But from where we were, we have all this crap going on around us. We kind of, sort of care, but not quite enough to do something about it. Letter writing is nice, but it’s like calling a non-functional fire department. That truck will not come around. So what do you do?
You still need to put the fire out. We know that you can’t do it alone. So you have to get help. You need other people. A collective, if you will, or a ‘collective will’. I think we lack this collective will.
It’s not that small actions don’t matter. They somewhat matter. But they need to have the potential to snowball into something larger. Like when a snowball rolls down a hill, it gets larger and stronger. A snowflake alone, even though it has a pretty pattern, isn’t quite enough.
We can complain that “special interest groups” and lobbyists have control of the laws and decisions that are made. To me this means that the collective will of the special interest groups and the lobbyists is stronger. We lack a relentless collective will.
But how do you build a relentless collective will? How do you sustain it? What actions come of this will?
Regardless of whether you’re right leaning or left leaning, I think we can agree that there need to be better measures for government accountability. That voting is not enough a measure. Also, I think this concept that “you can’t complain if you didn’t vote” is bullshit. Because at the end of the day it doesn’t matter which party is in power. This is the ground I live on, and this is the air I breathe, if I have something to say you had damn better listen, and I will do the same.
But what are these measures? How do we get them into place?
At some point in 2003 I really stopped caring. At least I ignored the news, so that I didn’t have to listen to everything that was going on. I didn’t have to follow the Israel-Palestinian issue, I didn’t have to know how many people were starving in the city. I just did my school thing, then the working thing and trying to live in ignorance. But that’s like abstaining, similar to how the European countries (or the US) abstained from voting on UN resolutions. How can you abstain? How the fuck can you abstain? That’s absurd.
Abstaining is bullshit.
Apathy is worse than any other emotion!
so what do we do about apathy?
We talk. (Preview of Adnan’s response: “So we talk about apathy. Then what? While we speak about apathy, apathy speaks to everyone else about us.”)
i agree, dialogue is paramount. at the same time the questions that swirl in my head are: how, who, why and where? (though not in that order)
and for curiosity’s sake, that is your response to the preview of my response?
dialogue is good, but dialogue that leads to no action is just talk.
“[D]ialogue that leads to no action is just talk.” Absolutely. But should this be the nature of our closing sentences? Maybe it should. Does this impel the reader towards reflective thought? Perhaps it does. Perhaps this is a better strategy than listing perspectives, and responses to perspectives. This is a tough question, and I see no definitive answer to it.
Beginning where you ended: activity requires a schedule, so what is the timeline? To answer that question we need to ask: what is our hierarchy of priorities? At the end of the day what matters? What goals do we need to work towards? Trying to unpack globalization starting from the top is interesting but impossible. There are a handful of goals that are common to everyone, and it seems to me that this bottom is where we need to start, and then we can work our way upwards and sideways. If the above is true, the question then becomes one of strategy, and this necessitates: 1) a healthy dose of introspection, 2) a healthy dose of humility, and 3) a broad survey of past events. This is of course just my take on it, and nothing more.
Now that you’ve been posting your dialogue for some time, what kind of action do you foresee? I have no preview of your response to this.
But should this be the nature of our closing sentences?
probably not.
what is our hierarchy of priorities? At the end of the day what matters? What goals do we need to work towards?
i don’t know.
1) a healthy dose of introspection, 2) a healthy dose of humility, and 3) a broad survey of past events.
i don’t disagree.
Now that you’ve been posting your dialogue for some time, what kind of action do you foresee?
well, a dialogue requires more than one person. i’ve just posted my thoughts so far. i’m at a stage where i am better of observing dialogue than participating in it or contributing to it. and to that, i don’t know what action needs to be taken.
I have no preview of your response to this.
bummer. =)
1) a healthy dose of introspection, 2) a healthy dose of humility, and 3) a broad survey of past events.
so this would cover the part where one is informed/aware.
There are a handful of goals that are common to everyone, and it seems to me that this bottom is where we need to start, and then we can work our way upwards and sideways.
and what are our common goals?
a dialogue requires more than one person. i’ve just posted my thoughts so far.
There are a few different definitions of the word “dialogue”. One definition is “an exchange of ideas”. I submit for your consideration the idea that writing is a dialogue with the reader, in much the same way that cinema and music are a dialogue with the audience. When we read, are we passively imbibing data and information? Or is reading an active process of cogitation, in which the reader responds — if only internally — to the writer’s ideas, and the writer’s ideas impact and change the reader’s ideas? Granted, the exchange is one way, but my point here is that the writer’s ideas don’t stop once they’ve hit the page, they bounce back off the page repeatedly. As well, while writing, the writer is involved in a dialogue with themselves. When one writes, are they passively regurgitating data and information? Or is writing an active process of cogitation, in which the writer’s formulations impact and change their own ideas? If it were the case that all written works were like live interviews, produced off the cuff and completely unedited, then writing would be more of a one-way transaction. However, writing is an iterative process in which the writer formulates and reformulates both their sentences and their perspectives. Writing, in some cases more than talking, helps us to understand what we think, why we think it, and how to clarify our positions.
i’m at a stage where i am better of observing dialogue than participating in it or contributing to it.
I respectfully disagree. Firstly: I’m wrong all the time, and I’m much better off for putting my ideas to the test of public discussion. Secondly: you’re perceptive and precise.
what are our common goals?
That’s a good question. Just before I put in my answer, what would you say they are?
i suppose it’s that i enjoy a dialogue that is two (or more) way. and writing and blogging about it is a way of “thinking out loud” in hopes of a multi-way dialogue. i may learn /more/ from a dialogue that’s not me writing out my thoughts.
re: goals. i’m not sure what the /common/ ones are. it also depends on how we categorize our goals.
but say, within this context, i would like highly transparent forms of government that are designed to serve the general populous and not themselves (re-election concerns or party politics) or corporate interests.
i would like equal access to health (i guess ultimately this would include housing and nutrition) and education. access to these should not be based on privilege or power (or wealth).
education systems that not only make us absorb knowledge but reflect upon it (not based on teacher biases), those that build our self-esteems and not our egos.
these things come to mind right now.
Let me begin by saying forgive me, for I am verbose. Now then:
In order to find our common goals, we have to find what is common to every person. In order to find what is common to every person we must understand what needs are prevalent among every individual person. Here we find there are two inescapable prerequisites for the existence of any person: a stable source of food and a secure shelter. None may deny this; this statement is immutable. However, even though we’ve found an undeniably true starting point that every single person is compelled to agree with, we already find ourselves beset with disagreement at this early stage when attempting to move the discussion forward. How much food? What kind of shelter? What about living with dignity and happiness, are those prerequisites or consequences of a stable source of food and possession of a secure shelter? At this point we enter a complex web of economic, metaphysical, and political beliefs and argumentation. These new questions are important, but they are beyond the scope of our current conversation, which is focused solely on answering the question what are our common goals?
If we accept the fundamental premise (FP), that there are two inescapable prerequisites for the existence of any person: a stable source of food and a secure shelter, we must unpack its content in order to continue. In its current form, FP pertains to a single person. In the first three sentences of the previous paragraph I moved from every person to any person, because in order to understand a group we must understand its individuals. If it is the case that FP applies to any person then it must be the case that it applies to every person. Hence, we can replace any with every in FP, which yields: there are two inescapable prerequisites for the existence of every person: a stable source of food and a secure shelter. If we accept this as true, then we are forced to accept that the primary concern of all humanity is (not the lesser claim “should be”) a stable source of food and a secure shelter, and if we accept this statement, then every question we ask after accepting this statement has to be framed with this conclusion in mind.
We are now forced to ask questions such as: “Is every person in possession of a stable source of food and a secure shelter? If not, why not?” Asking these questions is not optional, because they are directly precipitated by FP. Just as importantly, we are now forced to disallow any statement that contradicts or ignores FP. The implication of this is that we can no longer pursue projects in ignorance of the fact that fundamental inequality, and thus profound injustice, exists (assuming we accept that the answer to the question above, “Is every person in possession of a stable source of food and a secure shelter?“, is no).
My suggestion is that if we work from FP then all other components of life will arrange themselves judiciously. Accordingly, dignity and happiness are realistic and realizable objectives for many more people than currently enjoy them. Imagine for a moment that as soon as a person found themselves in possession of a stable source of food and a secure shelter they began to turn some of their efforts towards helping others obtain the same thing. It’s a gripping concept. While each person will interpret the boundaries and dimensions of the phrase “a stable source of food and a secure shelter” differently, I believe that if we began to work with FP in mind, this would motivate profound improvements.
This is the beginning of a timeless discussion, and FP requires further examination because it is not entirely basic, it is theory-laden and contains many presuppositions, including but not limited to: i) all life is of equal value, and ii) our approach to life should be egalitarian and we should do our best to frame all questions and statements from this perspective.
How does anyone proceed from a basis such as FP? We’ve arrived at our starting point. We talk.
first of all, no apologies needed for verbosity or otherwise, say what you feel necessary.
okay, let’s talk. =)
if anyone is following this conversation, risto has posted the following on his blog: the fundamental premise
I’ve been trying to find a way to state this problem logically, and our conversation led to me take a first stab at it. I’ll definitely have to revise (perhaps even discard) my FP argument as I continue to reflect on it, and as inconsistencies and holes come to light. I can already see a few holes that I’m trying to figure out if I should address in the FP post, or in a later post. Even if it turns out that my FP argument is unacceptable, it’s an interesting process attempting to filter out the unnecessary information, and then arrange the remaining points.
Any comments? Constructive or destructive?
yes. comments coming, soon.
yes. comments coming, soon.
prerequisites for the existence of any person: a stable source of food and a secure shelter
please do expand on the secure aspect here. what makes a shelter secure?
i ask because secure shelter seems to have the value of life built in depending on what you define as secure.
is it security from natural elements like wind and fire? secure from predatory wild life? or secure from say, daisy cutters?
would a prison like abu ghraib (hahaha) be considered to provide a stable source of food, and “secure” shelter?
Is every person in possession of a stable source of food and a secure shelter? If not, why not?
i think FP as a common ground is good ground. and this question is a very important one, not just from a philosophical/analytical point of view, but from a “holy shit! there’s people in my city/neighbour that are starving” point of view.
i would like you to go into more detail about how FP precipitates the value of life.
I believe that if we began to work from a basis something like FP, this would not only increase the availability of basic food and shelter, but would also motivate profound improvements in more complex areas such as education, health care, and economics.
again, more detail please.
If FP is true, the next task is to develop an informed strategy
i like how you end here. because i feel a focus on strategy is important.
a broad survey of past events and current events
“and current events” is an important addition (which is in your blog post and not in the comment above). a balance in the analysis of context is necessary because what has worked before may not work now, and what failed before might work now, and yes, we should learn from the past. but sometimes it’s just dumb luck.
a healthy dose of humility
can i get pills for this at the drug store? over the counter or prescription? =)
what makes a shelter secure?
Answers to this question are contentious, and what I’m hoping to do with FP is first establish a common basis that everyone everywhere can agree on (indeed, has to agree on because it’s inescapably true). This is what I was referring to when I wrote: “we already find ourselves beset by disagreement at this early stage when attempting to move the discussion forward. How much food? What kind of shelter? … At this point we enter a complex web of economic, metaphysical, and political beliefs and argumentation. These high level questions are important, but they are beyond the scope of the current conversation, which is focused solely on answering the low level question what are our common goals?”
The question what makes a shelter secure? is beyond the scope of the FP discussion for many reasons, primarily because it’s impossible for everyone everywhere to agree on a single answer, which is at it should be, as you note for reasons such as local environmental and political conditions.
i would like you to go into more detail about how FP precipitates the value of life.
As yet, I’m not sure where this point will fit into the overall discussion. FP is the basis, and how it is interpreted will depend on many other factors. FP is meant to be as minimal and general as possible, containing very little in the way of specific details, in the hope of avoiding semantic disputes.
Briefly: FP precipitates the value of life because it explicates our common needs, and if we talk about FP “we can no longer pursue projects in ignorance of the fact that fundamental inequality, and thus profound injustice, exists”, because there is no question that the common needs of every person are not being met at this time (though there are many elaborate answers that permit self-deception, apathy, and thus inaction). The crux of the idea is empowerment, and instilling an ethos of mutual aid.
“people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism – are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and … it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.” (Oscar Wilde, The Soul Of Man Under Socialism)
Volunteer work to help the poor is necessary and noble, however on it’s own it does nothing to address the roots of poverty. Volunteer work must be complemented by the advancement of social and political thought. (Enter Chomsky.)
holy shit! there’s people in my city/neighbour[hood] that are starving
Exactly!