to a conflict at home. I don’t really follow you and OM, I do catch some snippets
You do remember that “stand for nothing, fall for anything” has been discussed by us before, don’t you? As for me, I don’t need to stand for anything, I don’t know when I’ve ever fixedly stood for anything. Maybe, transiently, for the sake of Balance so I let the other know the other way to look at it but not as something I with all my heart believe in – that has always been very hard for me, all my heart. In matters, I try to be the representative of the Ultimate and show others that they aren’t omniscient, omnipotent etc and mitigate hubris, I might do that and after tell you to pursue that dream of yours, perhaps, even help you.
But that is exactly what OM is telling you: we can’t have equality of all those things you mentioned. The New Age ideal of peace and love is similar to that equality ideal. In my mind, I can make them work but I think I know the assumption you are making about the New Agers and by that very assumption, your equality ideal won’t hold. I am fully aware that life is conflict. I sometimes mourn the loss of the old time warring and campaigning (I am an adventurer after all). I think this way (which Marcus Aurelius expresses thus): the universe is transformation, life is opinion
People risking for what they believe in will just devolve to blind intransigence. People risking for what they believe in will just be another ideological debate. If that’s the case, that people should risk, then brace for massive loss of life and suffering (especially in a world where people are not stoical – a lot of hurt possible cos of this, psych especially – and don’t leave the expertise to the experts – what I mean here is leaving the activities or domains to those who are actually skilled at them or, for me, talented at them), which I don’t overly care about; I had wanted to say this at your blog post but my net was detracting me, it kept wiping away my messages, I wrote them down though (after two tries) and I’ll post them when my motivation comes
It is the tragedy of humanity to fight, that is, in spite of the awareness of its vanity because no opinion is absolute, we will do it if we each want to risk for what we believe in n to live, at that
As for me, I don’t really seek to end these, my problem is with hubris that might stand behind them
You know what I did sometimes to my mom: I’d write a testament where we put our positions on a matter and that no one is to be blamed and/or accused for what happened next for we have come to a consensus – I have given advice, you still want what you want, I’m still here if it goes wrong, I’ll celebrate with you if it goes right. Only the success of anything determines who’s right and it presupposes risk, let’s then not overly accuse the one who had it wrong and keyword is ‘overly’
The post was also to express the paradox of people. They want to end suffering when they cause it by being weak and by being strong. Hahaha, the human condition is fascinating
“I was only incited to post this and break my silence due to a conflict at home. I don’t really follow you and OM, I do catch some snippets”
I didn’t think you followed my discussions with OM. I only suspected you might be responding to our conflict because you were also involved in the exact same discussion where the conflict was going on and you posted this directly after that conflict began. It was just an educated guess that there might be a connection between this post and the discussion in my post.
“You do remember that “stand for nothing, fall for anything” has been discussed by us before, don’t you?”
Actually, no I don’t remember that discussion. What exactly did we discuss? Do you recall which post that was in?
“As for me, I don’t need to stand for anything, I don’t know when I’ve ever fixedly stood for anything. Maybe, transiently, for the sake of Balance so I let the other know the other way to look at it but not as something I with all my heart believe in – that has always been very hard for me, all my heart.”
I don’t need to stand for anything either. I really don’t think standing for anything matters in the big picture. But on a visceral level I feel compelled to stand for something. It’s the only thing that gives my life meaning. And if my life had no meaning it would not be worth living. Even if it’s a losing battle, fighting the good fight matters because giving up seems even worse.
“But that is exactly what OM is telling you: we can’t have equality of all those things you mentioned. The New Age ideal of peace and love is similar to that equality ideal. In my mind, I can make them work but I think I know the assumption you are making about the New Agers and by that very assumption, your equality ideal won’t hold.”
In that case, you don’t understand my position any more than OM. My position isn’t an ideal. That is the whole point. My ideas about ‘equality’ are relative, not absolute. I’m a pessimist, not an idealist.
Equality, as such, is secondary to my value of truth. It’s just that it’s true that inequality exists and it’s true that certain things in life can increase or decrease that inequality. That isn’t idealism. It’s just a fact of life. I don’t have much hope that those who have the power to decrease inequality will likely do so, but it still pisses me off when those who should know better can’t even acknowledge the basic facts of reality. Let’s begin with reality and then we can talk about our hopes and criticisms about ideals.
“People risking for what they believe in will just devolve to blind intransigence. People risking for what they believe in will just be another ideological debate. If that’s the case, that people should risk, then brace for massive loss of life and suffering (especially in a world where people are not stoical – a lot of hurt possible cos of this, psych especially – and don’t leave the expertise to the experts – what I mean here is leaving the activities or domains to those who are actually skilled at them or, for me, talented at them), which I don’t overly care about”
I would say that it doesn’t matter if you care or don’t care. There is no leaving anything to others. Experts can be helpful, but experts can’t free us from being involved. We are involved the moment we are born. There are no observers. There is no place to stand apart from the crowd and noise. Yes, there is blind intransigence and ideological debate. It’s called the human condition. There is no escape from being human.
“It is the tragedy of humanity to fight, that is, in spite of the awareness of its vanity because no opinion is absolute, we will do it if we each want to risk for what we believe in n to live, at that”
It is the tragedy of humanity to exist… all of life is a fight, a struggle, against one another, against ourselves… and there are no winners.
“As for me, I don’t really seek to end these, my problem is with hubris that might stand behind them”
Hubris is everywhere. No matter where you look, hubris will also be where ever you don’t look. So, if you see hubris behind something, you probably won’t see the hubris right in front of you.
“The post was also to express the paradox of people. They want to end suffering when they cause it by being weak and by being strong. Hahaha, the human condition is fascinating”
It’s fascinating because it’s tragic. And it’s tragic because it’s inevitable. I used to try to stand outside of the paradox. Now I just live the paradox. I’ve given up on trying to be above the muck and the mud.
It really doesn’t matter either way. The good and the bad all meet the same end. Fight or don’t fight. Observe or act. It’s all the same. Just humans being human. Each to their own. We are who we are and we can’t be anything else.
“In that case, you don’t understand my position any more than OM”
I had a thought that my presented understanding wasn’t it. You’re just as complicated as I am, we know too much, putting a finger on where we stand is difficult. I just had a vision that the only thing to do will be to meet, smile to each other then walk side by side cos we both sorta have similar thoughts. Don’t label yourself a pessimist, you’re just an equalizer like me – that’s the impression I get from the above.
We should live the paradox, we do live it, every one of us whether observer or whatever. An observer is still human, is he not? And the human condition is paradoxical, then tragic then fascinating because of that. One can be funny about it or gloomy, they also are just two ways to look at it that are also available to the human. The human condition is sad and saddening but it is also interesting as well as funny and quickening, amusing
Well, ‘complex’ might be a nice way of putting it.
I was wondering how consistent I really am. I can make a consistent argument, but maybe that is just another layer of rationalization, another handful of bullshit smeared into my eyes. Oh, silly humans.
In some ways, I’m an equal opportunity critic.
“Maybe I’m less critical of statism and progressivism simply because I’m equally critical of all modern systems of social, political and economic organization. My cynicism makes me have lower standards and more moderate expectations. I’m more accepting of the failings of our society because I just assume that one kind of failure or another is inevitable with civilization as we know it. Or maybe, as someone who feels like a failure at life, I feel it would be hypocritical to be too judgmental of the failure of others. I have a strong sense of sympathy for human imperfection.”
And, in other ways, I’m just a Devil’s Advocate.
In either case, I’m always drawn to defend the defenseless, the underdog… or else maybe just defend whatever is being attacked, dismissed or denied. So, yeah, maybe this is like your speaking about ‘balance’ and being an ‘equalizer’.
In my responses to OM, I was defending the position that has no power, that has no advocate among the ruling elite. The details are secondary. I’ve at times defended ideals and I’ve at times called myself an idealist. OM was just bringing out my Devil’s Advocate because I know enough about OM to know she tends toward a New Age perspective. Since I was raised with New Age idealism, it’s a sore spot for me… to put it lightly. OM is one of those people on the more optimistic side of life. When I meet an optimistic New Ager, I just want to punch in the face. I know it’s wrong, but it’s a very strong urge.
“I just had a vision that the only thing to do will be to meet, smile to each other then walk side by side cos we both sorta have similar thoughts.”
One thing you must forgive, if you feel forgiving, is that I’m less fun and friendly on the internet. You are most often seeing the gloom and doom side of my personality… which comes out the most clearly when I’m alone and when I’m writing on the internet I’m always alone (not including my kitties; just imagine how negative I’d be without my kitties). On the internet, we are all alone together. In person, I’m much different. I’m constantly joking around when with friends. So, it sucks for all those who only know me via the internet. They get a disproportionate amount of the negativity.
“An observer is still human, is he not?”
All observers must be ridiculed and humiliated, taunted and laughed at. We the players must attack the observers until they join our game or else they will be made the brunt of it. The game is called kick the observer. You’ll join or else. Bwahahaha!!! Pick a side, you loser. No standing on the side lines. LOL
“can’t even acknowledge the basic facts of reality”
That’s what I mean by hubris – failure to acknowledge that we are ignorant. The arrogant stick to their ideas like they’re absolute truths; that’s my beef, that’s hubris because reality is all the perspectives, all the state of affairs, all the ideas, all the all, we can’t separate what happens on the ground or ‘really’ from what we imagine and all that. That’s reality and the unjustly treated are also unjustly complaining, the unjustly acting are also unjustly blamed. I will be happy and would even support one when one says “I do know that this is a risk, it isn’t correct, it is a risk”. We will have to risk and that means some possible pain or loss. But should someone say such a thing, he wouldn’t be trusted cos people want blind resolve. What works is not the same as truth, people are always fooled by that. If our lives can’t be perfectly taken care of, we have to fight for better, not say “you’re wrong”. We’ll just have to act, life is fight, all the conception is phooey.
It’s all a paradox cos man, as I’ve been saying all my life, is a paradox. He will save a life while he will also take a life. He will be happy to take a life while he’ll also be sad. We still have our lives so we live them till we die or not
The Christians who come to moralize me, I tell them “if hell turns out to be true, oh well, at least, it was me that led myself there, no coercion and I’ll burn, eternal pain is also something, whatever it is is also something even if it’s obliteration” – that’s a good response to Pascal. Hahaha
And, for me, what I’ll tell is to keep growing humanly – physically, mentally, spiritually, that’s all
“I’m constantly joking around when with friends”
Me too.
If you are conscious of the fallibility of your position, conscious of the paradox, conscious of the tragedy, you’re fine, by me. Cheers!!!
Devil’s Advocate? Haha, when everyone’s laughing, I’m gloomy, when they’re too serious, I cavort
I guess I have some basic self-awareness of my flaws and my predicament. I have a strong sense of who I am, even though I don’t always like who I am. Between happiness and awareness, I would be tempted to take the former… but such choice has never been given me. So, consciousness is what I got. It’s better than nothing.
I’m usually gloomy, even when laughing. I laugh at the gloom. If one can’t laugh at suffering, then what can one laugh at?
Check out the wikipedia entry on Thought Disorder and tell me how many of them fit you. Definitely, flight of ideas should, it fits me. Echolalia, neologisms do too. All of them fit me, except maybe two but they’re not uncontrollable
I checked out the wikipedia entry on Thought Disorder. And many of them fit me to varying degrees. But some don’t apply to me at all.
I was once diagnosed with some kind of thought disorder (at the same time I was diagnosed with depression) and I was put on Risperdal which is an anti-psychotic (supposedly it just helps the mind to stay focused). There is a funny story to the Risperdal. It was making me feel agitated, but for most people it calms them. So the doctor thought increasing my dosage would decrease the agitation. He was wrong. It just increased my agitation to the point I was pacing like a caged lion. Once it was decreased, I was fine.
It was around 15 years ago, right after my suicide attempt. I didn’t think much about it at the time and didn’t ask any questions, but now I wish I knew more precise details about it. Such labels as Thought Disorder had no meaning or significance to me at the time. I was just going through the motions.
So you’ve attempted suicide? Didn’t know. I wanna laugh, can I? I also have suffered with suicide ideation in the past, it’s not that I don’t have them now. I do remember attempting to asphyxiate to death by holding my breath during a major crisis of my IBS in combo with some heavy depression but I couldn’t go through it cos I was skeptical if it was the way to go, if I wasn’t being unreasonable and if I wasn’t being weak :-).
Will you entertain e-mails? Not many do, since I started blogging, I’ve had people contact me via e-mail – I didn’t mind – but I’ve asked about 3 times, only 1 allowed. Will you? I want to send you a manuscript I have. A dark, weird story. And I want us to collaborate on a possible story, I can’t stand and watch your talent just go to waste and by trying to move you, I’ll move myself, so a selfish reason too ;-). Manic depression (undiagnosed) + depression + weirdness/psychosis (both of us) = who knows? C’mon, let’s do this. I guess your friend the INFJ has tried similar before? Lemme say that in my mania, I’m fucking stellar; funny thing is I can access it volitinally, sometimes ;-). Seems when it is in the offing already that I can do that. But, the non-volitional one still beats the volitional
I wasn’t sure if I had mentioned it before. I can’t keep track of all the things I say to various people. I don’t generally talk much about it because it rarely comes up in conversation, but I don’t care about trying to hide it. It was just something that happened long long ago.
Contemplating suicide probably isn’t uncommon. I suspect most people consider suicide at some point in their life. I’m not sure how many actually attempt it, but success is very difficult. If I remember correctly, it takes on average 7 or 8 attempts before someone succeeds. But many tend to be more successful because they use more brutal means such as guns.
Ya wanna laugh, eh? Sure. It’s fine by me.
Email? Yeah, that could be arranged. I wouldn’t want to post my email address, though. Do you have a YouTube or Facebook account where I could send you a private message?
Story collaboration? I might be interested. I haven’t been in story mode lately, but I wanted to get back into it. I used to collaborate in writing stories with my friend (the book club friend). We’ve been collaborating on stories since we were kids (back then they were mostly told orally rather than written).
I was talking to a fellow revolutionary the other day and he thought the US is now the centre of scholarship. His reason: “they produce a lot of books”. I wondered why I hadn’t seen it though I did guess that Uncle Sam is a bibliophile which guess I told you quite some time ago so maybe you forgotten. My problem was I was seeing ‘scholarship’ the stereotypic way of universities and the general sense of scholarliness which is following some accepted path and not offending much people and not being controversial. Actually, the issue is a prolificacy of ideas. Interesting, Germany used to hold that pedestal – seat of scholarship; o, my Germans. Before them, Roman, before them, Greek, before them, Egypt. Ok, you can lift your flag now and tote your .357 Colt pistol
Centre of scholarship? It would depend on how it’s being measured.
US public schools are about average compared to other developed countries, but our higher education system has always been very good. People come from all over the world to go to US universities. I don’t know if other countries are surpassing the US in this area. Many countries have very good universities.
I had never thought about the US producing a lot of books. I guess that is true, but I’ve never seen the data on it. It does make sense. American values have always been tied up with having a free press. The founding fathers created subsidies for presses to encourage wide availability of cheap newspapers and books. And the founding fathers promoted public education and public libraries. This tradition of education and self-education comes from the British tradition (exemplified by Paine).
Prolificay of ideas. So you think there is a correlation between production of books and production of ideas? What kinds of ideas are being produced in the US compared to other countries? What about innovation? Do you think US ideas are more innovative or lead to innovation? I sometimes think the US is falling behind, but maybe the US is still doing some things right.
Don’t you think there might be a relation between cosmopolitan and schorlaship?
There is, no need to answer, man, Ben
“I wouldn’t want to post my email address, though”
Haha, your e-mail address comes with your comment. I have a facebook account, I’ll find ya, you’ll see me when you see me
I forgot about email addresses being connected with comments.
You can email me if so desire. Or you can message me on Facebook.
“Imagine a world where no one was willing to risk anything for the sake of what they believed in”
In Africa, we have a simple saying: “too much of everything is bad”. That correlates with my “everything in moderation”.
It is you from the ‘great’ West who have popularized this ‘what you believe in’ principle. So, in the end, we stand inexorably, no falling and we fall eventually into caskets. To put it dramatically:
Some fear to live, others fear to die. An unresolvable conflict, line vs line, a war to the death
Funnily too, the Ewe sing a song like this: “The learned//it is you who are breaking the society down//when the complaint is made//they say they are learned”. It’s nicer in Ewe
Is there a reason that you repeated your comment a second time? I was just watching a video where someone repeated their video twice. Is this ‘Repeat Yourself’ Day or something? LOL
“too much of everything is bad”
Yeah, that isn’t just an African attitude. Many ordinary Americans (i.e., those you don’t see on the MSM) would agree with that saying, especially in the Midwest.
To be Devil’s Advocate, what if you took moderation to the extreme? It would no longer be moderation. Can moderation include some extremism? Do you need to moderate your moderateness with some non-moderateness? If you moderate extremism in one direction with extremism in the other direction, does it even out to a moderate middle? I was thinking it could be something like letting out your emotions. A person who pretends to be emotionally moderate by not showing their emotions isn’t in reality emotionally moderate. But the person who expresses all their emotions and then lets them go may be emotionally moderate in a genuine way.
Are we in the West to blame for the ‘what you believe in’ principle. I suppose it’s true we popularized it as we have popularized most popular things in the world so far (because most of the globally popular media is Western). But I don’t know if we should be blamed for it. Any major civilization is going to promote the ‘what you believe in’ principle. The only societies that avoid this is by remaining small. It’s through the ‘what you believe in’ principle that the small society is made into a ‘great’ nation. I personally don’t think it’s necessarily good for a society to strive to become a ‘great’ nation. I wish there were more small societies, more close-knit communities, more indigenous people.
Still, all societies believe in something. A society can’t exist without a common belief. It’s not possible as far as I can tell. When that belief is challenged, any society will fight for what they stand for. If a society wasn’t willing to fight in this way, it wouldn’t last for long… unless maybe it was completely isolated which is impossible these days.
What Westerners have truly created is the tragedy. Some have argued that tragedy is a Western innovation. Tragedy is all about standing up until you fall, sometimes even knowing your going to fall but standing up anyway. I suppose you could just peacefully lay down of your own freewill, but what fun would that be? 😉
If you’d notice, similar currents run on my ‘Everted Vision VII’ post where the other guy and I simply refuse to moderate our chosen manners of expression – it’s partly intentional on my part.
I like that you see the repetition, you’re perceptive, others don’t see it. It’s my celly that’s fuckin up, seems to be faulting of late a lot. Death seems imminent.
The whole issue with standing is that when inexorable steps into the matter, moderation is scuttered.
Emotions are a complex issue. How much do we know of them to know which part and when to control them. People think they know themselves, they can control themselves, they know so much, in fact, how much is known? Standing inexorably is the issue, to attempt to say what, where and when to control is extremely difficult
Moderation can be moderated, that’s why they said ‘everything’. The thing is, such sayings are intuitive and abstract, analysis of them is difficult
In the final analysis, one cannot make society god nor himself god, in fact, there’s no fixed god. The moment of action is god, that’s where one’s god at that particular time is expressed and it’s in that moment that one acts, that’s why it also is god. The simple expression is: “the moment is god” but if I don’t put all those others there, analysis will talk and talk, missing the idea
By the way, should you check the other guys post that you referred to before ‘These days…’, you’ll see that it’s the same thing that I just said about standing in our expressive styles that makes the discussion run so long. I don’t know why it’s so easy to speak to you – maybe, we’re both privy to the same things, or we all like to entertain all sides even the weird (which means we depend mostly on our intuition) or we’re just liberal and try to see the other (honestly, I don’t see how this differs from intuition but since you and the scientists say so and cos one can just choose to be liberal – fake liberal 🙂 – ok)
I’m not sure what my real position is on this.
I’m an extremely moderate person in my daily life. I’m an introvert which biases me against public displays of anything (emotions, affection, politics, etc). As a general rule, I mistrust radicalism in particular. I don’t think revolutions tend to lead to positive results, but I realize sometimes revolutions are necessary despite the uncertainty.
I want to be a believer, I want to be passionate. Even with my introversion, my Fi doesn’t always want moderation. I do think moderation resonates with some aspects of my Fi, but other aspects of my Fi want the passionate courage to stand up to immorality and injustice.
This is perfectly captured by the first book I read by Derrick Jensen, ‘The Language Older Than Words’. In that book, he quoted Otilia deKoster as having said, “What I fear is being in the presence of evil and doing nothing. I fear that more than death.” That is my constant fear. We become so used to the daily ‘evil’ of life that we can become apathetic, so apathetic that we lose the ability to summon the courage to respond when it really counts. Most evil in the world happens because people stand around doing nothing to stop it. The minority of evil-doers isn’t the problem. It’s the majority of regular people who allow evil that is the problem. Derrick Jensen describes this better than any other writer I’ve come across.
“The whole issue with standing is that when inexorable steps into the matter, moderation is scuttered.”
I understand what you mean, but I would point out a very large exception. When facing great evil, moderation itself too often plays a part in allowing and maintaining that evil. Some evils morally demand inexorable. In the US, it was Southerners who were always arguing moderation about slavery. They believed that abolishing slavery would lead to economic and social problems and that it would be better to allow slavery to run it’s own course. The radicals wanted slavery abolished immediately and they took radical actions to make it happen.
I suppose that would be part of moderation being moderated. But, in such situations, I’m not sure just moderating moderation is enough. When the evil one faces is being justified through moderation, maybe moderation needs to be scuttled. That said, scuttling all moderation in all situations wouldn’t be wise.
Because of my personality, there are two basic aspects to how I relate to the world.
First, there is what I care about. I have very few opinions about small things. If you put almost any food in front of me, I will probably eat it. I’m not picky. If you want to leave in 5 minutes, I’ll be ready. In most of my life, I just go with the flow. However, with big issues, I can be extremely opinionated. That is my Fi speaking. I may not know how to solve the problem or even believe it can be solved, but for damned sure I will have an opinion on the matter.
Second, my introversion magnifies this. Even when I have opinions, I rarely speak them to most people, especially in more public settings. I’m very reserved. This is particularly true when dealing with people face to face, but writing is a whole other matter. Written text allows my passionate opinionatedness to be less hindered and constrained. It’s in writing that I feel confident in myself and in what I believe. Writing offers me the time and space in which to clearly articulate my views. What this means in practical terms is that people who know me on the internet see a very different person than people who know me at work.
In conclusion, I argue for standing for something for the reason I fear being part of a world that I despise. There is no way to stand outside of the ‘evil’ going on around me. I benefit and I suffer because of it. I can’t escape it. To be moderate, would mean just accepting my fate and accepting that no one can do much of anything to change anything. It would be easy to rationalize that it’s not my problem, that it’s not my responsibility. I’m naturally prone to moderateness in how I actually live my life.
Derrick Jensen gives a good personal example. He lives near water dams that are causing salmon to go extinct. Just ‘moderately’ accepting the dams existence will inevitably lead to the extinction of a species humans have been co-existing with and depending on for longer than civilization has existed. There is nothing moderate about extinction. Any response to such moderate status quo would require radicalism of the most extreme variety. So, oddly, it’s moderate inaction that leads to radical ends such as extinction. The status quo is already radical because it opposes the very equilibrium of nature, the very continuation of life as we know it. Moderation in supporting this politician or that politician, in supporting this ideology or that ideology is one thing. But it’s a whole other matter when moderation is used to rationalize or ignore the fact that we are facing the largest mass extinction the planet has ever seen.
I don’t know about Derrick Jensen’s preferred solution, but he is absolutely right about the situation of our society (by which I mean ‘our’ global society, including ‘your’ Africa).
I just had a thought about ‘great’ nations. It’s only a ‘great’ nation that demands ‘great’ responses. It takes ‘great’ nations to create a world where ‘great’ mass extinctions happen. And ‘great’ problems like mass extinctions inevitably require ‘great’ solutions.
In this sense, ‘great’ just means large. There is an attitude that sees that bigger is better. Every ‘great’ civilization has had this attitude, and ‘great’ civilizations have existed on every continent. But it’s often civilizations becoming too ‘great’ that leads to their own doom.
As a general rule, I think such ‘greatness’ should be avoided. I’m all with the Taoists on this matter. But once the ‘greatness’ has been created a response is required. What does the Taoist do? In the past, the Taoist simply escaped the problems of ‘greatness’ by going off into the wilderness. But these days the wilderness is shrinking and the problems of civilization such as pollution will find even the most isolated hermit. There is no longer anywhere to escape to.
The real problem of ‘greatness’ is that if left unchecked it leads to a situation where even moderation becomes part of the problem.
Also, as ‘great’ nations go, the ‘greatest’ civilization to have first impacted and shaped Western culture was in fact African. Egypt was the greatest civilization near the Greeks. Egypt emodied the concept of ‘greatness’. The Greeks weren’t a great empire until Alexander the Great conquered the Egyptians and incorporated Egyptian imperialism into the Western tradition. That Greek-Egyptian Hellenism then led to the Roman Empire and we all know how that story ended.
Interestingly, the Roman Catholics and the Egyptian Coptics were two of the major competing Christianities. We think of Christianity as being ‘Western’, but Christianity came from the Jews who were at the time dark-skinned Middle Easterners and many of them settled in Alexandria. Egyptian culture was syncretistic which is how syncretism entered into the Western tradition and it’s syncretism that allowed Western civilization to become ‘great’.
I wonder how the world would be different if Egypt rather than Rome had become the main lineage of Christianity in the world. Imagine a world today where Alexandria had as much worldwide influence as Vatican City. North Africa had the potential to become what Europe became. It may have had more to do with climate changes than any cultural factors. The end of the Ice Age increasingly made Europe a fertile farming area and Egypt faced some ecological challenges. It can seem like mere accident which regions become prosperous and which nations become ‘great’.
I was just further thinking about another factor.
Syncretism is an idea that has always interested me. It’s for this reason that, despite not being ‘Christian’ in any normal sense of the term, the Christian tradition still appeals to me. Syncretism does have the tendency of destroying the unique which does suck, but it also leads to a weird kind of innovation by combining the disparate in crazy ways. It’s fun for all involved. Just ask anyone who ever met the Borg. The Christians had a motto that they heralded where ever they went, “You will be syncretized. Resistance is futile.”
Ain’t syncretism a beautiful thing?
Well, Borg-style Christianity aside, I was thinking that syncretism is very much a human trait. It’s just what humans do.
Humans have been migrating around the planet for longer than civilization has existed. Where ever humans have gone, they have incorporated the new environments into their culture and even into their genetics. All humans leaving Sub-Saharan Africa were forced to confront the neanderthals. I’m sure there was plenty of fighting between homo sapiens and neanderthals, but there apparently was a whole lot of fucking as well. The neanderthal genetics were assimilated even as the neanderthals as a distinct species went extinct. The same thing happened in parts of Asia with the denisovans. One of humans greatest accomplishments is to discover new species and fuck them.
Syncretism in all of its wonder is far from being unnatural, but certainly humans have brought it to a whole new level.
I can imagine such a world where North Africa would be the centre.
My moderation isn’t that type of moderation where people say “o, no don’t hit too hard” all the tym. No. That is another inexorable attitude for as soon as the “don’t hit so hard” saying becomes a ruling principle for the person, it is no longer moderated (I’m seeing a similarity between this and the conservative/liberal distinction where liberal values have become conserved). My moderation doesn’t look appreciatively at singular-minded stances – what such do is to always prejudice, always have an answer before the question whether that answer is on principle called good or evil. Perhaps, by my personality, I can easily live that way i.e. in a relative manner but I’m not sure.
It’s not easy to live in this moderate manner but it’s also not easy for others or the environment when there’s a definite stance which becomes wrapped up in emotion, philosophy and value (some might say value is emotion). My personality generally doesn’t stand anywhere definitely so I may be biased but it doesn’t mean moderation shouldn’t be espoused. In fact, moderation is just telling one that “don’t stay in any one mode far too long”. In any event, what happens is determined by the moment of action, if we decide to go it strong or with moderated magnitude, that’s what we saw fit not some ideology or custom or belief or e.t.c. It probably isn’t easy but life is more complex than stances including any moderate stance, that’s why I say ‘everything in moderation’
I’m curious to hear what you think about North Africa. What about that region made syncretism possible and likely. The only comparable early civilization would be India which is relatively close to Egypt.
While Europe was still tribal, Africa, India, China and the Middle East were building great empires. It’s strange considering how Africa changed Greece to help create Rome (along with the influence of the Middle East) that led to transforming Europe into what is now.
Europe had no indigenous syncretistic tradition. The power of Africa, Greece and Rome was so immense to utterly transform an entire continent.
I wonder if Mesopotamia had been syncretistic in the way Egypt was. The Jews seemingly did quite a bit of syncretism which they later rationalized away. Maybe it’s impossible to create a great nation without syncretism, but few nations embraced syncretism in the way Egypt and India did.
It’s interesting because it’s so early in human civilization. At the time, such syncretism had to have been impressive. Entire cultures were being chewed up to create an even ‘greater’ culture. And no one at the time knew where it would all lead. It was a ‘great’ experiment that is still going on.
I don’t know if I offended you with the ‘your’ West bit but know that it was just meant as figure of speech.
But, in no attempt to be nefarious but necessarily asked: so, if we all go extinct, what’s the issue with that too?
So, the problem is not with evil, ok. Do you want evil to end or be reformed?
It’s a funny thing, many people always want to maintain society or good things like safety in some amount. They go far then stop short where the ‘good’ things they know of are in danger and think that it’s right to do so. I’m not attacking you, I’m speaking generally (you excluded). I can’t get it, if one supports one side in the end then how unbiased is one?
I wasn’t offended, but a bit annoyed. It hardly feels like ‘my’ West. For one, our histories are so intertwined as to practically inseparable. Also, those who control the West and make it what it is are the same people ruling the entire globe. We are all a global society being ruled by a global oligarchy/plutocracy.
On such matters as this, I have two sides of my personality, neither being resolved to the other.
One side resonates with Jensen that civilization is doomed and resonates with Ligotti that humans are merely meat puppets driven by genetics and unconscious instincts. I suspect that this side of me is more darkly cynical than you. From the perspective of my depression, I’m a pessimist. From the perspective of pure logic, I’m a philosophical pessimist. There is no rational or observable reason to believe in free will or to believe in any grand notions of human good or to believe in anything at all. Belief is mere delusion and rationalization. Life is pointless at best and hell at worst. The suffering of existence is bad and just gets worse. There is no escape but death. Why would we want to save the human race even if we could?
This side of me despises humanity and is utterly repulsed by existence itself. It’s like the Manichaean Gnostic disgust of corporeality but without the hope of Gnostic vision or heavenly Pleroma.
My other side still has faith and hope, still believes in human good, both individually and collectively. From this perspective, the world seems like an interesting and even a wondrous place with infinite possibility that endlessly piques my curiosity. I do sense a truth in religion, specifically in the Christian tradition in which I was raised. Derrick Jensen speaks of learned helplessness. It’s one of the most horrific aspects of suffering, but it’s not necessarily inevitable. No matter how much suffering I experience, no matter how horror-filled the world may seem when watching the news (or even just observing nature), I can’t shake the sense of some fundamental goodness. Maybe it’s just delusion and rationalization, a false hope built on a false sense of faith. Or maybe not. Either way, I can’t shake it.
I was reading a bit from two different books this week: ‘Homegrown Democrat’ by Garrison Keillor and ‘God’s Politics’ by Jim Wallis. Both authors are American Christians who are liberal and progressive (relative to fundamentalists, although they seem moderate, mainstream and centrist from my view). Reading these two books, I was reminded of the basic sense of goodness as a potential in humans and in humanity. By the way, both are midwesterners. It seems that, in the US, it’s the midwesterners who maintain this view of the world that doesn’t see the world as existing in in terms of radical oppositions. Unlike people such as OM, midwesterners tend to not see individual and community as being enemies. Garrison Keillor is a very well known guy with a show on public radio since 1974. He is the voice of this midwestern-style of sanity. Despite being liberal, his midwestern down-to-earth sensibility even appeals to many conservatives. Keillor is the modern day Mark Twain (another midwesterner). As for Wallis, he is the unofficial leader of the progressive religion in America.
Because of people like these two, I can feel a bit inspired about life. Maybe life isn’t utterly pointless and maybe we aren’t utterly helpless. It’s not about grand visions of fixing anything, just the simple idea that one can and should leave the world a better place than one found it, even if that just means picking up trash as one walks along (I have a friend who does this constantly which makes for very slow walks).
Evil to end or be reformed? The first side I described would say evil must be ended, destroyed even, along with all humanity if that is necessary. The other side of me says this is a false choice. The problem isn’t ‘evil’ but this kind of absolutist thinking about ‘evil’. So, it depends on which side of me you’re asking.
Supporting one side makes one biased. Both sides of my personality would tell you that none of us is unbiased. The position you take in stating this is just another side. I often seek to overcome bias by broadening my biases, but ultimately I see no escape from bias. Something like the scientific method is useful in this endeavor because it makes one’s biases very clear and filters out the more personal biases. Still, it just comes down to which biases one chooses. I would just argue that some biases are more useful (or maybe more interesting) than others.
This global oligarchy grows and I don’t think it’s fair and I don’t want to hear about it, it depresses me. My Fe wants to help people but what if the offered change doesn’t work (shake my head)? Change is courageous work. People are bound to suffer in the change but I believe no one man must do it, the people must, only the people..
I think humanity must stop, look back to front and find their path not all this ‘through the motions’ stuff while we’re all being steered. That’s one thought
Or, we can just continue and see where we lead ourselves – fighting, healing, killing, partying, drinking, eating, fucking, shitting, making money, fleecing, proselytizing etc My Fe wants to help people but what if the offered change doesn’t work (shake my head)? Change is courageous work. People are bound to suffer in the change but I believe no one man must do it, the people must, only the people..
I think humanity must stop, look back to front and find their path not all this ‘through the motions’ stuff while we’re all being steered. That’s one thought
Or, we can just continue and see where we lead ourselves – fighting, healing, killing, partying, drinking, eating, fucking, shitting, making money, fleecing, proselytizing etc
I wish I could forget about the global oligarchy. I have the misfortune of living in a country where the political and plutocratic oligarchy happen to be major players in the global oligarchy. Here in America, we even allow oligarchs from other countries (such as Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame) to become citizens and influence our politics here.
My country is the prize possession of the global oligarchy. It makes for an interesting relationship as we Americans always see ourselves fighting oligarchies. It’s part of our mythology. Let’s have a new revolution now that we have an oligarchy truly worth fighting. Guns and God is the American way. And many Americans are itching for revolution. Doesn’t that sound fun? 🙂
I’m kind of joking and kind of not joking. America is filled with all kinds of paranoid militants and religious nuts. I’m pretty sure one of these days the oligarchy will push average Americans too far. Just because average Americans are typically ignorant and apathetic, don’t underestimate them. One of these days, I tell ya.
When the revolution begins, I think I’ll head the other direction. I’m no revolutionary. I wouldn’t even know what I’d fight for, despite my love of what this country supposedly stands for. Change will happen one way or another… even if it doesn’t ‘work’ in the end. It will probably just lead to more oligarchy, but you can’t blame people for trying.
Even more worrisome to the oligarchy is what if all the average people of the world in all countries rise up. The Arabs have fought the global oligarchy for most of this past century and now they have a taste of fighting their own local oligarchs. It seems to me that eventually the oligarchy will find they have no where to escape to. With globalization, the planet is getting ‘smaller’. I sometimes think the oligarchy is bringing on it’s own doom. The greater their power grows the greater the inevitable violent reaction. I don’t know if it will begin in America first or elsewhere in the world, but there will eventually be a worldwide ‘civil war’. My dark curiosity makes me hope I live long enough to see it.
I understand the response of feeling depressed. I feel depressed about life in general. The oligarchy is just one more thing. They aren’t as important as they think. The oligarchy could fall and the world would go on without them. As far as that goes, human civilization could collapse and the world would go on just fine. Heck, all life on earth could be wiped out and the sun would still go on shining.
If there was a revolution (whether locally or globally), would you join? What would have to happen before you’d join a revolution? What would be worth fighting and dying for? What would be so intolerable that you’d want to seek change despite the odds being against you? More specifically, what in your mind would justify violence against others? Defense of home and family? Defense against invaders? How desperate would you have to be before you’d risk everything?
I’m not sure how I’d answer those questions. We all have a breaking point, but none of us really knows where it is until it happens.
The depression is because I feel helpless and of no help to others – only far-fetched plans populate my mind.
I don’t think about the revolution in terms of a versus but I suppose even if it’s all the people, the people in power will oppose so we will fight. But, I’ll like a non-violent one where we all declare our ignorance and throw all our truths, philosophies, beliefs to the side.
I will fight if ignorance is declared and if it’s the people (minus those in power) who do this, where no right and wrong have already been establshed before we even change at all. All that in hope that the world after will grow from itself, no presumptions. To die isn’t really a concern for me, I got no fear or qualm about it, but I guess to die in such a situation will be satisfying. Killing another also doesn’t have a qualm from me nor does mere violence. It’s part of life is enough justification for me but if it was necessary would be reason to act it out at all esp where the adversary is intransigent but I still will try to minimize death.
I will only turn away from the rev if that right and wrong story is told im it too. I too hope to see it and hopefully, fight in it – if I die in it, fine but if I survive, I’ll probably retire to some rural placed.
I don’t think about the revolution in terms of a versus but I suppose even if it’s all the people, the people in power will oppose so we will fight. But, I’ll like a non-violent one where we all declare our ignorance and throw all our truths, philosophies, beliefs to the side.
I will fight if ignorance is declared and if it’s the people (minus those in power) who do this, where no right and wrong have already been establshed before we even change at all. All that in hope that the world after will grow from itself, no presumptions. To die isn’t really a concern for me, I got no fear or qualm about it, but I guess to die in such a situation will be satisfying. Killing another also doesn’t have a qualm from me nor does mere violence. It’s part of life is enough justification for me but if it was necessary would be reason to act it out at all esp where the adversary is intransigent but I still will try to minimize death.
I will only turn away from the rev if that right and wrong story is told im it too. I too hope to see it and hopefully, fight in it – if I die in it, fine but if I survive, I’ll probably retire to some rural place