Defamation Of The Intellectual Man

» 1legspider - Fostering Cultural Change in Context

Special interest groups are necessary as a means of focusing and prioritising effort on particular cultural problems.

However what puts me off and by the sounds of it you is the accompanying rhetoric that seems to demonise everything else in cause of their narrow one sided arguments.

This is unfortunately a cynical belief by these organizations that the only way to garner support from limited resources is to put forward their case to the detriment of everything else.. hence charitable organizations all competing against each other at finding more and more graphic ways to tug at our heartstrings so as to stoke up their coffers.. which as a trend is sickening to behold.

Of course, over time, some of these organisations become career vehicles for many and require to continually create and sustain phantom demons just so as to justify their existence as quasi-commercial organisations with only a passing care to their original founding creed.

This can be seen in the Cancer Industry, AIDS Industry, Holocaust Industry and numerous other such now monolithic foundations, where if you add up the value of manpower, skill, energy and resources that has been consumed against what has actually been delivered.. by any measure the results will be seen to be glaringly pitiful... but who cares.

To those of us who take a holistic approach to life and culture. Who see the interconnectedness of things and progressive cultural change as a renegotiation of power, resources based upon rational objectives set within a communal context.. this feeding frenzy of narrow focused interest groups for the masses mindset is a sorry spectacle indeed and as you rightly point out an insult to the intelligence for any rational thinking person.

This approach is finally defeatist for 'good causes' organisations who operate in this way.. after all, always appealing to the lowest common denominator will eventually lead to the bottom of the pit where cynicism of the masses will overtake their brand of cynical manipulation.

There is another way.. of course.. to set arguments for change in a context that strives to improve everyones lot.. as everyone in communal terms at least stands to benefit from progressive rational change.. to think in terms of society.. to support genuine good work where the outcomes are measurable.. to keep constant and vigilant lookout on our institutions so that they do not become bloated and diseased with the short term agendas of the incumbents entrusted to run them. To be bold in shutting and closing down these organisations when they are beyond salvaging. To foster a climate of continuous critical appraisal for all institutions democratic or otherwise.. to listen to those voices in the wilderness who are prepared to risk their career to voice concerns etc.

These are just some thoughts on the fly, It will be interesting to see some other opinions, especially from those involved in day to day with some of these organisations and get their perspective on this article.

Regards, GAH

-- posted by 1legspider

» tyrtaeus - Re: Fostering Cultural Change in Context

Thank you for responding.

Well, though I somewhat see your insight to my article - with concerns to one sided rhetoric. I have to disagree with, "Who see the interconnectedness of things and progressive cultural change as a renegotiation of power, resources based upon rational objectives set within a communal context.."

There is not, has never been, and never will be "rational objectives" about social, or cultural change. For most part, all humans are narrow minded. I find it of my character as well. I simply point out my honesty towards it, and that most communities ignore theirs. They also hate those like me who do point it out.

It is cynicism I know. But, cynicism is the true foundation of great intelligence.

-- posted by tyrtaeus

» 1legspider - Re: Re: Fostering Cultural Change in Context

Having read some of your other stuff since writing my mail, I have of course seen we are coming from entirely different points of view (I am an unbound optimist).. though is it not interesting to note that even we can agree on some things.

Clearly you are a thinker and have thought long and deeply about some of the things you write about.. Some things I agree with you some I do not.. I have to say that your writing comes across as laced with a thin layer of paranoia.. a feeling that those who disagree with you, hate you, put you down, are weak willed etc. That is not necessarily true.

From your response, you seem to be satisfied with sitting back on your laurels and pointing fingers out at the 'truth' in humans and society as you find it today (bearing in mind, this is your unique perspective). This cynicism however assumes a static society where a 'truth' today will be a 'truth' tomorrow and for evermore.

Clearly Society, culture, the universe.. whatever, is not static (think of the huge shift in general ideas in every discipline over the last 10 years let alone the last century). Creative changes are fostered through individual and collective efforts.. New meaning is created everyday and everyone can play an active part in it.. if they choose to do so.

Cynics then, rather than Conservatives are the enemy of change. Criticism can be a useful exercise, I just suggest there are more rewarding ways in life, that is, in actively participating and directing creative change. As a simple tenet, any change that results in more choices for all .. is a change for the better.

The internet is littered with examples of this.. if only one cares to look.eg http://www.newciv.org/

I also suggest trying out an all embracing philosophy such as the framework put forward by Ken Wilber..

regards and all the best, 1legspider.

-- posted by 1legspider

» tyrtaeus - Re: Re: Re: Fostering Cultural Change in Context

Optimism is not a trait lost on me. For example: I am optimistic when it comes to spreading Capitalism across the globe.

Paranoid, is a bit over the top. I’d rather say I’m skeptic. For I know some may hate me (for I’ve been told so directly), not everyone hates. Even though most will consider my thinking process as arrogantly cold, and socially bizarre, or primitive, I stand on my principles and virtues. At lest, comparatively so towards today’s tolerant mentality.

The truth, as I see it, is actually nothing new. Especially when it comes to human nature, and social morality. The basic human character has not changed since the beginning. Only, our perceptions change. But, perceptions are not related to character.

My whole point is based on the ideological changes over the last 20, 30, 40 years. These social changes prove morality is not the key to the advancement of the human species above, and beyond, our basic natures.
I do not see the soul of mankind anymore fearless than 100 years ago. The only thing, which has changed, is the fears and monsters.

It is nothing new for an upper class social structure to get lazy towards their own personal meanings, when they are overly confident in their national immortality. I’m simply pointing out we, as a nation, have begun this trend of languor.

What I am saying is not revolutionary. Our founding fathers structured the ideal of America based on the cynicism towards social restraint (know as government), and on the optimism that mankind could expand beyond the heavens, when in control of his/her own destiny.

The truth is constant no matter what timeline, or universal path, is traveled. I’m not wanting to take away choice. Rather, point out what is happening when we select (unwisely) to give away our liberty to choose.

There are equaling rewards when balancing cynicism and optimism. To be overly optimistic about the direction the human race is taking - say because the speed of computers increase on a daily bases - is unrealistic. Perhaps, even more dangerous than the smallest levels of cynicism.

I practice what I call optimistic cynicism. I see no contradictions there. Just as I have put forward, that in order to know God the last place one should look is church. So do I put forward, that in order to wisely judge truth the last place one should look is to social structure.
One must be a skeptic towards ideas outside human nature. And, society has the habit of creating ideas such as utopias (i.e. religious heavens, and enlightenments on Earth) to guide the masses to the adherents of order.
This is where I see the static in society, and culture. When groups are formed ideas die. Even if the ideas are brilliant in simplicity. It is just they way we are.

So, that is my argument in favor of cynicism. Hope it sheds some light.

-- posted by tyrtaeus