quote:

Originally posted by zeronewmark:
blah blah blah... it still has nothing to do with government... either people are free (no income, estate, property taxes) & are free to exchange their labor as they themselves see fit... or they are slaves of a collective whose leaders determine what everyone produces is worth... a good government protects people & their property they produced from violence... an evil government appropriates it for 'the common good' or whatever other excuses....

But it does have something to do with the title of the thread! I've already debated and defended a free form of government, but that wasn't the point of the thread!

no, the point of the thread is about the impacts of capitalism & communism on ecology

love has nothing to do with it...

'What's love got to do with it?' - Tina Turner.

Edit - Dang sorry guys, double sorry Bravus

I don't know, Janos, I think we're still talking at cross-purposes. First, there's the treacherous abyss between theory and praxis. Second, we have fundamentally different assumptions and assertions as to precisely what is meant by POWER (where's that Sun Tzu thread?). It's hardly tangential to the subject here, but the two of us are never going to agree about it in the space of this thread. That will have to remain a feature of our ongoing dialogue. Instead I'll try to touch on it only as it intersects the thread topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Janos:
This is the sort of direct personal conflict I'm advocating, and willing to do as a general alternative to violence. Don't get me wrong - yes - there are some very 'bad neighbors' - but the interpersonal violence of a community will never begin to outweigh to the structural violence of capitalism and government.

Yes and no. What outsiders often fail to recognize is that the gang-bangers are not just enemies of the community, at the same time they're the sons and daughters of the community as well, for better or worse. That said, I don't judge the gangs seperately from the structural violence of capitalism, certainly not power at any rate, if not neccesarilly government. Big gangster, little gangster, that's all.

quote:

And I will echno Foucault here in saying that 'politics is the extension of war'. A traditional poltical solution to the issue of violence in society will most likely be ignorant of the common presence of violence as a structured, regulated, everyday fact.

That would be Foucault echoing Clausewitz, but in reverse, "War is the extension of politics by other means." But they are "other means" you know. In fairness, the same could be said about global markets - economic competition being more gainful than drawing swords with China - so I'm not convinced that line of reasoning neccesarilly favors autonomy over interdependence.

And let's face it, with the war analogy: armies require hierarchy to operate with any coordination at all; to win, they need the moral support and strategy of wise leadership - and wiser leadership to win the same things through diplomacy (as McNamara seems to be saying in his interview, Fog of War).

I can't find it, but in the introduction to my tiny copy of Sun Tzu's Art of War, there was the following anecdote about a doctor of great reknown: he revolutionized surgical practices in ancient times. Everyone praised him, but he said, "No one notices my brother, though he is by far the superior physician. That is because he practices preventative medicine."

quote:

Originally posted by Janos:

quote:

Or the Gretna cops who blocked the only escape route from of the city and shot at anyone who approached? They said their first loyalty was to the people of Gretna.

They were lying. Their loyalty is to power - and claimed loyalty to 'the people' is a specious and casual conincidence. That power in Gretna happens to have instilled values of white supremacy, black fear, and property-fetishment works for 'democracy' but the history of police, and their recent actions, doesn't truly support that idea.

I have to disagree. They were not lying: they found themselves in a sudden vaacum of power, without rule of law, and realized that the only power to be had was in their guns. That Gretna was white and suburbanite is only to point out the gang colors of their neighborhood, under the circumstances; Katrina made human flotsam of everyone she laid her hands on, the everyday violence of class suspended in mid air. Were the Gretna cops racist? Of course they were! Were they acting autonomously, in the interests of their own community, in the absence of the state and rule of law? Of course they were. I don't approve of it, but this is what happened, this is the human condition.

quote:

Or to echo the words of Martin:
"Peace is not the absence of conflict - it is the presence of justice"

Justice in a flood? Somebody shoot those Gretna cops so we can all get out of the city!

United we stand, divided we fall.

quote:

Those critics of global problems, even those who recognize them locally - but advocate global solutions, lack a clear sense of *total failure* of progressivism in it's stated goals, as well as the horrors that such thinking has caused. In addition, they generally lack any sense of the everyday violence of their own community, etc.
...
So many of the narratives of progress (the civil rights movement, how vietnam ended, women's rights, etc) are wholly unsubstantiated and specious, that it is hard to refute a boatload of bunk, all at once. But I will say, as someone who has investigated these subjects personally - by talking to the old mentors of MLKjr, by befriending ex-civil rights workers, etc - that a very different history emerges.

That is - the social politic as war- 'progress' as a temporary truce. Or in other words - attempting to change things for the better through the existing narrative and acceptable tools is a project which is created to fail (so it can be improved upon, critqued, then fail again, without change).

We're all familiar with your contempt for liberal-progressivism. And I certainly agree that when a factory is poisoning poor communities, it's an assault. But so far, the only way the people in the communities directly affected have managed to win any kind of redress against polluters, has been through the hard slog of democratic activism and legal wrangling, for what it's worth. I haven't heard of anyone fatalistic enough to commit to total war on behalf of the neighborhood - unless it's the Watts riot - a Pyrrhic victory for the neighbors, at any rate. But let's not get caught up in an endless teeter/totter contest of glass half-empty /half-full comparisons - or is it closer to the sand in an hour-glass? I don't give a damn about the rhetoric of 'progress', I'm talking about the lack of any realistic talk of sustainability.

quote:

It wasn't a conclusion I wished to draw or take any comfort in. It essentially eliminates the idea of 'social justice', it rebukes good and honest people, it accepts a certain amount of personal violence, etc - it's not a pastoral.

But I do believe that it can understand an analyze situations of power in a way that traditional methods cannot - and more importantly - change them.

What I don't understand is how you intend to prevent the totemic 'powers of power' from instantly re-inscribing themselves in hearts and minds after the revolution (much less before it); how is it that the lion will lie down with the lamb? In that sense, it's every bit the idealization of nature the Romantics held, i.e., the notion that you can restore innocence to the incarcerrated animal simply by opening the door to its cage. What were you saying about pastoral vision? Your rhetoric here couldn't be more utopian.

"All violence is infantalizing; you start out with visions of grandeur, only to wind up smearing your shit on the wall." - from Super Cannes, J.G. Ballard

quote:

- purity is a interesting idea, but it's not testable or really much of anything.

"Purity is a virtue in rocket fuel and narcotics, and very little else." - David Hickey

In Kurt Vonnegut's novel, Slapstick, the protagonist solves the problem by first becoming President of the United States. Then disbanding the Union, and the states, declaring that henceforth everyone will draw a new family name from a hat, whoever draws that same name is now their only kin, or friend in the world. Thus, at a stroke, he dissolves the divisions of class, culture and race - returning society to the natural ebb and flow of warring totemic clans - then retires to live out his remaining years in the crumbling ruins of the Empire State Building.

quote:

People simply do possess autonomy as much as they 'possess' anything - this is more a question of recognizing that fact, and discriminating between the above and the ideologies and knowledge-forms of control.

I'm not arguing with that, but how do you provoke a gestalt?

quote:

Regarding dwindling resources and such, I can only offer 'solutions' in which there are still conflicts, injustice, etc - expectably.

But I believe the conditions and terror of those injustices pale in comparison to the current state of things. Their scale isn't even comparable, for the most part.

Time will tell.

quote:

Anyway, was up late and there are my thoughts. Need sleep.

btw, I overlooked this before, when I quoted Jose.
You were in better form that night:

quote:

Originally posted by Janos:

quote:

I do like anarchy in principle, but I believe it can only work when there is unlimited space available for people. Or in a fully closed system where people are brought up that way. But that is why I am not an Anarchist.

I think that for many, the largest problem in anarch(ism) is the idea of responsibility.
...
This isn't to approve of those who retire to intentional communities, or adopt anarchy as a philosophy by which a person is suddenly exempted from the responsbility to a community with which they still clearly identify.

It's more that I view capitalism and socialism "anthropologically" in terms of sexual, judicial, 'gender', and other practices. In discussing a new 'system' by which people should live anarchy fails - and that is a good thing.

Anarchy isn't a system or an end to be posited upon the populace for their own good. It is that sort of thinking, which requires a solution for the human condition -

Regarding "solutions for the human condition", see also Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood.

quote:

Originally posted by heavymessing:
To some, globalization means shifting factories to emerging nations and letting them pollute 'their' air, 'cos their labour is cheaper.. and CO2 emmissions may well be greater too because they can get away with it (less legislation).

Pandering to the pockets of shareholders rather than the common good is what will drive us under.

'Globalization' is the unacceptable face of capitalism gone crazy. It shows that eventually capitalism will destroy itself (like communism) and probably take the planet with it.

... that is the question.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: the_Etruscan,

quote:

Originally posted by heavymessing:
To some, globalization means shifting factories to emerging nations and letting them pollute 'their' air, 'cos their labour is cheaper.. and CO2 emmissions may well be greater too because they can get away with it (less legislation).

we all share the air eventually... to use some turn of the century lingo, without the money trust (socialist central banks) the other pollution producing trusts (petrochemical companies) could never afford to 'globalize' ecology...

quote:

Pandering to the pockets of shareholders rather than the common good is what will drive us under.

making things like hemp illegal, which is much more competitive than expensive & pollution intensive petrochemical products 'in the name of the common good' is what is destroying the planet... if hemp could compete in a capitalist market instead of being prohibited in a socialist one, there would be no demand for petroleum... because the petrochemical cartel is currently in charge of what 'the common good' is, they will always decide what is 'good' for them... get over your need for a common good because if everyone does what is best for themselves than it will aggregate what is best for the planet... however as long as some give up their personal power to others to decide what is good for them, those with that power will always do what is 'good' for themselves at the expense of everyone else... what gives anyone a right to choose what is 'good' for another? everyone should be able to decide what is good for themselves... deciding that putting a polluting factory is 'good' for people there is a perfect example of why socialism is so destructive... the socialist masters 'need' the products of the factory while the suffering indigenous population has the 'ability' to be polluted...

quote:

'Globalization' is the unacceptable face of capitalism gone crazy. It shows that eventually capitalism will destroy itself (like communism) and probably take the planet with it.

globalization is socialist not capitalist... the idea that everyone needs to be amalgamated into a commune (especially those pesky hebrews that won't worship the commune) is what destroys the planet... nothing could be more socialist than a network of central banks that support the pollution producing monopolies (because all those companies are connected) at the expense of the rest of the world... no one else should be in charge of your 'common good' because if they are it will not be as good as what you can decide for yourself...

if you really think that a socialist inner party will decide what is best for the 'common good' go breathe the air in beijing or take a long drink from the river volga... socialists will always decide what is best for their ponzi scheme at the expense of anyone & everything else, especially the ecology...

quote:

They were not lying: they found themselves in a sudden vaacum of power, without rule of law, and realized that the only power to be had was in their guns

I think we've had vastly different experiences with the police - why do you think they ever cared about the 'law' to begin with. Rule-of-Law an arbitarily enforced, little-cared-for mantra that only accepts priviliged social members within it's realm. Even then, the decision of 'truth' is one that negotiates autonomy.

They didn't realize that power comes from t-b-o-a-g, that's a working assumption.

quote:

Yes and no. What outsiders often fail to recognize is that the gang-bangers are not just enemies of the community, at the same time they're the sons and daughters of the community as well, for better or worse. That said, I don't judge the gangs seperately from the structural violence of capitalism, certainly not power at any rate, if not neccesarilly government. Big gangster, little gangster, that's all.

I basically agree with this statement, but I'm not sure why you mentioned it - do you see a conflict with what I posted, or just adding your thoughts?

quote:

That would be Foucault echoing Clausewitz, but in reverse, "War is the extension of politics by other means." But they are "other means" you know. In fairness, the same could be said about global markets - economic competition being more gainful than drawing swords with China - so I'm not convinced that line of reasoning neccesarilly favors autonomy over interdependence.

But this is what I'm getting at - Capitalism, government, the police (a standing army) that is war. "interdependence" in terms of cooperation with other powers in China - just recognizes the linkage of two informal wars, not the avoidance of a formal one. More people will suffer, die, become angry, lonely, etc - from this sort of 'economic diplomacy' than war as we have yet known it. Formal War - in the sense of armies, etc - that's just a paegant for hiearchy - as Orwell put more eloquently in 1984, and more copied to end Farenheit 911 with.

quote:

Justice in a flood? Somebody shoot those Gretna cops so we can all get out of the city!

United we stand, divided we fall.

I actually find the idea of 'justice' worthless - but I have to start the critque somewhere, in terms of discriminating between 'structural violence' and the formalized, theatrical, violence of war and government.

I've always had a big problem with the 'united we stand issue'. A democracy should stand divided, in quarrels, in the negotiation of meaning and power - not as one entity, but as a series of compromises. United, we most often find ourselves as soldiers and slaves, really.

And within practical context, yes, shooting those officers would be ethically justified, if tactically dumb.

quote:

But so far, the only way the people in the communities directly affected have managed to win any kind of redress against polluters, has been through the hard slog of democratic activism and legal wrangling, for what it's worth

Local exceptions do not a victory make. And while I'm totally in support of the clean air act (old version), clean water act (old version), the superfund (old version), and the EPA (orginal council) - all of these entities now represent the polluters.

As a whole, which is a fair measure, as all those local exceptions and persons are sharing the same atmosphere, and for the most part, 'nation idea' and identity - these means have been a total loss.

I'm no stranger to these issues - I've worked with Ex-Exxon scientists, poor black communities in Virginia, etc - on all sorts of environmental racism and pollution issues.

It is the mantra of progressivism that failure of not enough (something) - and that a purification of tactic, methods, organizing, souls, economies, etc - will lead to victory.

This makes it most difficult to suggest an alternative way of understanding the world.

quote:

I don't give a damn about the rhetoric of 'progress', I'm talking about the lack of any realistic talk of sustainability.

Why should we hear this? The same people who wish to talk about it, the educated, the disaffected petty bourgeouisie, etc - are completely dependent on the system of power for their well-being. Sustainability would be great, but it certainly won't be engineered by any of them. It's as if alternative energy projects, etc, are all a part of a dance, in which moral superiority begets class superiority, by which, the sustainability issue proves the advocacy of a whole bunch people that activists and environmentalists might care for, but never sleep with.'

Why should power care about susstainability - scarcity improves upon power. And progressives, in my own point of view, have no desire to relinquish or eliminate their power. Often they have no clue of it, beyond a vague sense of moral or intellectual superiority.

quote:

What I don't understand is how you intend to prevent the totemic 'powers of power' from instantly re-inscribing themselves in hearts and minds after the revolution (much less before it); how is it that the lion will lie down with the lamb? In that sense, it's every bit the idealization of nature the Romantics held, i.e., the notion that you can restore innocence to the incarcerrated animal simply by opening the door to its cage. What were you saying about pastoral vision? Your rhetoric here couldn't be more utopian.

I'm advocating that all people seize their autonomy - power they already hold, but believe can possessed by another.

People aware of their own value will rightly take deep offense at a denigration thereof.

I'm not advocating 'lambs' here - or 'peace' in the pastoral sense, or a vision for all people (which cannot be removed from the sense of control of all people) - but rather;

at personalizing conflict.

quote:

how you intend to prevent the totemic 'powers of power' from instantly re-inscribing themselves in hearts and minds after the revolution

I'm not a Marxist - I'm not suggesting a revolution that operates on the same sensibility , measures, and methods as the 'opponent'. To do such, would be fail instantly. Nothing would have 'really changed'.

I don't envision an apocalyptic revolution by which 'truth is revealed'. I believe our best hope is in changing our interpersonal practices, and our acceptance of the terms of power, as they are defined in courts, but more specifically, our identities - at every level of class and status.

quote:

"All violence is infantalizing; you start out with visions of grandeur, only to wind up smearing your shit on the wall." - from Super Cannes, J.G. Ballard

Including self-defense?
There has long-been a desire to call 'revolutionists' particularly 'leftist' ones as children rebelling against their parents. This is ridiculously specious way of looking at things.

quote:

Thus, at a stroke, he dissolves the divisions of class, culture and race - returning society to the natural ebb and flow of warring totemic clans - then retires to live out his remaining years in the crumbling ruins of the Empire State Building.

The only thing I see as 'natural' is culture and human pratice is plasticity - and I'll remind you that a cynic like Vonnegut writes as a conservative, reminding errant children of their moral errs, from a place of naive, godly, vision.

quote:

People simply do possess autonomy as much as they 'possess' anything - this is more a question of recognizing that fact, and discriminating between the above and the ideologies and knowledge-forms of control.


I'm not arguing with that, but how do you provoke a gestalt?

I think this is an excellent question. First, I will say that noone is *reponsible* for this sort of work at all. Those who have a desire to benefit from this will actually do so, others will only dramatize.

For myself, practically, the answer is by expecting and provoking those persons around me to recognize my autonomy, and those of their own. By making them responsible for their actions, without specious and conflationary fallbacks and push-asides to 'the system'.

Or if you will - I try to treat those around me in the way "Donnie Darko" advised three troubled students, in the film by that name.

quote:

Regarding "solutions for the human condition", see also Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood. Wink

I'll check it out, thanks.

quote:

Pandering to the pockets of shareholders rather than the common good is what will drive us under.

'Globalization' is the unacceptable face of capitalism gone crazy. It shows that eventually capitalism will destroy itself (like communism) and probably take the planet with it.

My best answer to this, is that it is the cultural practices and production, that allow these 'shareholders' to exist - and that the idea of 'responsibility for the common good' is just one method of reinforcement of that system by which they can exist and control the many.

So, rather than a solution, the best chance at actual change is to change our own practices and ideas to eliminate power. Sometimes this can be the result of monetary change - but it's temporary, and like all other moral solutions, insufficent.

[Disclaimer: I am not so wide read in this subject as many here so I apologise if I have misinterpreted anything. This is not false modesty merely pragmatism.]

I have little or no faith in the majority of any population. They could not self govern but would be consumed with self interest (ok, they are now but there are external agencies holding them in check).

The majority of the population of any class tends toward the greedy and self serving, and even the enlightened of us on this board probably do not have shiny white souls, most people are grey (ish?). (Let him who is without sin, etc, etc)

So the philosophies may make sense but would thay stand up in reality, at the most fundamental level of personal interaction?

For example (and I don't mean to pick on you in particular Janos), if no external authorities existed, would you be able to concentrate on

quote:

expecting and provoking those persons around me to recognize my autonomy, and those of their own.

while you were being hit over the head with a 4X2 by someone exercising his new found freedom of relieving you of your wallet?

I for one would love to see the reduction of centralised government to little more than a body who ensures that the motorways join up from one area to another(i.e. wide geographical planning), and let smaller and smaller units tend to the local communities. ( I admit up front I have no idea how the economics of this would work, I said earlier I wasn't widely read in this subject )

It seems that we'd all be OK if we didn't have to deal with people, but even trolls want a better life, and would we treat them any differently in the real world?

Peace and Love.

( You can all get back to what you were talking about now... )

Ah, Janos, well rested and bushy-tailed again, I see.

And HM, I think we're all talking about the same thing here (your thread-topic). I just plow ahead and take it as a given that someone with more expertise in a given field will swoop down and correct me in a prompt and timely fashion - or better yet, someone without expertise but a better argument! Credentials are moot here. It's all about thinking on your feet.

Now I'll just take forever editing my next post.
More later ...

quote:

They could not self govern but would be consumed with self interest

quote:

The majority of the population of any class tends toward the greedy and self serving

quote:

would you be able to concentrate on

quote:
expecting and provoking those persons around me to recognize my autonomy, and those of their own.

while you were being hit over the head with a 4X2 by someone exercising his new found freedom of relieving you of your wallet?

There's a lot of problems with this sort of critique, basically, that people are incapable of living without structuralized power, because they are essentially sinners, or at least, prone to sin.

1. It's circular logic - most of the problems and violence in society, is in fact caused or exarcebated by those very institutions which seek to 'protect' them.

2. There is no reduction in violence, only increase, with governments. Areas that are a mish-mash of competing interests for great power (usually national) tend to be ex-colonial, not 'natural'. This also is related to a bit of racism when it comes to understanding South America and Africa's problems, as well.

3. The bible is not a study of the human condition, it is a narrative thereof. Of course, you can argue that all studies are narratives, but even with that - the only consistent thing seems to be the tendency of human culture towards plasticity and variation.

4. There are lots of cultures in which interpersonal practices, *not morals* or prohibition guide the restriction of formalized power and more importantly, the production of truth. Of course, many of them have been destroyed - but their ideas often continue.

5. The social contract is total bunk. See abov e posts on that.

6. The majority of the North American population practices the religions of captialism, marxism, government, etc - and that is as violent a creed as any.

that's just a few, but you get the idea...

quote:

I for one would love to see the reduction of centralised government to little more than a body who ensures that the motorways join up from one area to another(i.e. wide geographical planning), and let smaller and smaller units tend to the local communities

This is fairly close to what is called "Jeffersonian Republicanism" in the states, if that is of any resource.

quote:

It seems that we'd all be OK if we didn't have to deal with people, but even trolls want a better life, and would we treat them any differently in the real world?

Since you tend to follow a love/hate dichotomy (not looking down on that, just observing) - I suggest you check out Radio Rahim's monologue about his 'hands' from Spike Lee's "do the right thing".

quote:

Ah, Janos, well rested and bushy-tailed again, I see.

Lol, I acutally logged on to apologize for spelling and grammar errors - we're gearing up for a new film production here, and I'm very busy, and exhausted. Posting at 3-4 am usually, and quickly.

On that note Etruscan, I can observe that we're at an impasse, at least currently in one area.

I'm saying that "progressivism contains it's failure as a goal, within a logic of purification - it does not actually seek change; or recognize what that would entail"

whereas, you can see the desire for ecological and enlightenment progress as a struggle to work towards, that has provable results. Do you agree?

I have to go, but regarding Romanticism, I will briefly say that it ended slavery, and propelled the worst forms of ethnic-nation-states into being. That isn't related to much above, but just thought I would mention that idea.

I'll try to post in the next few days, but between login response issues, and being very busy, I don't know.

Really looking forward to your thoughts E, I enjoy your perspective, especially as it relates to biology - despite my critiques thereof.

Janos

quote:

I think we're all talking about the same thing here (your thread-topic)

I've thoroughly enjoyed it, even if the topic title was a little inflammatory. I even managed to understand some of it sometimes

quote:

someone with more expertise in a given field will swoop down and correct me

I'm sure that was said with a smile on your face. One should never let that fact get in the way of a discussion or we'd all just defer to 'most qualified' in any group. Each member of a discussion is capable of going away with an amended view on the subject, even the big cheese....But then looking back I don't think you were really saying that, and please don't think that I'm trying to get at anyone, I'm not. But I do enjoy a free and frank exchange of idea.

Janos, I don't think I have a love/hate view so apologies if that what came across. I didn't mean to suggest that everyone would be out there with the 4x2's. Perhaps I have a more pessimistic view of people than you. I think everyone is composed of shades of grey (in the nicest possible way) which shift with each task/problem to hand. And I'll have a look for that monologue.

Bother, just realised this post is off-topic. Ah well, change is the only constant in life. (if anyone disagrees with that, please start another post)

Saw this in another thread:

quote:

Originally posted by Janos:
I won't be able to continue any further on this thread - or likely any others for the next month - as we gear up production tomorrow.

See you in December, I'll be around, but likely won't be able to respond at any length.

Well, I guess I let the trail go cold - got lost in my response - but I wanted to at least get back to you on a few things - briefly as possible. If you're pinched for time, don't feel pressured to respond according to the usual time/space continuum. If you can still find the thread, and the inclination to write, in December, I'll be around then. Otherwise, I'm afraid, you'll have to write haiku.

The other thing is, the discrepancy in our writing styles doesn't help matters, by which I mean, with all due respect, sometimes you write like Sheherazad on her last go round. Not that you should feel in any way constrained - certain types of discourse are simply not tailored to the small box. For my part, however, I cover the same ground at the willful and deliberate pace of the sloth (hence the delay). So instead of trying to respond in detail, I hope you won't mind if I choose selectively from the many facets of your argument, and try to give my most inclusive response (I'm generally probing for weaknesses anyway, so I often pass over what I can't find objection with). Also, if I favor brevity, it's not meant to sound glib by contrast. In any event, I trust you'll accomodate the abbreviated nature of my responses at whatever length suites your whimsy - minus time constraints.

quote:

I'm saying that "progressivism contains it's failure as a goal, within a logic of purification - it does not actually seek change; or recognize what that would entail"

whereas, you can see the desire for ecological and enlightenment progress as a struggle to work towards, that has provable results. Do you agree?

To every venture that "contains it's failure as a goal", I wish it great success.
But I do think most progressives feel they're participating in change on a timeframe that far exceeds their own lifetimes (short-term gain). And this kind of cross-generational thinking might very well turn out to be the germ, the first inklings, of long term survival - however specious and half-hearted it is now - "the roots do not resemble the branches."

quote:

I have to go, but regarding Romanticism, I will briefly say that it ended slavery, and propelled the worst forms of ethnic-nation-states into being. That isn't related to much above, but just thought I would mention that idea.

And what will you say about progressivism in a hundred years? I trust the term will be out of use by then - 'progress' is certainly a far cry from 'sustainable' + you've helped me to see the busy-body optimism running rampant in it. But just as the Romantics handed off the baton to the Progressives, whatever replaces that, in turn, continues a common historical trajectory. We can at least agree that the glass is never completely empty or completely full.

quote:

I enjoy your perspective, especially as it relates to biology - despite my critiques thereof.

Thanks for the encouragement; I have great faith in the inter-disciplinary approach. I just hope I know enough to limit myself to what can safely be inferred, but I'm sure there's enough collected scientific acumen on the board to set me straight.

quote:

quote:

... Big gangster, little gangster, that's all.

I basically agree with this statement, but I'm not sure why you mentioned it - do you see a conflict with what I posted, or just adding your thoughts?

You were emphasizing the distinction between "the interpersonal violence of a community" and "the structural violence of capitalism and government", and I was emphasizing the continuity.

As an old Chicago cop once told me, the boys in blue are only the biggest gang in town. Scary thought, but true. Scarier still: take away the biggest gang, you leave a power vaacum - as we know, nature abhors a vaacum - so next in line after the police are the Latin Kings, the Demon Diablo Disciples, I don't know, maybe the Bishops, depending on where you live. When they're finished duking it out for the title, all you get is brand new police. Like I said, ... ever since the dawn of agriculture.

quote:

I think we've had vastly different experiences with the police - why do you think they ever cared about the 'law' to begin with. Rule-of-Law an arbitarily enforced, little-cared-for mantra that only accepts priviliged social members within it's realm. Even then, the decision of 'truth' is one that negotiates autonomy.

Let's just say, it's not exactly breaking news to learn that cops are abusing their mandate. Technically, that's innattention to rule-of-law - sure, there's never been such an animal in the pure sense but, relative to downtown Bagdhad, we have rule-of-law.

quote:

But this is what I'm getting at - Capitalism, government, the police (a standing army) that is war. "interdependence" in terms of cooperation with other powers in China - just recognizes the linkage of two informal wars, not the avoidance of a formal one. More people will suffer, die, become angry, lonely, etc - from this sort of 'economic diplomacy' than war as we have yet known it. Formal War - in the sense of armies, etc - that's just a paegant for hiearchy - as Orwell put more eloquently in 1984, and more copied to end Farenheit 911 with.

I have to disagree, relative to downtown Bagdhad, we have peace.

quote:

quote:

"All violence is infantalizing; you start out with visions of grandeur, only to wind up smearing your shit on the wall." - from Super Cannes, J.G. Ballard

Including self-defense?

Sadly, yes, including self-defense.
Not that I'd be the least bit squeamish about it if it saves my ass (or that of a loved one). You'll never catch me blaming anyone for doing what they have to do in order to survive - but that won't stop me from doing it to them first. But that's why I advocate preventative medicine over pre-emptive surgery. As for the quote, I think poo is pretty apolitical, don't you?

Actually, Super-Cannes is a multi-layered meditation on class violence - another novel I think you'd appreciate, above and beyond our differences here. But that's for the J.G. Ballard thread. Meantime, I'll just concede the description is poetic-license.

quote:

quote:

Regarding "solutions for the human condition", see also Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood. Wink

I'll check it out, thanks.

I'm not saying either book will bridge the gap in our positions. Atwood actually leaves the question undecided for the reader (as does Ballard, but in a more insidious, excrutiating sort of way) while exploring the loose ends quite thoroughly. And needless to say, it's just sf.

quote:

- and I'll remind you that a cynic like Vonnegut writes as a conservative, reminding errant children of their moral errs, from a place of naive, godly, vision.

As you know, the critique of cynicism is very important to me (Critique of Cynical Reasoning by Peter Sloterdijk). So the crucial question for me is whether Vonnegut is acting as a cynic or a kynic. I've only read a handful of his books, but I'm not sure whether the author is decided, without ambivalence, in Slapstick either. Obviously, he chose to frame the novel, and the question, as a farce, and there's something didactic in that, but considering the last century and what's to come, who's to say if the protagonist's solution isn't the lesser of two evils? At least, that's how I read it - but point taken, about the author (not like Vonnegut had anything to be cynical about, right?).
___
Well, it wasn't my intention to get in the last word while you're engaged with the film - I don't think I've introduced anything new - so I won't start on the subject of kynicism now, except in summation, with a few thoughts on deathbed values:

There's a little Greek myth that forms a segue in The Birth of Tragedy (I've never seen it anywhere else). It's just a sketch really, like a comic relief, one of the few that concern Silenus: the fat, old satyr, who is always depicted as so drowsilly intoxicated he could hardly stay upright under his own power without the bevy of beautiful Maenids who bore him up like a parade-float in the train of Dionysus. Well, somewhere along the line he got misplaced, and as soon as the caravan was out of sight the people came out and captured him. They bound him with ropes and he was interrogated by the local prince, "What is the best thing for the human race?" they wanted to know.

Silenus paused, then grinned, "The best thing for you is that you should all cease to exist, and the sooner the better!" then he burst out in high-pitched cackling.

I want to be neither pessimist nor optimist. So we're doomed. It's prerequisite to the human condition: show me someone who isn't doomed from birth. How did Krishna reply when Arjuna asked Him, what is the greatest mystery in the universe? The greatest mystery in the unverse is that people see death all around them, and yet they continue to believe that somehow it won't happen to them.

I'm not familiar with your use of "pastoral", so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I gather, the opposite of 'pastoral' would imply something like 'mortal'. Then I suppose concern for future generations would fall somewhere under that heading. It certainly won't make a blip on the myopic radar of short-term appetites that fluctuate the market, such as it is (not if you accept 'selfish-gene' theory). But if you think things are bad now, remember, evolutionary change is no bed of roses. Sure, most animals are reactionary by nature and highly suspicious of anything that could conceivably upset the status quo of their environmental niche. Change, on the other hand, is taught by hardship: nature selecting for an unlikely combination of genetic mutations, or behaviors. But I think it's a misnomer that biology implies some sort of determinism - least of all, perhaps, when it comes to humanity - hey, we invented penicillin.

Anyway, I'll cut it short here, if it's not too late for that.

No sweat about responding, now. Good luck on the film!

___
P.S. if anyone else has ideas about this, it's not a private thread.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: the_Etruscan,

Thanks Etruscan,
As I foresaw - no time to respond now - but I'll look forward to addressing this thread come December.

I don't know that I'll have too much to offer in 'new responses' at this point - but I think I can answer the same points in a more personal way.

Thx for the support about the film, and hope all is well with you et al.

Janos

quote:

Originally posted by Janos:
Thx for the support about the film,

Totally psyched. Do we get to see it?

Also glad to hear this isn't the last word on this thread, because I have a better argument than "... relative to downtown Bagdhad", but didn't want to burden you with it under the circumstances.

See you in Dec. Break a leg!