Robert Pirsig is the best selling author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values. He is also the author of another book, Lila: An Inquiry into Morals. I've read both books. Most recently I finished reading Lila... for the third time. I can't say there are many if any other books that I have read three times in my life, but this one was definitely worth it.
Furthermore, as I have a much clearer intention of writing my own book, in this reading of Lila... I allowed myself the freedom to underline and write comments in the margins. Because of this, I feel I digested these ideas much more thoroughly than in the first two readings. In addition, over the past couple of weeks I have been very intentionally bringing these ideas into conversation wherever appropriate, and I am finding more and more instances where Pirsig's perspectives do have relevance.
So, to offer a brief summary:
In Lila... Pirsig challenges the "subject-object" metaphysics of scientific materialism replacing it with his "Metaphysics of Quality". In this "Metaphysics of Quality" he sees the first division of reality being between "static" and "Dynamic" Quality. Furthermore, he sees reality sub-divided into what he calls "patterns of value" that exist at different levels; i.e. there are Inorganic Patterns of Value, Biological Patterns of Value, Social Patterns of Value, and Intellectual Patterns of Value. There is an implicit evolutionary hierarchy here as well as "moral codes" that exist at the interfaces of each level. For instance there are certain "moral codes" that guide the interactions of biological patterns of value with inorganic patterns of value. As expressed by various cultures around the world, there are "moral codes" that guide the behavior of individual biological organisms within various societies (and this could actually be said of non-human as well as human societies, although human societies tend to be the most diverse and complex). As exemplified in our "Bill of Rights", there has been an advance in recognizing the place of "Intellectual Freedom" even in the midst of a Society - for instance, with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.
About half way through the book, Pirsig points to the Victorian era as representing the last point when "Society" was seen as the highest expression of human development. To know if something was moral, all one had to do was answer the question: "Does society approve?" With this guideline, both biology and intellect were seen as subservient to the prevailing social moral codes.
However, during WWI this "virtuous and noble" Victorian society saw fit to send millions of its young men to their deaths. With the introduction of the Gatling Gun, the casualties were enormous and gruesome. Those who survived were left to question how such a "virtuous and noble" society could be so willing to sacrifice so many of its members. In addition, there was an increasing shift away from those social moral codes as the perspectives of scientific materialism framed the world as not having, nor needing any kind of moral codes to guide it. Everything was seen to be happening by "chance," or the seemingly random assembly of molecules that eventually led to the appearance of complex human beings. Furthermore, since neither a "moral" nor a "society" could really be studied, like a scientist studies a microbe under a microscope, then these were essentially disregarded as having no real "existence" at all, let alone any "value".
Therefore, the generation that followed WWI embraced Intellectual Freedom over social moral codes and traditions. In order to determine if something were "good" one needed only to appeal to one's intellect and the "proofs" provided by science, including anthropology. For instance, if free sexual exploration as teenagers was "good" for Samoan society, than it could be "good" for every other society as well. Pirsig sees the shift of the power base from the Old Victorians to the New Intellectuals exemplified in the election of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, the first president to have also been a university professor.
It is from the rising Intellectual Class that the ideas of social engineering via socialism and communism came into vogue. And from Pirsig's point of view, WWII was really a war between the Old Guard of social moral codes and social authority (represented by Fascism) and the New Guard of Intellectuals and scientific materialism dominating society. And the New Guard ultimately won that battle.
From my point of view, the development of the atomic bomb, though pursued for military reasons, was also a pursuit of the intellectuals and the scientists, again without any regard for the moral implications of their work. It was only after their success, and the use of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that those moral implications became much more obvious, especially to Robert J. Oppenheimer. He became a voice against the use of the weapons later in his life, a challenge to the New Intellectual and Scientific Elite, and he was branded a traitor as a consequence.
(Even to this day, many people question the MORALITY of ever developing, let alone using the atomic bomb. But keep in mind, scientific materialism cannot consider morals. The scientific method provides no tools for observing or studying morals. Morals are beyond the purview of science as we currently know it. The "morality" of creating atomic weapons was never at issue, only the facts of the science of creating them, and who could discover those facts and implement them first. If we are going to let the assumptions of scientific materialism guide us, this is logically where they lead.)
By the '60's and '70's a new rebellion took place. This time it was initiated by fairly well-off and fairly well-educated young men and women who not only continued the attack against "society" and "social moral codes" started after WWI, but also began to attack the Intellectuals and Intellectual Institutions that had grown up since then. The new answer to the question "Is it right?" or "Is it good?" - became "If it feels good, do it!" Interestingly enough, as Pirsig points out, many of these young people began to steer their lives towards adopting the social patterns of Native Americans; i.e. more gentle rearing of children, simplicity, speaking directly, and being closer to nature, among other things. However, he also goes on to point out, that this kind of "laid back" approach to day to day life does not "fit" well in an urban setting, where there are other expectations - like being on time to do a job where other people are depending on you.
I guess the most important take home point I got from reading this chronicle was this: The revolutionaries of the '60's and '70's made no distinctions between biological freedom and intellectual freedom. I have realized that "If it feels good, do it!"is the most primitive motto of all individual biological organisms. However, even within the first colonial organisms, some of that individual biological freedom had to be sacrificed for the benefit of living more safely and securely within a group of similar individuals.
That most basic pattern of sacrifice of individual biological freedom for the benefit of being part of a collective has replicated itself throughout the evolutionary tree. In other words, some of the most primitive single cells that organize themselves into colonies "understand" that complete "biological freedom" is not "moral" if you want to live in a group with others like yourself. And yet, back in the '60's and '70's this "moral code", that even the members of a Volvox colony could understand and value, got thrown out the window and was replaced with the idea that every individual should be free to do whatever they want, no matter how it affects the people around them. In other words..."If it feels good do it!" and following that - "survival of the fittest"...
So here we are roughly 50 years later, and if you judge by that particular moral code; i.e."if it feels good, do it," and "survival of the fittest", then the Big Corporations and the Big Governments and the Most Powerful Countries are also the most "moral". Hey...they're just "playing by the rules"! Everyone has decided those old Victorians were idiots and didn't have any clue about how to be part of a society. Furthermore, the intellectuals got off track since they could not see a "moral" or see a "society" in any kind of meaningful way, and, consequently, they had nothing to offer to replace the social moral codes of the Victorians.
Now our technology has completely outpaced our Moral Maturity as far as evolutionary progress is concerned. As I listened to Noam Chomsky speak recently on "Security and State Policy", I completely understood why, when it comes to Security of the Society - i.e. the Majority of the People living in this country (for instance), none of our leaders really care if we get blown up by terrorists, as long as They don't get blown up by terrorists, as long as any of their financial backers and corporations do not get blown up by terrorists. They have no sense of being Part of a/Our Society, or accountable by any "moral social codes" that include all of the rest of us. They are just doing their own thing for themselves, while they feed off the rest of us, and off the rest of our labor and intelligence.
However, if you can imagine that a "society" is a real thing. That we are part of a society that is simply a different level or type of "organism" or "pattern of values" to use Pirsig's term, then the 1% are like a cancer that has been growing and growing and growing, building more and more avenues/blood vessels through which to channel the resources of this society/organism to themselves.
There are some people out there who are thinking, like many medical doctors think about cancer, that we're going to have to "radiate the entire body" in order to kill off the cancer. Those are a lot of your violent revolutionaries and apocalyptic thinkers. Of course, such a violent and radical approach risks killing the body itself. Violent revolution can be that kind of "chemotherapy", in that it can destroy the "innocent/healthy" cells as well as the "cancerous" ones, and there is a very good chance that the patient will die - that the patient will not have enough functioning parts left to survive after the cancer is gone.
In his books, Paul K. Chappell writes about violent approaches to resolving major conflicts as being similar to using amputation of a wounded leg to prevent infection rather than antibiotics. He asserts that the key is better understanding. Just as medical doctors have made progress in understanding how the body works, so they know it is better to give antibiotics rather than cut off a leg, so the populations of the world must better understand the nature of conflict in order to find a more precise way of dealing with it that does not involve violence.
Interestingly enough, (and I think without really knowing it) Chappell has offered a new version of a "social moral code" that we might aspire to, especially in his book, Peaceful Revolution. And knowing Chappell somewhat personally, I'd say he would have probably been quite comfortable in Victorian society! I will not say that he has All of the Answers, but a lot of his work certainly points in a general direction that I feel needs to be considered seriously, especially in light of Robert Pirsig's ideas as well.
One of the strategic instructions of Chappell's work centers on the teaching of Sun Tzu in The Art of War: Never attack your opponent at their strongest point. Our government in combination with the current corporate powers, has the most highly trained and technologically advanced military and police forces in the world. Consequently, to try to dismantle any of that through violent revolution would be devastating for all concerned. Again, that is more like the "radiate the entire body to destroy the cancer" approach. And in this case, the cancer has a much stronger immune system than the body itself. Instead, as Chappell suggests, we have to attack them at the level of their Moral Authority, where they are weakest.
However, in order to do that, as a society, we have to be functioning with a Higher Moral Code ourselves...and that means we have to understand the difference between "biological freedom" and "intellectual freedom". We have to fully understand that we cannot have total "biological freedom" and be part of a stable, sustainable, society or world for that matter. Consequently, when we say we want more "freedom" we are going to have to be very, very clear about what that means. From my point of view, that needs to mean we want more "freedom" to create new forms of society and community that are not at the mercy and threat of the political and financial "cancers" that have grown up in our midst.
Think of the movie,The Wolf of Wall Street. This movie epitomizes the ideas of "survival of the fittest" and "if it feels good, do it". Those ideas make up the (biological) "moral code" we are actually functioning under, especially here in the West and it is the same "moral code" we have been exporting throughout the world for decades now. However, if that really is the "moral code" we have (mostly unconsciously) agreed to in this society, ever since the revolutions of the '60s and '70s, then those who manage to survive the longest and make the most money to "do whatever makes them feel good", are the MORAL VICTORS here!!!! And we have NO RIGHT TO BE COMPLAINING about them!!!
Furthermore, if the people who want to challenge them only want to displace them so a New Group can continue to survive at the expense of the rest of society, then that means that those "displacers" are Not Representing a HIGHER MORAL CODE. Such displacement of the current powers that be without a Change of Moral Codes is NOT GOING TO MAKE FOR ANY FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE for society, and that means for Most of the Rest of Us and for the World!...
Really take some time to think about that...
...However, if each of us is willing to recognize that, no matter how loosely we may be held together right now, we are already a part of a Society of Humankind. And to actually make those bonds stronger, we have to recognize that there is a Different Moral Code to guide our behaviors as part of this Society. That Moral Code means giving up at least some elements of our "individual biological freedom"; i.e. to "do whatever makes me feel good," or "reproduce as many babies as I want to, with or without a partner, with or without the means to support them," or to "eat as much crap as I want to even if my bad health negatively impacts the people around me and the medical system that supports us," or to "consume all kinds of resources that I really don't need just because I can," or "Let me speculate in the stock market for short-term gains at the expense of long-term financial stability", etc., etc., etc. If we can collectively move beyond the biological moral code of "if it feels good do it" and "survival of the fittest", and once again find our path to a new, and actually, More Intelligent "Social Moral Code" then, and Only Then, will we be in a position of Moral Authority over those elements of our society that are currently in power - elements that are clearly not functioning with anything like a Social Moral Code except maybe "Honor Among Thieves"!
And, maybe, hopefully, we can turn this mess around in time, and help to renew the other critical component of our survival here - the Earth itself, upon which ALL biological organisms and societies and free thinkers depend.
To Summarize...
You cannot have Biology without the Earth, you cannot have Society without individual biological organisms working cooperatively to sustain it, you cannot have Intellectual Development without a Society that is there to educate its members and to give them the tools of self-discipline to regulate their biological drives so that they can be productive and contributing members to that society, and you cannot have Intellectual Freedom without a Society that understands that without it, there can be no New Ideas that help to keep Society moving forward.
I am grateful for the society of which I am a part, in spite of its obvious problems. I am grateful for the opportunities I have had for gainful employment that have allowed me to sustain my biological needs and to further my education. I appreciate the technology that is available to me to continue to expand my knowledge of others ideas and to communicate my own.
And I am grateful for all of the people in my life who read my blogs, who are critical thinkers and communicators themselves, and who are doing whatever they can to make the world and this society a better place for all of us to live and grow and develop our full potentials as human beings, both individually and collectively.
I have hope for the future, knowing what I know now. But I do feel a certain Urgency in spreading these ideas, as the clock is ticking for how long we can keep going down the path we are on. I would hate to see all that we have managed to create here "go to waste" when so much of it can be salvaged with a fairly simple shift in understanding; part of which again, is understanding the difference between biological and intellectual freedom and the critical role a healthy, functional, society plays in mediating between the two.
I welcome your questions and feedback...
Showing posts with label Paul K. Chappell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul K. Chappell. Show all posts
Friday, October 17, 2014
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Getting to the "How" - What this Blog Is All About!
I have not been a fan of Adam Kokesh. I was not enthusiastic about his posturing, and potentially threatening if not outright violent behavior. Early this year he was calling for "The Final American Revolution," including an armed march on Washington D.C. This demonstration was ultimately reduced to his simply carrying and loading his own shotgun at Freedom Plaza and then posting a video of it on YouTube. He was later arrested, and then spent a couple of months in solitary confinement in Fairfax, VA, followed by another couple of months in solitary in Washington, D.C., and yet another two months with the general population incarcerated with him in D.C.
Today I watched this conversation between Adam and Stefan Molyneux and at the 1:34:00 point, Stefan questions what the benefits were of his being incarcerated.
I'd like to pose an answer to that question: It gave him a lot of time to be alone and think, hard. And although I have not familiarized myself with everything he might of said before, I appreciate a lot of what he had to offer in this interview. I see him looking much more globally at how all kinds of different people are going to be affected by the kinds of changes so many of us want to see in the world. I see him cognizant and very reasonable about both immediate and long-term possibilities and goals. And, now, I am quite happy to include this video as part of my offering of ideas here focused not on just "describing the problems", but on actually coming up with solutions; i.e. the "How" that Adam discusses in this conversation with Stefan.
I still think they both should be taking a look at Paul K. Chappell's work, because Paul offers a much clearer perspective on the violent/aggressive vs. cooperative nature of human beings. I will be bringing that to their attention whenever I can.
In the mean time, I offer this video dialogue For Your Consideration as well. Enjoy!
How to Move Forward to Create a Peaceful Society Based on the Principle of Non-Aggression - A Discussion between Adam Kokesh and Stefan Molyneux
Today I watched this conversation between Adam and Stefan Molyneux and at the 1:34:00 point, Stefan questions what the benefits were of his being incarcerated.
I'd like to pose an answer to that question: It gave him a lot of time to be alone and think, hard. And although I have not familiarized myself with everything he might of said before, I appreciate a lot of what he had to offer in this interview. I see him looking much more globally at how all kinds of different people are going to be affected by the kinds of changes so many of us want to see in the world. I see him cognizant and very reasonable about both immediate and long-term possibilities and goals. And, now, I am quite happy to include this video as part of my offering of ideas here focused not on just "describing the problems", but on actually coming up with solutions; i.e. the "How" that Adam discusses in this conversation with Stefan.
I still think they both should be taking a look at Paul K. Chappell's work, because Paul offers a much clearer perspective on the violent/aggressive vs. cooperative nature of human beings. I will be bringing that to their attention whenever I can.
In the mean time, I offer this video dialogue For Your Consideration as well. Enjoy!
How to Move Forward to Create a Peaceful Society Based on the Principle of Non-Aggression - A Discussion between Adam Kokesh and Stefan Molyneux
Monday, October 28, 2013
Russell Brand, Dylan Ratigan, Stefan Molyneux, Paul Chappell
This video of Russell Brand went viral recently: NEWSNIGHT: Paxman vs Brand - full interview.
And then Dylan Ratigan posted this article in response to another of Brand's videos: The Unoffendable Brand
For this post I'd like to also draw attention to another of Dylan Ratigan's recent articles that, among other things, presents an option for changing the way candidates are elected by giving every person a $200 voucher with which they can funnel their support: Thousands of Stories of Hope, One Barrier and How We Can Overcome It
Then there's this video from Stefan Molyneux: An Open Letter to Russell Brand - Let's Start a Revolution
And, another recent post of a previous article written by Molyneux: The Stateless Society - An Examination of Alternatives
What I am offering here are perspectives on "the problems" as well as some "solutions" being offered, with more or less detail, by all three of these people.
I think in some ways at least, these perspectives do represent many of the different points of view from which people might see the problems and imagine their possible solutions.
(I guess the one I have not included is anything from Adam Kokesh as his aggressive posturing is archaic to me as well as simply being strategically foolish, and besides, haven't seen much of him lately anyway. Gee, I wonder why?)
There is also the ongoing work of Paul K. Chappell, former Army Captain and now author and Peace Leadership Director for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Although he does not offer any specific solutions to the problems outlined above, he does offer guidance for how we might resolve these problems and conflicts non-violently, in part by learning to respect one another and communicate more effectively with others, including those who oppose our point of view. He puts a lot of emphasis on empathy in his writing and this is also highlighted in another recent piece by Ratigan and in two podcasts by Molyneux: Negotiation Part 1: The Opportunity, and Negotiation Part 2: The Challenges.
I am offering all of these links here because I feel all of these men are deep thinkers, eloquent communicators, and clearly passionate about their work in the world. They are, however, looking at the problems and seeing the solutions, or trying to contribute to the solutions in different ways. I am in the process of considering all of their contributions, and I want to present these ideas to others as well here on this specifically solution-oriented blog.
I will leave it up to my readers to come to their own conclusions about the plausibility and actionability of their recommendations, with the understanding that there are many conflicts to be resolved both on the interpersonal, community, national, and global levels.
And then Dylan Ratigan posted this article in response to another of Brand's videos: The Unoffendable Brand
For this post I'd like to also draw attention to another of Dylan Ratigan's recent articles that, among other things, presents an option for changing the way candidates are elected by giving every person a $200 voucher with which they can funnel their support: Thousands of Stories of Hope, One Barrier and How We Can Overcome It
Then there's this video from Stefan Molyneux: An Open Letter to Russell Brand - Let's Start a Revolution
And, another recent post of a previous article written by Molyneux: The Stateless Society - An Examination of Alternatives
What I am offering here are perspectives on "the problems" as well as some "solutions" being offered, with more or less detail, by all three of these people.
I think in some ways at least, these perspectives do represent many of the different points of view from which people might see the problems and imagine their possible solutions.
(I guess the one I have not included is anything from Adam Kokesh as his aggressive posturing is archaic to me as well as simply being strategically foolish, and besides, haven't seen much of him lately anyway. Gee, I wonder why?)
There is also the ongoing work of Paul K. Chappell, former Army Captain and now author and Peace Leadership Director for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Although he does not offer any specific solutions to the problems outlined above, he does offer guidance for how we might resolve these problems and conflicts non-violently, in part by learning to respect one another and communicate more effectively with others, including those who oppose our point of view. He puts a lot of emphasis on empathy in his writing and this is also highlighted in another recent piece by Ratigan and in two podcasts by Molyneux: Negotiation Part 1: The Opportunity, and Negotiation Part 2: The Challenges.
I am offering all of these links here because I feel all of these men are deep thinkers, eloquent communicators, and clearly passionate about their work in the world. They are, however, looking at the problems and seeing the solutions, or trying to contribute to the solutions in different ways. I am in the process of considering all of their contributions, and I want to present these ideas to others as well here on this specifically solution-oriented blog.
I will leave it up to my readers to come to their own conclusions about the plausibility and actionability of their recommendations, with the understanding that there are many conflicts to be resolved both on the interpersonal, community, national, and global levels.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Update March 2013 - Re: The "Occupy" Movement
I recently watched the following video and listened to the commentary presented by John Taylor Gatto, whom I am guessing may one day be remembered, if he is not recognized already, as one of the "Founding Fathers" of "Unschooling":
The Purpose of Schooling
In this program, one thing in particular stood out to me, starting around 1:20...
"[It was recognized that], if children could be kept childish beyond its term in nature; if they could be cloistered in a society of children without any real responsibility except obedience; if their inner lives could be attenuated by removing the insights of history, literature, philosophy, economics, religion; if the imminence of death and the certainty of pain and loss can be removed from daily consciousness; if the profound reflections on one's own death could be replaced with the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, young people would grow older but they would never grow up. And a great enduring problem of supervision would be solved, for who can argue against the truth that childish and child-like people are far easier to manage than critically trained and self-reliant ones."
Prior to this, with the last update of this blog post (June 2012), I had written the following:
* * * * *
I have come to the conclusion that people tend to have the same idealized view of "the Government" as they do of their parents. Furthermore, to the degree they are still of the mindset that they NEED "Government", or that other people NEED "Government", then it is roughly to the same degree that they are unsure of their own abilities to function as mature, self-sustaining, relatively self-sufficient adults in the company of other mature, self-sustaining, and relatively self-sufficient adults. To have "government", after all, is to have someone else "governing" or guiding one's behavior, with the assumption that is necessary because one is suffering from some deficit - mentally, emotionally, physically, or spiritually - that would make them incapable of guiding that behavior for themselves.
In addition, to the degree that the Government abuses its citizens, which it actually does all of the time through taxation and inflation, as well as sending its often poorest members to die in foreign wars, people are just as inclined as children to repress the trauma that results. Naively, they continue to love their parents (or in this case, their "government", or at least the institution of government) "unconditionally", and as if their very lives depended on it (just as our lives do depend our our parents when we are very young children).
In one of my earlier "Blue Moon Turtle Blog" posts, Cornerstone Part 1, I explained how I was given a legitimate reason to question everything my mother taught me when she ended up in the emergency room of the local hospital having (apparently) had a major paranoid delusional episode that led to her trying to "kill herself." I wonder if there is an equivalent action or course of events involving one or more governments in the world today that would once and for all, give everyone (or, at least, almost everyone) good enough reason to question everything those governments (or "Mother Culture", as Daniel Quinn would put it) have been teaching us. For instance, is it going to take a Nuclear War to see the "craziness" of our parent-governments? What about the part of the population that is quite literally praying for "apocalyptic" destruction (while assuming no harm will actually come to them, the "believers", just to "everyone else")?
I'm not sure the "occupy X" gatherings are going to provoke much of a response. And, now, several months down the road, there is little evidence that they have had much of an impact. In fact, I think the Government is just fine having all of that frustrated energy expended towards the Wrong Targets, i. e. towards the "bastard step-children" (Big Bankers, Greedy Capitalists, etc.) instead of the "Abusive Parents."
So what happens after the Occupy movements run their course with little or no actual effect?
I read a Buddhist quote the other day: You have three options - remove yourself from the situation, change the situation, or accept it.
I know some people think they can get "the Government" to "solve the problems", and each group is focused on their particular issue, but that is going to be an ultimately futile effort since "Governments" are notorious for being central to many of the problems facing human culture today.
I know their are many people afraid of "anarchy" - even though, as Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio explains in this book, Everyday Anarchy, there are all kinds of ways that human culture is already "anarchic". It is not like there is a central government that is controlling every aspect of our daily lives, and therefore, those aspects that are outside the government's control, we exercise without "hierarchy", or "monarchy", or any other kind of "-archy" which is the same as "AN-archy".
In addition, if you believe human beings to be inherently flawed and selfish...then why give even a few of them a monopoly of military and police power so they can selfishly and greedily lord over all the rest of us. At the end of the day, people who become our elected officials are really No Different than the rest of us, except for the fact that they are actually More Likely to have exaggerated selfish or even psychopathic tendencies. So giving them access to even More Power than the rest of us doesn't make any sense.
With regards to Option One: It may seem impossible to remove oneself from the influence of "government", in part because most areas of the world are ruled by governments, so where could any of us "go" to get away from ours?
The first step may be simply to "walk away from" the whole IDEA of "Government". We are either able to figure out how to take care of ourselves and the people nearest to us either as family and friends or members of communities, or we aren't. Clearly relying more and more on "the Government" to do that hasn't worked out so well. (And, keep in mind, there are TWO major dependent populations here, in this country, not just one: Both the "welfare poor" AND the Ultra-Wealthy people are depending on the Government, one for millions of dollars and the other for billions. Either way, they are both DEPENDENTS, and for some reason not feeling mature or capable enough to manage their lives successfully On Their Own, contributing Real Value to the society by actually engaging in work that is of Real Value to others.)
After reconsidering the whole idea or "need" for government, then the second step would be to find creative ways to exchange goods and services without the Government having an easy way to track or tax those transactions. I know there are various communities and even barter businesses, for instance, that are already doing that. (This video,The Money Fix shines some light on some of those alternatives.)
The above exchanges would of course involve more local food production. Wherever possible it would mean "shrinking" or restructuring communities to be more self-sufficient and sustainable. (Here is a good place for more info on what is involved with that: Transition Network.)
I'm thinking there is something to the "management model" currently being used at W.L. Gore highlighted in this article: (Innovation Democracy: W.L. Gore's Original Management Model) that might also be applied to smaller "human scale" communities. Here is another article highlighting a cooperatively owned company in Spain that is now competing successfully in the "capitalist" market: Yes, there is an alternative to capitalism: Mondragon shows the way.
Clearly, many people have already begun to "remove themselves from the situation", emotionally, psychologically, and practically, without actually removing themselves from the land mass of their home "States" or territories. However, if you have the resources, that is even an option with Seasteading:Seasteading Institute.
I am a firm believer in the idea: If you don't use it, you lose it. So...if we stop "needing" or "using" the Government, or slaving for it, then it will collapse on itself. All the people in the world today who are extricating or even partially extricating themselves from the system are, at least to me, the Great Pioneers and Explorers of our time. No different from many of the early explorers, creative thinkers, and artists of the past.
I present the idea my TEDx talk below, that "The World Is Waiting" for us to Grow Up. And we need all of the mature adults, who are capable of being responsible for themselves and working productively with others that we can get in the years ahead if we are going to finally move human culture into its next level of evolution.
Get Ready - The World is Waiting
* * * * *
As of this update (March 2013) I have this to add from a comment I recently posted on Facebook:
In our world of "instant gratification" and propensity to solve problems of violence with more violence, it is hard to imagine that there is a "middle road" (between the kind of government we have now and no government at all) that is actually, already evolving, but has not fully come into existence yet.
In the fall of 2011, I came to my work with Paul K. Chappell and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, still feeling very "anti-government". However, as I am currently re-reading a galley copy of Paul's fourth book, "The Art of Waging Peace", to be released July 4th, I am reminded of the conversation we had that was about the statistics of large groups; i.e. within a population as large as that of the U.S., all other things being "perfect", you are still going to have a percentage of the population that will be inclined towards violent behavior, if that is 1 in 10,000, in a population of 3 million, that is still 30,000 people. And if those 30,000 people amass themselves into groups, they can cause even more damage.
Consequently, there is a logical reason for the Intelligent Use of Police Force, within populations as large as most of those around the world, something Martin Luther King, Jr. also believed in. We may not have the best way of organizing that yet, but I have lost much of my idealism around a purely voluntary society system. I still do not like the system we have, There is Plenty of Room for Improvement, but I don't think we will ever be at a point where there will be no need for Some Kind of Governing Structure, and Police Forces, as part of that system. Having massive militaries on the other hand, that is actually a different matter altogether, a matter and distinction that Paul also addresses in "The Art of Waging Peace."
* * * * *
Update June 29, 2013
And yet again, here is another video that gives a very clear explanation of What Anarchy Isn't that addresses the concern about need for "protection" from any person or group of persons in a society that might want to violate the non-aggression principle, for whatever reasons.
* * * * *
In addition, there is more and more evidence that the "Occupy" movement is making some headway in various quarters. For instance, this article came to my attention recently: Occupy Sandy Builds Worker Power in Far Rockaway. I am pleased to see that the article refers once again to the Mondragon company which I have already drawn attention to above.
More and more people are becoming sensitive to the problem of plastic waste in our world and in our oceans. This documentary is one of many highlighting the problem, and this is one 19-year-old's possible solution Ocean Clean-up Array.
There are many more organizations expanding to educate people about "urban gardening" such as John Kohler of Growing Your Greens, and GROWtest.org which advocates "Grow Food, Not Lawns". And lots more consideration with regards to more sustainable housing not least of which are the Tiny House and ongoing experimentation with Earthships.
Two other organizations (among many) I would like to draw attention to here are A Liter of Light led by Illac Diaz and World Bicycle Relief.
As I have said above, although we may be looking for "instant gratification" from all of our efforts, it is only because we have been conditioned by our fast-food and fast-media culture to expect that. However, this is like expecting fast results from a fad diet. What is required from all of us today is to Commit Our Entire Lives as necessary to Becoming the Change we want to see in the world, and persevering in those efforts, even if we do not live to see the greater impact.
But, Things Are Changing, slowly but surely, and I have Faith that the slow and steady nature of "Turtle Power" Will "Win this Race", Win for the Human Race, in the long run. We just have to Keep On Keepin' On!
The Purpose of Schooling
In this program, one thing in particular stood out to me, starting around 1:20...
"[It was recognized that], if children could be kept childish beyond its term in nature; if they could be cloistered in a society of children without any real responsibility except obedience; if their inner lives could be attenuated by removing the insights of history, literature, philosophy, economics, religion; if the imminence of death and the certainty of pain and loss can be removed from daily consciousness; if the profound reflections on one's own death could be replaced with the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, young people would grow older but they would never grow up. And a great enduring problem of supervision would be solved, for who can argue against the truth that childish and child-like people are far easier to manage than critically trained and self-reliant ones."
Prior to this, with the last update of this blog post (June 2012), I had written the following:
* * * * *
I have come to the conclusion that people tend to have the same idealized view of "the Government" as they do of their parents. Furthermore, to the degree they are still of the mindset that they NEED "Government", or that other people NEED "Government", then it is roughly to the same degree that they are unsure of their own abilities to function as mature, self-sustaining, relatively self-sufficient adults in the company of other mature, self-sustaining, and relatively self-sufficient adults. To have "government", after all, is to have someone else "governing" or guiding one's behavior, with the assumption that is necessary because one is suffering from some deficit - mentally, emotionally, physically, or spiritually - that would make them incapable of guiding that behavior for themselves.
In addition, to the degree that the Government abuses its citizens, which it actually does all of the time through taxation and inflation, as well as sending its often poorest members to die in foreign wars, people are just as inclined as children to repress the trauma that results. Naively, they continue to love their parents (or in this case, their "government", or at least the institution of government) "unconditionally", and as if their very lives depended on it (just as our lives do depend our our parents when we are very young children).
In one of my earlier "Blue Moon Turtle Blog" posts, Cornerstone Part 1, I explained how I was given a legitimate reason to question everything my mother taught me when she ended up in the emergency room of the local hospital having (apparently) had a major paranoid delusional episode that led to her trying to "kill herself." I wonder if there is an equivalent action or course of events involving one or more governments in the world today that would once and for all, give everyone (or, at least, almost everyone) good enough reason to question everything those governments (or "Mother Culture", as Daniel Quinn would put it) have been teaching us. For instance, is it going to take a Nuclear War to see the "craziness" of our parent-governments? What about the part of the population that is quite literally praying for "apocalyptic" destruction (while assuming no harm will actually come to them, the "believers", just to "everyone else")?
I'm not sure the "occupy X" gatherings are going to provoke much of a response. And, now, several months down the road, there is little evidence that they have had much of an impact. In fact, I think the Government is just fine having all of that frustrated energy expended towards the Wrong Targets, i. e. towards the "bastard step-children" (Big Bankers, Greedy Capitalists, etc.) instead of the "Abusive Parents."
So what happens after the Occupy movements run their course with little or no actual effect?
I read a Buddhist quote the other day: You have three options - remove yourself from the situation, change the situation, or accept it.
I know some people think they can get "the Government" to "solve the problems", and each group is focused on their particular issue, but that is going to be an ultimately futile effort since "Governments" are notorious for being central to many of the problems facing human culture today.
I know their are many people afraid of "anarchy" - even though, as Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio explains in this book, Everyday Anarchy, there are all kinds of ways that human culture is already "anarchic". It is not like there is a central government that is controlling every aspect of our daily lives, and therefore, those aspects that are outside the government's control, we exercise without "hierarchy", or "monarchy", or any other kind of "-archy" which is the same as "AN-archy".
In addition, if you believe human beings to be inherently flawed and selfish...then why give even a few of them a monopoly of military and police power so they can selfishly and greedily lord over all the rest of us. At the end of the day, people who become our elected officials are really No Different than the rest of us, except for the fact that they are actually More Likely to have exaggerated selfish or even psychopathic tendencies. So giving them access to even More Power than the rest of us doesn't make any sense.
With regards to Option One: It may seem impossible to remove oneself from the influence of "government", in part because most areas of the world are ruled by governments, so where could any of us "go" to get away from ours?
The first step may be simply to "walk away from" the whole IDEA of "Government". We are either able to figure out how to take care of ourselves and the people nearest to us either as family and friends or members of communities, or we aren't. Clearly relying more and more on "the Government" to do that hasn't worked out so well. (And, keep in mind, there are TWO major dependent populations here, in this country, not just one: Both the "welfare poor" AND the Ultra-Wealthy people are depending on the Government, one for millions of dollars and the other for billions. Either way, they are both DEPENDENTS, and for some reason not feeling mature or capable enough to manage their lives successfully On Their Own, contributing Real Value to the society by actually engaging in work that is of Real Value to others.)
After reconsidering the whole idea or "need" for government, then the second step would be to find creative ways to exchange goods and services without the Government having an easy way to track or tax those transactions. I know there are various communities and even barter businesses, for instance, that are already doing that. (This video,The Money Fix shines some light on some of those alternatives.)
The above exchanges would of course involve more local food production. Wherever possible it would mean "shrinking" or restructuring communities to be more self-sufficient and sustainable. (Here is a good place for more info on what is involved with that: Transition Network.)
I'm thinking there is something to the "management model" currently being used at W.L. Gore highlighted in this article: (Innovation Democracy: W.L. Gore's Original Management Model) that might also be applied to smaller "human scale" communities. Here is another article highlighting a cooperatively owned company in Spain that is now competing successfully in the "capitalist" market: Yes, there is an alternative to capitalism: Mondragon shows the way.
Clearly, many people have already begun to "remove themselves from the situation", emotionally, psychologically, and practically, without actually removing themselves from the land mass of their home "States" or territories. However, if you have the resources, that is even an option with Seasteading:Seasteading Institute.
I am a firm believer in the idea: If you don't use it, you lose it. So...if we stop "needing" or "using" the Government, or slaving for it, then it will collapse on itself. All the people in the world today who are extricating or even partially extricating themselves from the system are, at least to me, the Great Pioneers and Explorers of our time. No different from many of the early explorers, creative thinkers, and artists of the past.
I present the idea my TEDx talk below, that "The World Is Waiting" for us to Grow Up. And we need all of the mature adults, who are capable of being responsible for themselves and working productively with others that we can get in the years ahead if we are going to finally move human culture into its next level of evolution.
Get Ready - The World is Waiting
* * * * *
As of this update (March 2013) I have this to add from a comment I recently posted on Facebook:
In our world of "instant gratification" and propensity to solve problems of violence with more violence, it is hard to imagine that there is a "middle road" (between the kind of government we have now and no government at all) that is actually, already evolving, but has not fully come into existence yet.
In the fall of 2011, I came to my work with Paul K. Chappell and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, still feeling very "anti-government". However, as I am currently re-reading a galley copy of Paul's fourth book, "The Art of Waging Peace", to be released July 4th, I am reminded of the conversation we had that was about the statistics of large groups; i.e. within a population as large as that of the U.S., all other things being "perfect", you are still going to have a percentage of the population that will be inclined towards violent behavior, if that is 1 in 10,000, in a population of 3 million, that is still 30,000 people. And if those 30,000 people amass themselves into groups, they can cause even more damage.
Consequently, there is a logical reason for the Intelligent Use of Police Force, within populations as large as most of those around the world, something Martin Luther King, Jr. also believed in. We may not have the best way of organizing that yet, but I have lost much of my idealism around a purely voluntary society system. I still do not like the system we have, There is Plenty of Room for Improvement, but I don't think we will ever be at a point where there will be no need for Some Kind of Governing Structure, and Police Forces, as part of that system. Having massive militaries on the other hand, that is actually a different matter altogether, a matter and distinction that Paul also addresses in "The Art of Waging Peace."
* * * * *
Update June 29, 2013
And yet again, here is another video that gives a very clear explanation of What Anarchy Isn't that addresses the concern about need for "protection" from any person or group of persons in a society that might want to violate the non-aggression principle, for whatever reasons.
* * * * *
In addition, there is more and more evidence that the "Occupy" movement is making some headway in various quarters. For instance, this article came to my attention recently: Occupy Sandy Builds Worker Power in Far Rockaway. I am pleased to see that the article refers once again to the Mondragon company which I have already drawn attention to above.
More and more people are becoming sensitive to the problem of plastic waste in our world and in our oceans. This documentary is one of many highlighting the problem, and this is one 19-year-old's possible solution Ocean Clean-up Array.
There are many more organizations expanding to educate people about "urban gardening" such as John Kohler of Growing Your Greens, and GROWtest.org which advocates "Grow Food, Not Lawns". And lots more consideration with regards to more sustainable housing not least of which are the Tiny House and ongoing experimentation with Earthships.
Two other organizations (among many) I would like to draw attention to here are A Liter of Light led by Illac Diaz and World Bicycle Relief.
As I have said above, although we may be looking for "instant gratification" from all of our efforts, it is only because we have been conditioned by our fast-food and fast-media culture to expect that. However, this is like expecting fast results from a fad diet. What is required from all of us today is to Commit Our Entire Lives as necessary to Becoming the Change we want to see in the world, and persevering in those efforts, even if we do not live to see the greater impact.
But, Things Are Changing, slowly but surely, and I have Faith that the slow and steady nature of "Turtle Power" Will "Win this Race", Win for the Human Race, in the long run. We just have to Keep On Keepin' On!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)