How do you hope to achieve this better world
I do have to say, Antaganus, that your question is most valid; although I'm not really following your apparent obsession with hippies as seemingly being the only repository of utopian endeavours, unless, of course, the implication of "Out of this world" ideas, needs the prerequisite of being out of one's mind on some form of hallucinogen. I did have sympathetic leanings towards the hippy movement, in that they represented a positive active effort towards a less material world than that of the establishment of the time. The fact that it was not sustained, however, was perhaps due to the lack of fundamental substance to the thinking behind the movement. But the logic, that because a utopian endeavor has not succeeded to date, one should not persist in looking for one, is to say the least, spurious.
But "how" indeed?
The first consideration, and of the utmost importance, is to recognise the enormity of the this endeavour. This is not just a tinkering at the edges or the forwarding of a fractional self interest issue. This is the most fundamental change in the total history of mankind. It is in effect to change the nature of the way we think. It is not political or racial, it is not of a country, nor of the rich or the poor; it is of the epic proportions of an evolutionary event. Yes, I know this sounds like the ranting of a madman, but I am neither mad nor a man prone to ranting.
So the how must start with nothing more than the consideration and understanding of what we are proposing to do and why. The why has already been covered in my earlier answers to your questions: that the way we think (instinctual self interest) gives man a current direction that is not sustainable and will ultimately, through time, result in disaster. Earlier in my writing I likened an armageddon situation to a quote from Clint Eastwood in one of the Dirty Harry movies where a man falling from a 10 storey block was heard to say, as he passed the windows on the way down, "so far so good". The specific emphasis being that in spite of things being ok just now, there will be inevitable consequences.
But "how" indeed?
The first consideration, and of the utmost importance, is to recognise the enormity of the this endeavour. This is not just a tinkering at the edges or the forwarding of a fractional self interest issue. This is the most fundamental change in the total history of mankind. It is in effect to change the nature of the way we think. It is not political or racial, it is not of a country, nor of the rich or the poor; it is of the epic proportions of an evolutionary event. Yes, I know this sounds like the ranting of a madman, but I am neither mad nor a man prone to ranting.
So the how must start with nothing more than the consideration and understanding of what we are proposing to do and why. The why has already been covered in my earlier answers to your questions: that the way we think (instinctual self interest) gives man a current direction that is not sustainable and will ultimately, through time, result in disaster. Earlier in my writing I likened an armageddon situation to a quote from Clint Eastwood in one of the Dirty Harry movies where a man falling from a 10 storey block was heard to say, as he passed the windows on the way down, "so far so good". The specific emphasis being that in spite of things being ok just now, there will be inevitable consequences.
Antaganus: Yes we get the dooms-day bit it's the how we change I'm wanting to hear about.
Can we change?
Yes, Antaganus, I'm getting there.
Well by dint of the my writing this, I clearly believe we can change: that is we have all the abilities and the potential so to do. We can change. The Can represents the physical mechanism of ability, but the "can" has in it a hint of reticence; of questioning doubt. The element that the possibility of change hangs on, is the vagary of an attitudinal willingness to change. Although I contend that all people have the physical ability to change, the willingness would be at the idiosyncratic vagaries of the individual; perhaps dependent on their physical circumstances and psyche; and implicit in that, would be their perception of what they see as needing to be changed.
Change has the implication of a cessation of something already existing: a status quo maybe, that for some reason is no longer suitable. Change has a reactive quality to given situations. As such, the nature of what it is we are reacting to, must be the cause of change and subsequently the strength of the reaction to the status quo, will be directly proportional to the threat or necessity perceived.
From an individual perspective it can be obvious: driving ones car towards a tree, needs no discussion as to whether one should change direction. However, in a collective situation what is or is not a "tree" may well be up for debate. Back in the real world where issues are not as black and white as my tree: the idiosyncratic vagaries of an individual will give a particular perspective for that person. For the collective, where there is a greater diversity and eccentricity of circumstance, there will, inevitably, be a greater number of perspectives on any one issue.
In my opinion the disparity of thought and opinion relates directly to the disparity of wealth and circumstance. A man watching his family starve to death is not going to be that concerned about the extinction of the tiger; equally, the businessman that has just sacked that same man in an attempt to keep his business afloat in a dog eat dog economic climate, will be just as worried about his family relative to his comparative wealth. It is probably fair to say that the social differential of the world to day is as great as it's ever been. Make a more homogenous world and you will have a greater similarity of perspective and consequently a greater consensus of opinion in regard to what is an issue and how best to deal it.
Well by dint of the my writing this, I clearly believe we can change: that is we have all the abilities and the potential so to do. We can change. The Can represents the physical mechanism of ability, but the "can" has in it a hint of reticence; of questioning doubt. The element that the possibility of change hangs on, is the vagary of an attitudinal willingness to change. Although I contend that all people have the physical ability to change, the willingness would be at the idiosyncratic vagaries of the individual; perhaps dependent on their physical circumstances and psyche; and implicit in that, would be their perception of what they see as needing to be changed.
Change has the implication of a cessation of something already existing: a status quo maybe, that for some reason is no longer suitable. Change has a reactive quality to given situations. As such, the nature of what it is we are reacting to, must be the cause of change and subsequently the strength of the reaction to the status quo, will be directly proportional to the threat or necessity perceived.
From an individual perspective it can be obvious: driving ones car towards a tree, needs no discussion as to whether one should change direction. However, in a collective situation what is or is not a "tree" may well be up for debate. Back in the real world where issues are not as black and white as my tree: the idiosyncratic vagaries of an individual will give a particular perspective for that person. For the collective, where there is a greater diversity and eccentricity of circumstance, there will, inevitably, be a greater number of perspectives on any one issue.
In my opinion the disparity of thought and opinion relates directly to the disparity of wealth and circumstance. A man watching his family starve to death is not going to be that concerned about the extinction of the tiger; equally, the businessman that has just sacked that same man in an attempt to keep his business afloat in a dog eat dog economic climate, will be just as worried about his family relative to his comparative wealth. It is probably fair to say that the social differential of the world to day is as great as it's ever been. Make a more homogenous world and you will have a greater similarity of perspective and consequently a greater consensus of opinion in regard to what is an issue and how best to deal it.
Antaganus: Ha! Good luck with that one! Change is only possible when everyone agrees? You're definitely dreaming in hippy technicolor.
The reality that unifies all living things
Yes, Antaganus, you have my complete sympathy in making that comment but perhaps we are nearer a unifying element than we think. Although the writing "The Fourth Gift" <link>, is separated from this page, that in no manner denigrates its importance or relevance to answering my question "Can We Change". Quite the contrary, it is one of the most seminal of my whole philosophical work. I strongly suggest you go and read it now and see what it is that unifies us and binds us to a common perspective.
* * *
Welcome back. I am assuming that you have been reading the Fourth Gift. I suggested you read it as I felt it could demonstrate that we do have a common perspective: not just in the inescapable science of the petri dish but in expanding that to a logical corollary towards an attitudinal perspective of loving.
I made it clear in the paragraph before the Fourth Gift that perspective was absolute when it came to that which an individual saw as being an issue. The Fourth Gift shows that in spite of our disparate perspectives on life, set largely by circumstances, there is ultimately a common factor: that like all life, we are instinctively motivated to survive; we are essentially all in the same boat but because the nature of that survival is set to be a competitive selfish survival we see each other as rivals in this game.
The Fourth Gift covers many philosophical points of interest but the central point of this piece of writing is to give man a corollary for being empathically loving towards himself and others. At first glance this would not appear to be entirely apposite to the "Can we Change" question, but this is not the case. It would be very unhelpful to suggest that our instinctual survival nature was going to be our destruction, without suggesting an alternative to replace it. In the answer to the previous question "Who is it for?" I introduced what I called "The Duality" of existence: that on the one hand we have the mechanism of our selfish instincts to direct the manner of our decision making, our survival, and on the other hand the ability to "create" a belief structure based on the principle of love. In "The Fourth Gift" we have an explanation and corollary that makes the the root/foundation of that loving belief structure. We have an alternative manner in which to make decisions, to make changes.
* * *
Welcome back. I am assuming that you have been reading the Fourth Gift. I suggested you read it as I felt it could demonstrate that we do have a common perspective: not just in the inescapable science of the petri dish but in expanding that to a logical corollary towards an attitudinal perspective of loving.
I made it clear in the paragraph before the Fourth Gift that perspective was absolute when it came to that which an individual saw as being an issue. The Fourth Gift shows that in spite of our disparate perspectives on life, set largely by circumstances, there is ultimately a common factor: that like all life, we are instinctively motivated to survive; we are essentially all in the same boat but because the nature of that survival is set to be a competitive selfish survival we see each other as rivals in this game.
The Fourth Gift covers many philosophical points of interest but the central point of this piece of writing is to give man a corollary for being empathically loving towards himself and others. At first glance this would not appear to be entirely apposite to the "Can we Change" question, but this is not the case. It would be very unhelpful to suggest that our instinctual survival nature was going to be our destruction, without suggesting an alternative to replace it. In the answer to the previous question "Who is it for?" I introduced what I called "The Duality" of existence: that on the one hand we have the mechanism of our selfish instincts to direct the manner of our decision making, our survival, and on the other hand the ability to "create" a belief structure based on the principle of love. In "The Fourth Gift" we have an explanation and corollary that makes the the root/foundation of that loving belief structure. We have an alternative manner in which to make decisions, to make changes.
Antaganus:.... Well .... I can see where you're coming from... but really? Dont get me wrong the idea of the (hippy) love thing sound great.... but man is so entrenched in his ego..... I don't see it happening.
Change! what is change?
Well, yes you may well be right Antaganus but bear with me. I have my suspicions that I am getting ahead of myself in regard to fully understanding what change is. The real focus of our attention must surely be in the fundamental process that change represents: the root of any change must be within the mechanism of decision making.
Antaganus: Oh come on, a decision: one thing or another, equals choice; it's surely not that complicated?
Antaganus: Oh come on, a decision: one thing or another, equals choice; it's surely not that complicated?
All we do has but one direction.
It is important to first establish a fact when discussing decision making:
In all that we do we are solely motivated from the instinctual drive to survive.
In all that we do we are solely motivated from the instinctual drive to survive.
Antaganus: cobblers! If I decide to have a KFC instead of a Big Mac I'm not thinking about surviving. You keep banging on about surviving; the fact is until you brought it up I've hardly ever considered my life in terms of survival.
What are decisions and how do we make them sounds like a ridiculous question. The familiarity of the process means we never analyse the mechanics of the commonplace decision - it is unconsidered; it just happens; it is made in the unconscious assumption that what we decide will work. However, some decisions appear to involve great deliberation and at times can be very vexing in their consideration. So, how do we make decisions?
The thing is that the mechanism of decision-making is no where as complicated as it might appear. And yes, while it is true, Antaganus, that much of our decision-making appears to be made unconscious of the survival element, it is still there. Whether it is, "where should we buy our new house?", "what political party should I vote for?" or, "what shall I have for tea?" all will be answered from the context of that which is best for us, best for our survival.
There are, I believe, automated vacuum-cleaners, that once started just move in a straight line, cleaning till they bump into something, whereupon they change direction. The method of man's decision making is not unlike this: we change direction when a perceived necessity dictates. Take global warming for instance: for a long time mooted as an unproven possibility, we went on, halfheartedly paying a tacit nod to that possibility; but as the scientific consensus of opinion became more concrete evidentially, we began to take greater notice. But we could have predicted this outcome many years ago: George Perkins Marsh, 1801-1882, an American diplomat and environmentalist, and slightly later and better known: John Muir and Henry David Thoreau, and Svante August Arrhenius (1859 –1927) a Swedish scientist (greenhouse effect) all pointed to the influence of man on his environment. So why didn't we change? Because the immediate survival benefits of the current behaviour of the time, outweighed the possible negative effects of changing: a vacuum-cleaner in a straight line. We are a reactive animal rather than a proactive one when it comes to the more global decisions in life; which is ironic when we consider the manner in which we make decisions about lesser events: we can build a bridge or travel to the moon and consider every possible outcome of our actions with buzz phrases such as "risk assessment" and yet do not employ the same truthful singularity of rigorous, scrutiny when voting for our next government. But then these bigger events are charged with the singular emotiveness of our survival to cloud and colour our judgement.
There are, I believe, automated vacuum-cleaners, that once started just move in a straight line, cleaning till they bump into something, whereupon they change direction. The method of man's decision making is not unlike this: we change direction when a perceived necessity dictates. Take global warming for instance: for a long time mooted as an unproven possibility, we went on, halfheartedly paying a tacit nod to that possibility; but as the scientific consensus of opinion became more concrete evidentially, we began to take greater notice. But we could have predicted this outcome many years ago: George Perkins Marsh, 1801-1882, an American diplomat and environmentalist, and slightly later and better known: John Muir and Henry David Thoreau, and Svante August Arrhenius (1859 –1927) a Swedish scientist (greenhouse effect) all pointed to the influence of man on his environment. So why didn't we change? Because the immediate survival benefits of the current behaviour of the time, outweighed the possible negative effects of changing: a vacuum-cleaner in a straight line. We are a reactive animal rather than a proactive one when it comes to the more global decisions in life; which is ironic when we consider the manner in which we make decisions about lesser events: we can build a bridge or travel to the moon and consider every possible outcome of our actions with buzz phrases such as "risk assessment" and yet do not employ the same truthful singularity of rigorous, scrutiny when voting for our next government. But then these bigger events are charged with the singular emotiveness of our survival to cloud and colour our judgement.
Antaganus: (yawn) Ok I get the decision making bit. If we believe your assertion that in our present mindset decisions are made from our selfish survival instincts, we will see our survival is at risk and want to to do something about it, and yes ok we all turn hippy and love each other.........
You're just mocking it Antaganus
Antaganus: NO. Really, Sisideas, I get it. I can see the logic of what you're saying. My problem is one of credibility. Before we got diverted to "Can we change" which was relevant, my original question was "How do you hope to achieve this better world"? I can see that if you get people to understand that all of us being in the same boat, should adopt a survival stratagem based on a proactive belief structured of love rather than a selfish reactive instinctual one, then the hippy dream might be credible; but how are you going to start getting there?
Yes Antaganus you are quite right. Let me first say, reiterating the first paragraph, that what i am proposing is so enormous that I do not see mankind actually living this new way of life for several generations to come. But what we can do is to sow seeds of logic that for the next generation will seem that bit more normal and, hopefully, by the time 3 or 4 generations have been living with these ideas we will be on the way to living our idyll; our goal. Yes 75 to a 100 years. But how do we start? With ourselves as individuals. To honestly look and understand that which we can see as logical and true about ourselves with gentle compassion. It is a long journey and it starts with you... on a journey of self discovery.