Love’s Dimensions

Love’s Dimensions

by Alton C. Thompson

In an essay posted in 2013 Guy McPherson stated:   “I know too little about love.  But I’m pretty certain it’s all we have [left now].” What evidently motivated Guy’s “all we have [left now]” statement was explained a few paragraphs later:

A decade ago, as I was editing a book on climate change, I realized we had triggered events likely to cause human extinction by 2030.  Notwithstanding neoconservative talking points (aka lies) to the contrary, burning fossil fuels that accumulated over millions of years within the span of a couple centuries is having expectedly horrific impacts on the environment we share with millions of other species.  Recognizing the horrors we’ve triggered, I mourned for months, to the bewilderment of the three people who noticed.

Guy’s recognition that our species was on the road to extinction, with no way out—or, as he put it:

We’re done.  Homo colossus has tripped several positive-feedback triggers, any one of which leads to near-term human extinction.  The combination is truly lethal.

—led him to ask:  “Now what?”  Guy then described how he and his wife changed their lifestyle in response to the fact that near-term extinction appears to be our destiny as humans, and next stated the main point of his essay:

This culture will not know peace.  It is much too late for love to extend our run as a culture or a species—too late to employ the wisdom of Jimi Hendrix—but love surely offers redemption to individual humans.  (Earlier in the essay, Guy had quoted this line by Hendrix:  “When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.”)

That is, we have reached a point in time when Hendrix’s hope that the “power of love” would—or even could—overcome the “love of power” is a mere “pipe dream.”  Recognition of that fact has, however, the potential of motivating one to ask:  “How, then, given the strong likelihood that I will die a premature death, should I live the remainder of my life here on earth?”  The answer that McPherson gave (in effect):  “To honor the life of Hendrix and/or contribute to one’s own sense of well-being (as well as “redemption,” salvation?!), one should re-orient the direction of ones’ life:  from an orientation to individualism, materialism, competition, and selfishness—i.e., the dominant values in our society—to one of love.

That recommendation, however, leads one to ask such questions as:  “What is love?”  “What does love involve?”  Etc.  It is questions of that sort—i.e., questions as to the dimensions of love—that are the focus of the present essay.

A useful starting point here is to recognize that that when most of us think of “love,” we have two rather different concepts in mind.  On the one hand, there is “falling in love,” [1] which often involves an altered state of consciousness that one experiences in being attracted to a member of the opposite (or not [2]) sex.  The “purpose” of that attraction is to consummate a sexual encounter with that other [3].

I have put “purpose” in quotation marks here deliberately, because sexual encounters are typically more a function of unconscious drive than of conscious choice.  An implication of that fact is that the object of one’s attraction is often perceived not as an end but, rather, as merely a means—to the end of the (temporary) satisfaction of one’s own need for sexual gratification.

However, this first sort of love can be combined with the second sort, that one involving (a) an ability to empathize with others, to (b) detect—and (c) feel—the other’s pain, [4] to then, as a consequence, (d) feel compassion for the other, and next (e) become motivated to do what one can to (f) alleviate that pain, and then (g) do so, insofar as one is (h) able to do so.

Emotion is associated with this second sort of love, just as it is with the first sort, but a different quality of emotion is associated with each:  The second sort of love involves “putting oneself in the other’s shoes,” and wanting to do something about the pain felt by the other.  The actions associated with this second sort of love are, then, of  an other-oriented nature, whereas those associated with the first sort tend to be self-oriented.

Both sorts of love involve actions, but the actions associated with the first sort of love are often of an exploitative nature, whereas those associated with the second sort are of a helping nature.  The two types can be combined, however, as I noted above, a fact illustrated by this figure (left). [5]

It is safe to infer, I believe, from McPherson’s essay (quoted from at the beginning) that he was referring to the second sort of love rather than the first one.  Thus, in discussing here the “dimensions” of love, I will limit myself to the “helping” variety of love.

In doing so, the first point that I would like to make is that in our society—in Western societies in general, in fact—there is a fair amount of agreement as to what does, and does not, constitute the “helping” sort of love.  From cross-societal and cross-temporal perspectives, however, it must be admitted that this sort of love has been thought of in a great variety of ways, one way often being in direct opposition of other ways.  I do not want to dwell on this fact here, but will note, regarding cross-cultural differences specifically, that a book by one of the “founding fathers” of the discipline of Sociology, William Graham Sumner (that role in Sociology surely being an embarrassment to many sociologists, given Sumner’s advocacy of laissez-faire economics!) illustrates this point.  The book in question:   Folkways (1906).  This book, by demonstrating how attitudes and practices vary greatly from society to society, in effect presented evidence of the fact that that what was regarded as, and as not, loving behavior varied considerably cross-culturally.[6]

As my interest in this essay, however, is less of an academic [7], than a quasi-practical, nature, I will next proceed—for the sake of expediency!—by eschewing discursive presentation in favor of outlining.  Please forgive me!

  1. Loving behavior (of the “helping” sort) can take at least two forms:
  2. Physical actions.
  3. Communicatory behavior (writing, speaking—such as that engaged in by Guy

McPherson and various others!).

 

  1. So far as physical actions and communicatory behaviors are concerned, it must be kept in mind that several factors affect (a) whether one engages in them, (b) the degree to which one does, and (c) the form that one’s loving behavior takes, among those factors being:
  2. Income/wealth.
  3. Physical/intellectual skills.
  4. “Possession” by an economic, religious, etc., ideology.
  5. One’s upbringing.
  6. The value system one develops.
  7. The nature of one’s friends/associates.
  8. One’s life experiences.

 

  1. Loving behavior can have at least two time dimensions (the characteristics listed above having relevance for the particular time orientation one adopts):
  2. Individual actions in the here-and-now.
  3. Individual actions with a future orientation.

 

  1. Loving behavior can have a societal orientation (the individual characteristics listed under B above having relevance for the sort of societal orientation one may adopt):
  2. Efforts to reform one’s society—which occur in the here-and-now.
  3. Efforts to convert—to remake—one’s society—which have a future

Given that my interest for the past few decades has been in the future (e.g., in 1984 I published a strategy/scenario of societal system change), I would like conclude my outlining effort by elaborating on my thoughts regarding the future—thoughts that also have a societal orientation:

  1. Ideas for the characteristics of the future society(ies):
  2. Human needs and their fulfillment (e.g., Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs).
  3. Human “design specifications” (a concept with an evolutionary basis, that also recognizes the role of the Agricultural Revolution in human history; see pp. 38 – 117 in this eBook).
  4. Societal design—referring here specifically to the vast body of “utopian” literature, discussed in detail in this book.

 

  1. Ideas for the creation of the Good Society:
  2. Create a “model” society on a small scale; as people learn about it, and the quality of life within it, they will copy it—and eventually everyone in the world will be living in such societies! (Robert Owen seems to have held such a belief.)
  3. The 5-“wave” strategy/scenario discussed in my 1984 article, referred to above.
  4. The “Structured Interaction Group” as a tool for planning communities, discussed on pp. 159 – 164 of the eBook to which a link is provided under A.2. above).

 

  1. Efforts to create the Good Society:
  2. Robert Owen and New Harmony.
  3. Charles Fourier did a great deal of writing during his life, but is especially remembered for his communitarian writing—which writing inspired the creation of a number of “model” communities. In the United States the most famous one was Brook Farm, the longest-existing one being the North American Phalanx.

When I wrote my 1984 article, I believed that there was still time to “convert” our society into an “eco-friendly” one, with the hope that other societies would then copy—or at least be inspired by—what we had done.  And although I hate to admit it, Guy McPherson has convinced me that the conversion of our society is no longer possible!

I still believe that the only solution to our various problems as humans—including that of global warming, of course—would have been societal system change—rather than “reform” (which amounts to mere “tinkering”).  My use of the words “would have been” in the previous sentence indicates my belief, however, that the sort of love expressed by ideas/efforts regarding societal system change will no longer “cut it”:  It’s now too late for such ideas/efforts, they are now obsolete!

Guy McPherson is absolutely right, in my opinion:  Love (of the second sort discussed above) is “all we have [left now].”  Let us use it, keeping in mind the presentation under point B above!  That is, do what you can, and be satisfied that that’s enough!

Endnotes

  1. This article claims that romantic love is a “hoax,” but I question that claim. It may be a cultural development, true, but that fact does not make it less “real.”
  1. Recognizing here that homosexuality is not a deviation from the normal (or “sinful”) but, rather, is natural—even though it is less common than heterosexuality.
  1. That encounter may, of course, result in a pregnancy, but the latter is often simply a byproduct of the encounter, not the “intention.” Although a function of sexual reproduction is to perpetuate a given species, there is such a thing as too much reproduction (“overshoot”), with the activities of those reproduced being of a suicidal nature, so far as the species is concerned!  Such activities have been occurring with our species, especially since about 1850 CE!  For evidence, see, e.g., Guy McPherson’s “Climate-Change Summary and Update.”
  1. Not that the recipient of this second sort of love is always in pain. (For example, what may motivate one’s coming to the aid of another is a desire to protect the other from suffering pain.)  But when I think of this second sort of love, I tend to use the Good Samaritan parable as my model.
  1. Although the two circles differ in size, no quantitative interpretation is intended either for that fact, or for the size of overlap of the two circles. The meanings of the “1” and “2” here need no comment, of course.
  1. In doing a word search of “love” in the .htm file of the book, I discovered that there are over 100 matches.
  1. Using that word in a pejorative sense!

______

GLOBAL 4C (www.global4c.org)

WORLD MONETARY UNION FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

Global 4C is a proposal to modify the international monetary system so that humanity can mobilise for strong climate mitigation. The economic instrument is a world currency called Complementary Currencies for Climate Change (4C), or simply ‘4C’ or ‘foresee’. The 4C currency will be issued as global rewards (for sequestering carbon) and as global subsidies (for avoiding greenhouse emissions).
PROPOSAL: A world currency system for climate mitigation is not discussed in the current narrative on climate change economics. This project aims to create a new narrative. Inspiration derives from the fact that the ‘Global 4C’ approach can divert wealth from the global economy directly into effective mitigation. Equally important is the vital role of rewards and subsidies as a socio-economic ‘complement’ to penalties and taxes. It is argued that a social transformation and mobilisation for strong mitigation are possible if a balanced approach to rewards and penalties is adopted. Key to this social transformation will be the use of digital currencies and digital social networks for administration, knowledge sharing, and organising capital.

______

New in the CLASSIFIEDS: 54 year-old woman, 2 miles from downtown Eugene, Oregon, shares her home with people actively dismantling empire. 1/5 acre site has large garden, bees, and ducks. ckknittle@yahoo.com

______

McPherson was interviewed by Derrick Jensen for Resistance Radio. The interview took place 22 January 2015, and it was broadcast last Sunday night on the Progressive Radio Network. Find it in the archives, here.

______

Please visit the DONATIONS tab. I’m open to non-monetary donations, subject only to your creativity. For example, I would appreciate your generosity with respect to frequent-flyer miles.
______

Catch Nature Bats Last on the radio with Mike Sliwa and Guy McPherson. Tune in every Tuesday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time, or catch up in the archives here. If you prefer the iTunes version, including the option to subscribe, you can click here.

This week’s show was hosted by Pauline Schneider. It included a long conversation with displaced Australian homesteader Wendy Bandurski-Miller, and it’ll ultimately be archived here.

_______

19 February – 4 March 2015, In and around New York City, New York (details below). Please RSVP for each of these events by sending a message to naturebatslast2007@gmail.com.

22 February 2015, 4:00 p.m., Lippitt Auditorium, Room 402, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, “Panel Discussion, Near-Term Human Extinction”

24 February 2015, 7:00 – 9:30 p.m., Spoonbill Books, 218 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, telephone 718.387.7322. Reading and signing books, with plenty of time for Q&A, wine, and cheese. Details here.

27 February 2015, 6:00 – 9:00 p.m., Project Reach, 39 Eldridge Street, Suite 4, New York, New York, Abrupt Climate Change: How Will You Show Up During Humanity’s Final Chapter?

1 March 2015, 6:00 p.m. Woodbine Collective, 18-84 Woodbine Street, New York, New York. Reading and signing books, with plenty of time for Q&A.

GuyPosterNY copy

***

Abrupt Climate Change: How Will You Show Up During Humanity’s Final Chapter?

4-16 March, Northern California Tour organized by Peter Melton: 530-680-5550,
Peter.Melton3@gmail.com. Additional venues may be added.

11-12 March 2015, Veterans Hall, 415 North Pine Street, Nevada City, California, presentation and workshop titled, “Abrupt Climate Change: How Will You Show Up During Humanity’s Final Chapter?” Follow on Facebook here.

11 March: 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. presentation and public discussion
11 March: 8:30 – 10:00 p.m. workshop part I
12 March: 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. workshop part II

13-14 March 2015, Chico Peace and Justice Center, 526 Broadway, Chico, California, presentation and workshop titled, “Abrupt Climate Change: How Will You Show Up During Humanity’s Final Chapter?” Follow on Facebook here.

13 March 13: 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. presentation and public discussion
13 March: 8:30 – 10:00 p.m. workshop part I
14 March: 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. workshop part II

***

22 March – 3 April Boston, Massachusetts. Details to follow.

***

6-30 April 2015, western Europe (additional details forthcoming, and follow the tour at guymcpherson.net and also on Facebook)

25 April 2015, 6:00 p.m., Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London, “Climate Awareness Seminar”

European tour spring 2015

_______

McPherson’s latest book is co-authored by Carolyn Baker. Extinction Dialogs: How to Live with Death in Mind is available. Electronic copy is available here from Amazon.

_______

If you have registered, or you intend to register, please send an email message to guy.r.mcpherson@gmail.com. Include the online moniker you’d like to use in this space. I’ll approve your registration as quickly as possible. Thanks for your patience.

_______

Tech note, courtesy of mo flow: Random issues have been appearing with posting comments. Sometimes a “Submit Comment” click will return a 404 Page Not Found, or another error, for no apparent reason. To ensure you don’t lose a longer comment, you can right-click select all, and right-click copy, in the comment box before clicking “Submit.” If that hasn’t been done, the comment text will likely still be in the comment box when clicking the back button, or the forward button — depending on the error — on your browser.

Comments 68

  • Loved this article. Loved reading so many bright comments here for a year. Loved learning from the “Endgame” book during Dr. McPherson’s Sustainable Living course at UofA Aug 26 – Dec 9 2007. My father was an Arizona Congressman who actually cared about environmental issues. Guy was the talk of Tucson when he included material in his course that went against the system.

    When Guy went to teach at Berkeley in 95-96 we used examples of his sustainable message in a local TV show involving the closure of Water World which my family owned in Tucson. Inspired by Guy I also produced a PBS environmental TV series hosted by Redford, Ted Danson, Julia Louis Dreyfus, Tippi Hedren & Al Gore. Loved trying to get people more concerned.

    But most of all I loved my years sailing around the Pacific then working as a volunteer ranger in Costa Rica. If you ever visit Cabo Blanco you can learn how it is possible to save a coastal rain forest from being clear cut by loggers & vacca ranchers. Maybe it does not matter anymore….but it still feels like love when we return to protect the sea turtles. Pick up tons of plastic trash & give nature a temporary clean relief.

    There is a feeling of love that only comes from the computer free Zen of living with out electricity. Eating only the bananas & papaya growing wild. Spending months sleeping in a tree hammock. So sorry there is too big of a world population for everyone to return to the peace of nature. So grateful I had the opportunity.

    Otherwise, yes I’m guilty of being born in a society that brainwashed us with consumption. I flew high. Tried to change things via the crazy TV medium. Discovered I can’t do much for the world but it did feel like love to save a little slice of jungle. Maybe the energy of love will survive & evolve after we are all gone. The mysterious spheres of Costa Rica had an effect that F Kling touched upon in his notes about encounter.

    Final note: I currently work for Dan Utech’s climate analysis team at The Dept of Energy. We create reports for the White House in conjunction with the EPA, NASA, FEMA, DoD. My special concern is for developing a better emergency plan for the 298 Nuclear reactors that would need care during/after a large scale crisis. Yes, every plant has expert maint. But how will our National Guard, protect & preserve the crews in case of sudden EMP strike? Rapid mass pandemic that effects plant workers, families & security teams.

    Specifically from NBL I have added atmospheric (Methane) emergency as a factor to include in a long list of things that could impact nuclear power plants? The regulatory commission is aware that a full system wide plan needs updating beyond the per facility & regional basis in place. Hope not to leave a radioactive planet if a large scale human loss event happened. The nuclear network is probably the most damaging construct that humans may leave behind. Even odd ideas for clean up might lead us to the right answer. THANKS

  • Alton –

    thank you for this clear, direct and valuable essay in support of one of the central premises of this blog. it is very appreciated!

  • WONDER WHY????????????????

    Considering the events taking place in Australia, I wonder why there is no significant attention being given to the clear fact that Australia is the next important location, outside of the Artic and Anartica, that is demonstrating the fact that it is factually “an canary in the goal” mind for the human race to examine and realize that the warming of the earth is well on its way.

    Considering the heat records being broken in some areas there and the two massive category 4 and 5 cyclones that have arrived at its shores one after the other, in a very short amount of time, should there not be more media attention being given to the near term future of Australia? From my observations, it is fast approaching and mitigation will only be short-termed for the population.

    There is a particular degree of egregious immorality,by media giants as well as by far too many politicians, in not telling the people the inescapable facts about global warming that is approaching Australia at quick speed. I am no scientist, but it appears just looking at its recent history of climate disruption that Australia will, with a high degree of probability,be unsustainable for human life in the very, very near term.

    Aside from the possible release of the Methane Bomb in Artic, climate destruction is here as Sam Carana noted in his most recent blog.

    I look around at people on t.v. in colleges, all around me and I am absolutely stunned and amazed by these people. So many who would announce that they consider themselves to well educated, especially all of academia, yet there is no national conversation of the extinction we humans are in the midst of and which were caused by the world industrialist and we the people are yet still forced to participate in.

    The mercy of God be on us all.

  • Hard to say what love is and or entails, as this article illustrates.

  • Alton,

    Great, thought provoking essay! (Related to this, it seems to me that attachment theory greatly expands on the ideas about love that you emphasize here.)

    Robin Datta,

    Nice summary of principles in your February 20th, 2015 at 5:09 am comment. Related to your summary, in the essay that red fox recommended and provided a link to on February 18th, 2015 at 5:27 am (http://www.unl.edu/rhames/monk-review-kelly-keeley.pdf), Paul Monk pointed out that Raymond C. Kelly in his 2000 book Warless Societies and the Origins of War praised and supported most of what Lawrence Keeley wrote in his book, War Before Civilization, just as Keeley praised Kelly. Regarding your summary, see here three paragraphs from Monk’s essay related to Kelly’s book. Note that Monk writes “Kelly corroborates Keeley’s contention that primitive societies are very violent ones”, my comments in brackets [ ]:

    “If war is not a primordial feature of human society, he reflects, then it must have originated at some point in the human past”. The question is, was that far back in the Upper Palaeolithic as long as 35,000 years ago, or perhaps even before the emergence of modern humans about 150,000 years ago, or was it much more recently? Here is where he urges that we must define our terms with care. “It is not the case”, he argues, “that one definition of war is as good as another. Rather, there are explicit logical criteria for establishing a superior definition.” Thus, we need to differentiate between homicide, capital punishment, raiding, feuding and warfare. To make this point he observes that “pongicide (apes killing one another) is an analogue of homicide and both are undoubtedly ancient. However, chimpanzees lack both capital punishment and war.” [Critically related to this, unlike Homo sapiens chimpanzees (which, based on cladistics we should classify as Homo troglodytes, not Pan troglodytes) also lack the creative intelligence to produce highly efficient killing tools even for up close killing, much less killing at a distance!]

    “War”, he argues, “is grounded in the application of a calculus of social substitution to situations of conflict such that these are understood in group terms.” Warless societies are not non-violent. “On the contrary, physical violence is…a principal vehicle of conflict resolution, as manifested in regulated, contest-like fighting and in the removal of a killer or sorcerer by execution. However, what warless societies do uniformly manifest are intrinsic limitations on the extent to which one act of lethal violence leads to another.” The emergence of war in the Neolithic, he argues, must be seen, therefore, as “a transition from one form of collective violence to another, rather than a transition from peaceful non-violence to lethal armed conflict.” [Note the last sentence of this paragraph in which Kelly states: “The emergence of war in the Neolithic, he argues, must be seen, therefore, as “a transition from one form of collective violence to another, rather than a transition from peaceful non-violence to lethal armed conflict.” It appears as though many of Kelley’s points revolve around how one defines “war”. In his most recent book, The World Until Yesterday, What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies, Jared Diamond expands on this devoting the three fascinating chapters of Part Two: Peace and War to warfare.]

    Kelly corroborates Keeley’s contention that primitive societies are very violent ones. “Homicide rates in simple foraging societies”, he accepts, “are considerably higher than those reported for agricultural societies with more developed forms of sociopolitical organisation.” But “the calculus of social substitution that is the hallmark of war is clearly absent” and “delineating this boundary makes it possible to rigorously discriminate between the warless societies and those in which warfare is present.” He argues that it can be empirically shown that this boundary was probably not crossed by the overwhelming majority of human societies before the beginnings of agriculture.”

    As I wrote yesterday, I look forward to reading Fry’s War, Peace, and Human Nature. I also look forward to reading Raymond Kelly’s Warless Societies and the Origins of War.

    Ram Samudrala,

    Thanks for the clarification! I agree with what you wrote here. I agree that in the large political sense, anarchy makes good sense, but not in the ways that many people use anarchy suggesting that we can and should deny our social, hierarchal nature with our many rule-based social behaviors. That common use of the term does not make much sense to me.

    mo flo,

    Will you please provide a few specific examples of the “uses of insults, sarcasm, and verbal abuse” that you allege I have done in my writing here? Meanwhile, IF these occurred—and I look forward to reviewing your examples—I did not write them intentionally, with one exception: I think I do recall using some sarcasm in some of my comments related to a number of commenters using verbally abusive language. If you mean that, then I plead guilty as charged: I did use sarcasm in arguing against commenters commonly using verbally abusive language here. But insults and verbal abuse? I think not, so I would like to see your examples.

    More Generally,

    Again, I wonder: Why do you suppose so many people have so much trouble discussing issues without resorting to insults, sarcasm, personal attacks, and various kinds of verbal violence? I have a number of my own ideas about this, but I wonder what others think about this. Red fox responded quite defensively to this question with “I dont agree with the loaded nature of the question which presupposes your analysis is the correct one. The vast majority of comments on here display no such characteristics in my opinion. An example being in my own case that I just highlighted above where you have read and stated something (re the false accusation) that wasn’t actually there.” Correct, Red. Happily, the discourse has remained quite civil here for the past few weeks and the nature of the discourse of a correspondingly higher quality, in my opinion. If you will review the comments here over longer term prior to a few weeks ago, you will see that my question has no “loaded” nature at all. Besides that, I meant my question in a much broader, more general sense than just the commenting that occurs here at NBL.

  • Bud –

    as your examples attest, the reality of what violence, lethal conflict, and war is all about throughout the history of our species and our immediate ancestors is complex. no one here has ever argued that violence and murder have not existed within our species for a long time – certainly from the beginning. but for whatever reason, that complexity never sinks in with you.

    the actual reality of the evolution of violence, as described for example in Kelly’s PNAS article I linked, is far more complex than your continued black and white, ultra-simplistic, assertions.

    all of this complexity seems to repeatedly escape you, even though it has been pointed out to you again and again. instead, you repeatedly state that “war and genocide” go all the way back to the beginning of our species. this is directly contradicted by both Kelly’s PNAS article, and also by what you state here:

    Kelly corroborates Keeley’s contention that primitive societies are very violent ones. “Homicide rates in simple foraging societies”, he accepts, “are considerably higher than those reported for agricultural societies with more developed forms of sociopolitical organisation.” But “the calculus of social substitution that is the hallmark of war is clearly absent” and “delineating this boundary makes it possible to rigorously discriminate between the warless societies and those in which warfare is present.” He argues that it can be empirically shown that this boundary was probably not crossed by the overwhelming majority of human societies before the beginnings of agriculture.”

    (emphasis added)

    your personal conclusion that “war and genocide” have been with humans from the beginning simply does not seem to be supported by the evidence.

    as for your more conflict-oriented verbal escapades here, it is just a whole lot more of the same passive aggressive nonsense that I pointed out earlier. it’s your style. just because someone is not cursing at someone else, does not mean they aren’t using verbal violence.

    my own definition of violence certainly ecompasses passive aggressive behavior. like all violence, the motivation is control and domination. passive aggressive violence isn’t overt, it is covert – but it is still motivated and intentional, and it can most definitely do serious damage to its intended targets.

    I have no time whatsoever to point these things out to you in detail. they have been pointed out several times in the past by myself and other posters here, and you are so far impervious to self realization in that department. further efforts are not warranted, based on previous experience.

  • I Am, we all Are…Love!

  • @ ed: Bwahahaha!
    ==

    Personal Meaningfulness

    There’s no meaning to life I can see,
    Except as we choose it to be;
    So whatever you do
    Might have meaning for you,
    But it doesn’t mean jack shit to me.

  • I would like to suggest that anyone who has any interest in the nature of early humans with respect to warfare carefully read the Paul Monk essay (review) that red fox recommended and provided a link to on February 18th, 2015 at 5:27 am (http://www.unl.edu/rhames/monk-review-kelly-keeley.pdf). Why? For three main reasons: (1) For about 2/3 of the essay, Monk nicely summarizes some of evidence that Lawrence Keely presents in his book, War Before Civilization, which many people here seem to have a great interest in knowing about without having to read the book. (2) He emphasizes the nature of the mutually respectful nature of the discourse between Kelly and Keeley, where they disagree in what to most people would probably seem fairly minor ways. Based on this essay, for the most part Kelly agrees with Keeley. (3) Monk stresses how Kelly and Keeley work hard to adjust their maps to the territory and NOT to IMPOSE their conceptual maps ONTO the territory, perhaps the single most important aspect of the nature of natural scientific reasoning, and in my biased opinion a critically needed philosophy for all of us.

    mo flo,

    Yes, Kelly makes some interesting points in his 2005 “The Evolution of Lethal Intergroup Violence” PNAS article. You point to my alleged “continued black and white, ultra-simplistic, assertions”, “all of this complexity seems to repeatedly escape you, even though it has been pointed out to you again and again.”, “your personal conclusion that ‘war and genocide’ have been with humans from the beginning simply does not seem to be supported by the evidence.” Ahh, not so much my reasoning and evidence as that of Keely, LeBlanc, Tattersall, Diamond, and others whom I have referred to (assuming that I have understood and represented them correctly). By the way, have you read LeBlanc’s Constant Battles? As I recently wrote, I look forward to reading Kelly’s book in which he states his hypothesis, to date unsupported by empirical evidence. Meanwhile, the claims of Keely, LeBlanc, Tattersall, Diamond, and others rest on quite a bit of compelling evidence, which Kelly acknowledges. It will prove interesting to see whether further evidence supports or fails to support Kelly’s interesting hypothesis. Based on broad energy and ecological considerations and the present weight of other’s work, I doubt that it will. But that remains an empirical question. If we have enough time left—and we probably do not—perhaps we will learn more about this.

    Meanwhile, if you will not, or cannot, provide me with specific examples of my alleged disrespectful verbal violence, which you insist supposedly occurs as often and produces the same damaging effects as the verbal abuse of many others here in the recent past, I cannot correct my behavior, which I would like very much to do.

  • More Allen Watts that may help you to cope with NTHE..

  • Alton, thank you for sharing your thoughts on love. your essay/outline has some outstandingly written bits, but was not organized as well as i think you intended. perhaps WorkFlowy will help you as it has me organize my thoughts for more effective communication. http://blog.workflowy.com/

  • “I Am, we all Are…Love!”

    Love implies an “other”. As long as the “I” is perceived as real, without the realisation that it is an apparition, a mirage, a phantasm, there can be an other, a relationship with the other, some aspects of which can be described as “love”. When there is no other, there can be no love.

    In the absence of the “I”, there is no “other”. The unrealised will see it as love (prema), but compassion (karuna) that includes both the wisdom and the non-attachment of realisation, covers and extends beyond the domain of love. Hence the many references to Buddha’s compassion rather than love.

  • I look at this in a simple way, as sharing and caring. A person can extend love in many directions and into different spheres. If I see a stranger in need, I try to help in whatever small way I can. If I have or know something that might help a neighbor, I offer it to them. If a friend is trying to do something, I offer to help and/or provide tools and materials. Close personal relations may use or have anything I have to give, especially my time. I try to stay cheerful and do my best to avoid conflict or hurt.

  • @BtD: Personal Meaningfulness

    There’s no meaning to life I can see,
    Except as we choose it to be;
    So whatever you do
    Might have meaning for you,
    But it doesn’t mean jack shit to me.

    >>>

    Given that this is so true,
    Here’s something you’re smart not to do:
    Don’t kick Viktor Frankl,
    You’ll just sprain your ankle,
    And make yourself all black and blue.

    >>>

    “It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life—daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.”

    ― Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

    >>>

    TL;DR: Quit yer hi-falutin’ talk, preacher man, and quit banging her on the side, too.

  • @ ed: An earlier title for that limerick was “Man’s Search for Meaning.” In retrospect, I think what happened was, after getting involved in reviewing Frankl’s work, I decided to run away as far as possible.

  • Professor Brian Ferguson (anthropology-Rutgers) on war:

    http://www.activevoice.charlesbivona.com/anthropology-of-war/

    Excerpt:

    “1.) War Is Not In Our Genes
    Many biologically oriented theories have been proposed to suggest humans actively seek out opportunities to kill members of other groups. None of these hypotheses can survive the test of evidence. For instance, nine different biological hypotheses on war are contradicted even by Chagnon’s statements about Yanomami.
    A related idea is that war is inevitable because it has always been with us, that humans have made war throughout the archaeological record. Also unsupportable. Early archaeological data from around the world show that war was absent—or at a minimum, extremely limited compared to the more recent archaeological and ethnographic record. War arose, settled in, and spread under particular sets of conditions.
    Neither is there an inborn tendency toward peace. Humans are capable of anything. Look at torture as a moral necessity on different sides of the Iraq war. Attitudes toward war and what is acceptable in war depend on cultural patterns and lived circumstances. That does not mean tendencies for war can be easily changed. But they are changeable.”

    Mr Nye,
    You stated that I responded “quite defensively” in response to your loaded question. How so? What is defensive about pointing out the inherent assumption in a question, especially an assumption I disagree with? You also state “correct Red”. I’m not sure what of? Do you mean that you recant the false accusation levelled at me by you with regard to “personal attacks” on a number of people? If so, I look forward to a proper withdrawal from you of said accusation.

    Video of Professor Ferguson discussing violence:

    “KNOW THYSELF” – Temple of Apollo, Delphi

  • Alton,

    I love your article too, and there’s nothing vital that could be added. No additional theories needed, attachment or others, to elaborate your wise insights written down so perfectly for us.

    Ultimately it’s about “caring and sharing” as urban refugee says, and we humans shared long before we made war. I love the way that rhymes in English.

    Yes, 1984. I was still hopeful then too. And I do agree on your point made on “reform”. To me that’s always been “tinkering too”. Here, in England people are “tinkering experts”. Decades ago this used to annoy me but now it doesn’t matter.
    In the end, only love and affection for living beings does. Yes, and for me, my treasured memories of my beloved dead.

    Your last words “to do what your can and be satisfied that that’s enough” should be contemplated by anybody who’s still confused and too overcome by the horror of it all because they can bring personal peace.

  • BtD: HA-HAH, GREAT limericks just bubble out of you like some eternal spring! Thanks man – and don’t stop til you drop! You’re much appreciated (lookin’ forward to volume II).

    With all the aberrant weather, crazy differences in heating (where the Arctic is actually warmer than New Hampshire (for example), and all – you’d think an intelligent species would ACT!

    Well, heeeeere’s humanity!

    http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3663/new_ozone-destroying_gases_on_the_rise

    New ozone-destroying gases on the rise
    Published Monday 16 February 2015

    [begins]

    Scientists report that chemicals that are not controlled by a United Nations treaty designed to protect the Ozone Layer are contributing to ozone depletion.

    In the new study, published today in Nature Geoscience, the scientists also report the atmospheric abundance of one of these ‘very short-lived substances’ (VSLS) is growing rapidly.

    Study lead author Dr Ryan Hossaini, from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds, said: “VSLS can have both natural and industrial sources. Industrial production of VSLS is not controlled by the United Nations Montreal Protocol because historically these chemicals have contributed little to ozone depletion.

  • and, while we’re at it

    http://us.sourcesecurity.com/news/articles/16551.html

    How Catastrophic Events Could Impact The U.S. Electric Grid

    What does the industry consider to be its most severe threats the U.S. electric grid? There is no shortage of nightmare scenarios.

    According to the Department of Energy, the number-one cause of most power outages in the U.S. is bad weather, which costs the economy between $18 billion and $33 billion every year in lost output and wages, spoiled inventory, delayed production and damage to grid infrastructure.

    When considering what’s at stake, it’s important to keep in mind that a large power transformer (LPT) is an enormous, custom-built piece of equipment tailored to customers’ specifications. They usually aren’t interchangeable with each other, and they aren’t produced for spare-part inventories, so if one blows a lot of companies and homes could be without power for more than six months. They’re not cheap, either. According to EEP (Electrical Engineering Portal), $10 million is a fairly average cost, but that doesn’t include transporting the gargantuan piece of equipment or installing it, which usually adds an additional 35 percent to the bill.

    [listed and explained in the article are solar storms and EMPs, physical attack and this, to end the article:]

    Stupidity. Last July 3, DHS replied to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on a malware attack on Google called “Operation Aurora.” Unfortunately, DHS made an enormous mistake and released more than 800 pages of documents related not to Operation Aurora but to the Aurora Project, which is a 2007 research project run by Idaho National Laboratory that demonstrates how easy it is to hack elements in power and water systems.

    The Aurora Project exposed a vulnerability common to many electrical generators, water pumps and other pieces of infrastructure, wherein an attacker remotely opens and closes key circuit breakers, throwing the machine’s rotating parts out of synchronization causing parts of the system to break down.

    Hunts says, “If the nation loses power we won’t have the ability to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps. You can’t respond your way out of it. You can’t stockpile enough food to feed tens of millions of people a month. Any place that is running will be overwhelmed. Even if 40 percent of the country is hit, can the other 60 percent manufacture enough to save us? Sure, generators could power the stuff, but the problem with them long-term is that the fuel supply would run out.”

    Generators aren’t the half of it.

  • Robin, I get it, buddy. Actually, I think we are saying the same thing using different words. Even Jesus’ last wish was that, “We are all One.” My take is that no matter how it’s said it’s not gonna take. But, we have to keep trying, don’t we?

    I didn’t see one robin this fall on their way south. Totally bummed by that. But this week saw fairly large flocks heading north. So, I’m a happy camper again! Those buggers sure like to flip those leaves!

    Doesn’t seem to take much these days to put a grin on my face. Everything has gone kind of bonkers if you ask me.

    Knock, knock.
    Whose there?
    Me!
    Me who?
    Me I!
    Who?
    Me is!
    You is what?
    I are you!
    You is what?
    Nothing, forget it!

  • Part of John Horgan’s introduction in Scientific American to an article by Prof. Brian Ferguson (anthropology). I thought it was especially pertinent in relation to the exchanges on here.

    “The Globe also quotes psychologist Steven Pinker, a long-time proponent of the deep-roots theory of war, dismissing critics of the theory as “romantics.” This is a favorite tactic of deep-roots advocates, to accuse skeptics of being driven by wishful thinking rather than science. Of course, from my perspective, it is the deep-rooters who are guilty of profound confirmation bias, which leads them to ignore overwhelming contradictory data.”

  • Mr Nye,
    You wrote:

    “As I wrote yesterday, I look forward to reading Fry’s War, Peace, and Human Nature. I also look forward to reading Raymond Kelly’s Warless Societies and the Origins of War.”

    I thought that you may be interested in reading Ferguson’s contribution to Fry’s anthology. He uploaded his 2 chapters to the Rutgers site; here are the links:

    http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/sites/fasn/files/Pinker%27s%20List%20-%20Exaggerating%20Prehistoric%20War%20Mortality%20%282013%29.pdf

    http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/sites/fasn/files/The%20Prehistory%20of%20War%20and%20Peace%20in%20Europe%20and%20the%20Near%20East%20%282013%29_0.pdf

  • Some here will probably have an interest in this panel presentation at ASU titled “The Great Debate: Extinctions” published Feb. 19, 2015 (or at least the first three of the presentations). It includes a presentation by Svante Paabo regarding Neanderthal DNA and by Ian Tattersall. (Warning: some may not want to hear what he says about the near certain extinction of Neanderthals by the allegedly peace-loving, ecologically friendly and sophisticated early Homo sapiens.) Tattersall emphasizes the power of our symbolizing and the presence of several other hominid species on the same landscape: “When behaviorally modern Homo sapiens came along, though, as you can see the pattern changed completely. About 40,000 years ago all of the hominid competition with Homo sapiens suddenly vanished. Almost instantly, in geological terms, there was only one hominid species in the world.” Some here will surely also not like Tattersall’s emphasis on the destructive nature of humans as a SPECIES from our beginnings, not just humans over the past 10,000 years since the invention of agriculture. Lindy Elkins-Tanton opens with a focus on atmospheric aspects of past extinctions.

    Diane Ackerman has the naïve, technologically utopian belief that we have a complicated “problem” that we can “solve” if we will just get to it. She has no understanding of the irreversible nature of Earth’s complex biosphere. Neil Gershenfeld presents his technotopian ideas. (I confess that I really, strongly do not like it, and object, when someone refers to a technological system as an “ecosystem”.) Given its strong emphasis on technological utopian thinking and values, I think they could have given the presentation a much better title than “The Great Extinction”. For the most part, most of the presenters use the word “extinction” to refer to old culture and technology, a bizarre use of the term, it seems to me. ASU president Michael Crow presents a climax speech in which he seems to suggest that the extinction event we have produced seems just fine. As he says, he “is an optimist. Only opportunity lies ahead.” In my opinion, only the Elkins-Tanton, Paabo, and Tattersall presentations offer much of value and relate to extinction, but others may have different thoughts. Some here will surely not like some of Tattersall’s responses to questions in the Q & A session as well.

    The Great Debate: Extinctions Part I, 1 hr, 24 min, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFcZG_QVsT8&feature=youtu.be

    The Great Debate: Extinctions Part II, 40 min, Q & A

    red fox,

    I asked a broad, generic, long-term question of everyone, not directed at you: “Why do you suppose so many people have so much trouble discussing issues without resorting to insults, sarcasm, personal attacks, and various kinds of verbal violence?” You responded with “I dont agree with the loaded nature of the question which presupposes your analysis is the correct one. The vast majority of comments on here display no such characteristics in my opinion. An example being in my own case that I just highlighted above where you have read and stated something (re the false accusation) that wasn’t actually there.” This seemed, and seems, distinctly defensive to me for two reasons. First, you deny the history of the blatant insults, sarcasm, personal attacks, and various kinds of verbal violence almost daily here for months, if not years. (And you continue to deny that blatantly obvious history by continuing to refer to this as a “loaded” question!) Second, you personalized a question not directed at you, taking it as some kind of attack on you.

    I wrote “Correct Red. Happily, the discourse has remained quite civil here for the past few weeks and the nature of the discourse of a correspondingly higher quality, in my opinion.” It seemed crystal clear to me when I wrote this that you had it correct that the discourse over the past few weeks has remained quite civil and respectful, and so I wrote “Correct Red.” I feel sorry if you had trouble understanding this. I will try to write more clearly in the future. I don’t have any idea at all what you mean by “I’m not sure what of? Do you mean that you recant the false accusation levelled at me by you with regard to ‘personal attacks’ on a number of people? If so, I look forward to a proper withdrawal from you of said accusation.” It seems to me another example of an unwarranted defensive response, but I don’t know.

  • TL;DR – Some thoughts for Bud (and perhaps others, too), in response for his request for feedback.

    **********************************************************************

    @Bud: Diane Ackerman has the naïve, technologically utopian belief that we have a complicated “problem” that we can “solve” if we will just get to it. She has no understanding of the irreversible nature of Earth’s complex biosphere.

    >>>

    Since you’re asking, Bud, here is an example of you being contemptuouos, boorish, snide in your remarks, while not descending to the level of OVERT behavior. If you bother looking at your verbage going back, you’ll be able to find a ton of examples like this.

    If you weren’t carrying a loaded gun, you’d leave out the denigrating editorializing comments in your mention of Ackerman.

    Now, I don’t care one way or another, and I have no dog in this fight. But as an impartial observer, I can see you’re violating Gottman’s ideas about communicating pretty much every time you open your mouth at this point.

    I don’t know if you’re married or not, but if you were, and you spoke to your wife like this, it would be a long time between blow jobs.

    Does that make the point clearly enough? (WEG)

    Seriously, man, it is habitual and unconscious behavior for you – and it is an outer reflection of an inner reality – namely your own undigested anger, rage and other shadow material which is no less real and no less radioactive than Bob S’s or any one else’s. He just expresses his more directly when he says he hopes you die first, or whatever it was he spewed.

    Per Eric Berne: “I’m OK, you’re not OK” is a great game to play when you want to play games. Of course, game playing has it’s consequences…and let us not talk falsely now, because the hour is getting late, yadda yadda.

    Another example was when you wanted to “help” OGF with her “naive” beliefs, too. You kindly offered to take her through Byron Katie’s 4 Questions to rid her of her belief baggage. How gallant of you (grin)!

    What you clearly didn’t realize was that OGF apparently knows just as much about Katie’s approach as you do – and she very quickly informed (or reminded) you that you were absolutely abusing Katie’s methodology by running the questions over her like a fast train – when Katie has taught clearly and explicitly that this is an abuse of the technique – and of the person’s right to autonomous thinking.

    So she quickly and skillfully ripped you a new one for your efforts – and began speaking up as part of the contingent of voices you are hearing at this point.

    Now – it’s not just you, Bud. A little bit of thought (as you have offered) is that this is actually endemic behavior here over the years. I saw it clearly as I read through the archives.

    And no doubt this is a good example of the fact that the fish rots from the head down.

    Said plainly, Guy has had this exact problem, in spades – and I’d say he still has it from what I read from him. Rather than recognize our common ignorance and foolishness (I’m not OK, you’re not OK) in so much we say and do – or our common capacity to access wisdom and compassion in the public square of consciousness (whatever that might ultimately mean) – there is a “let me show you why and how you are a SCHMUCK” syndrome that is often in play.

    And folks who have that same undigested shadow material are drawn to it – and to this particular Doomerville – because of the strange attractor factor that undigested shadow material presents to human consciousness.

    Condescension and contempt. It’s what’s for dinner. Or as newly minted grief counselor and erstwhile traveller Pauline Schneider says, FECAL Planet.

    Anyway, I really do appreciate your sincere request in asking for feedback so that you can understand where you’re falling short of your own ego ideals here…I really do. And my response here, unlike some of my others, is not cloaked in obscurantist humor like the proverbial spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down.

    This time, I’ve giving you your medicine straight up, no chaser.

    And if you’re REALLY serious about taking it, you’ll spend some time thinking and contemplating and LISTENING, rather than reading and spewing for the sake of everybody else and THEIR ignorance.

    And if you’re REALLY listening, then you’ll go make some serious amends to people YOU have violated by accusing them of being black actors – paid agents of evil – just because they have disagreed with you intellectually about NTHE or done their own little bit of spewing.

  • Bud,

    I think the person who used “bad language” and insults in his replies to you was ulfvugl who was here for “years and months”. He didn’t just pick on you. Ram, for instance, got it too. But Ram is a wise young man, and he gave you some good advice: Just ignore it, don’t respond.
    Justifying yourself in multiple paragraphs is never a good idea. You’re old enough to deal with the ones you think of as “bullies” by not responding. Learn not to take things too personal and be glad you’re not a woman. On the other hand, if you were, you might have developed a thicker skin by now. Women often really “get insulted” on the internet, believe me! And in real life.

    Red Fox hasn’t been here long, and I can’t see where he insulted you. He simply disagrees with you as do I.

    ulfvugl lost it with many people here, there were Eddie and Robin too, and Grant (whom I miss) but they were also wise and didn’t take the bait.
    ulfvugl insisted that “adults” should be able to take it on the “chin” (my word). I don’t agree there and prefer polite adult language. But he was always polite to me.
    But on the other hand, this is the internet, and I regard NBL a very safe place. That’s why I’m speaking my mind.
    Apart from ulfvugl, I can’t immediately think of another commenter here who uses “insulting” language. ulfvugls’s gone (I miss him too), and everybody else seems “nice and civilized”. Am I missing something here?

  • There’s no meaning to life I can see,
    Except as we choose it to be;
    So whatever you do
    Might have meaning for you,
    But it doesn’t mean jack shit to me.

    brilliant!

  • I agree with red fox completely, and his response was not in the least “defensive.” “Defensive” is a value judgment. It is a wholly subjective interpretation of behavior. It is a label.

    I also contend that these precise sorts of value judgments made about other people are Not Acceptable in civil discourse. Ever. Red fox has never made a single value judgment of this kind that I recall, and I’ve been paying close attention.

    However, as ed has pointed out, this is standard in your communications toward others, Mr. Nye. Continual value judgments toward others, and worse, judgments that are both devaluing of others, and (and this is the good part) that also you relentlessly demand that everyone else accept as being equal to “evidence,” due to your unassailable logic that many of us don’t agree with. You continually conflate your personal opinions and judgments about others with Truth and Evidence.

    Then you deny doing this as relentlessly as you pursue all the other tactics. Yes, it has been more pleasant on the board recently, because enough people posting are aware of what really occurs with all this psychological violence toward others, and fewer people are willing to focus on this with you for whatever reasons of their own. I have no desire to interact with you or anyone else in those ways.

    Judging, judging, judging. Love my judgments – you are just naïve; you are thin skinned; you are uninformed; you are refusing to accept the evidence; I feel sorry if you can’t understand; you are a troll, blah, blah, blather, blah.

    What if you couldn’t think that thought? That’s why it’s the “Judge Your Neighbor” worksheet. Our judgments are projection. Our observations and feelings are not, but our judgments are projection, and they blind us.

  • Great post Alton,we needed to implemented something like the Zeitgeist Movement or some way of living with nature 30 years ago. I do not post on forums much at all,as they seem to be mostly filled with trolls.But maybe this one is different as it looks they may get called out here instead of letting them run the show.

  • @sabine: Apart from ulfvugl, I can’t immediately think of another commenter here who uses “insulting” language. ulfvugls’s gone (I miss him too), and everybody else seems “nice and civilized”. Am I missing something here?

    >>>

    I’d say you are missing something, Sabine – namely that insulting behavior has been normative behavior here – both in group interactions among a number of the regs besides Ug – and even moreso in the group mind dynamic concerning outsiders of all sorts.

    There is a sallow, sickly pale to so much of the conversation over the years – with Guy setting the tone himself, both by what he says and what he permits – and from who he permits it (old Ug was a favorite of his, and could get away with verbal murder 10 dimes daily) and who he does not (skeptical Tony was called a TROLL by Guy simply for his questioning of the data, and banned).

    This is clearly shadow material, on Guy’s part as much as Bud’s or Ug’s or anyone else’s. And just like shit attracts flies, shadow material attracts others with the same shadow material. In chaos systems (and what is human consciousness if not a chaos system) that’s called the strange attractor effect.

    This is why I don’t think Guy is at all ready for the role he is taking on these days of Shamanic counselor, however he names it. He clearly hasn’t really done his own business in that realm to the point where he’s closed the gap between his own ego ideals (which are lovely, as are everyone’s) and the way he actual thinks, feels and behaves. As with Bud, as with so many here (and everywhere, really) the toxic waste of undigested shadow leaks out of his words like methane from the Siberian floor.

    It is possible to have the discourse we want to have without the toxic sludge coloring everything. But for that to happen, we really have to decide that what the Buddha calls “the three poisons” really ARE poison. Being in denial about their existence and expression in our own hearts and minds is not at all different than being in denial about AGW and its consequences, or the nature of empire, etc.

    As I’ve pointed out before, albeit elliptically rather than directly, what goes on here is a manifestation of empire thinking just as much as watching the unfolding of the American Empire scenario. People in leadership express the most exalted sorts of values (democracy, freedom, only love remains, etc) while being driven to words and then acts that come from the heart of darkness.

    Is it possible to hit the kill switch on this insane behavior? A fascinating question to be sure, and the very one we are exploring right now, with or without the curdled milk that finds its way into what could be a friendly debate between friends and fellow travellers.

    Are we at choice here, or not? It is an ancient question that has been debated endlessly by philosophers and metaphysicians in all times and places.

    As Wester, Mo Flow, red fox and others point out, clearly we have examples of societies sprinkled throughout the admittedly spotty records of history that seem to have transcended the problems we both talk about and experience here at NBL as well as in our existence as citizens of the world. So they discount Bud’s preaching of a scientific version of what amounts to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity – such as when he quotes a favorite author, Albert Ellis, saying that people are “fucking nuts”.

    On the other hand, Bud accurately points out that the preponderance of evidence is that people are apparently nuts far more often than not…which brings us, ultimately, to the current moment we’re in. In this, he shares the bleak perspectives of Calvin, Schopenhaur, Kubrick, and others.

    My own two cents is that it’s not an either/or question, but a probabilistic one. Given one individual, one dyad, one family, one local tribe – yes it is possible to transcend shadow living, however you describe that. It really is possible to live in accord with the great Way.

    But clearly Damon Runyon got it right when he said, “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong…but that’s the way to bet”.

    That’s true if you love playing the slots, like my mom did – or if you’re charting the unfolding of history of the singular animal whose brain was too big for its head, more often than not.

    Ob la di, ob la da!

  • so many good comments here, particularly urban refugee’s, and there is I have little to add to them except perhaps this..I am NOT, I repeat, NOT a Christian, and find a great many faults with organized religion, and think St. Paul was a misogynist..however..there is a reason why the following is one of the most often quote biblical verses, and I hope I am forgiven for quoting it here too:

    “1 Corinthians 13 New International Version (NIV)

    13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

    4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

    8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

    13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

    and we have no hope here..nor faith in much..but at least, even with all the back and forth..we do have love. Not only in the end is it the only thing to remain..it’s the only thing that really matters.

    Also, for no particular reason, I found the passive aggressiveness in this song highly amusing..

  • Wow, ed. You’re cookin’.

    I think the verbal violence is a lot like alcoholism. It really doesn’t require analysis to solve one’s larger problem, which is the need for the alcoholic to stop drinking. It’s that simple and it’s that pure. You just have to stop.

    In our case, it is the need for the individual to stop engaging in the use of violence toward others in any way. And evaluating and defining everyone and everything, and most especially doing so in negative ways, is violence. It is also an addictive behavior, and stopping is the only thing that is needed or ever will be. It’s so seductive to want to define and diminish and judge others, to use verbal and psychological abuse.

    Just stop. Talk about something else, instead.

  • Assholes of all stripes are allowed in this space, ed. Witness you and Tony as recent examples. But liars are not. Tony was not banned, at least not by me. Lie about me again, and you’ll be banned.

  • ed

    Where can I find more info on what you call the “shadow?”

    I looked up the three poisons. Gee, I’ve forgotten one already! Aversion and attachment, ignorance. Got it! Ignorance drives the other two.

    “Hence the many references to Buddha’s compassion rather than love.”

    I’m having trouble with so much talk of love as well. Although universal love of everything–the dust on the floor, the crooked fence, the cool breeze–seems natural enough. No effort needed. People are more trouble. With people, I find it easier to emphasize fairness, and yes, compassion too.

  • @Guy: Assholes of all stripes are allowed in this space, ed. Witness you and Tony as recent examples. But liars are not. Tony was not banned, at least not by me. Lie about me again, and you’ll be banned.

    >>>

    Not lying, Guy. That’s what Tony said over on Fractal Planet. Perhaps he was lying. My apologies for the mistake.

    But really, you make my point about the shadow quite eloquently, if inadvertantly.

    OK…I’m one over for the day, so over and out!

  • Ha! Quoting a renowned liar without checking — in this case, checking with me, about whom he’s lying — is exactly what I expect from you, ed. Nice back-handed apology, again just what I’ve come to expect from you.

  • I’m not seeing the difference in Bud telling other people how to improve themselves, and other people telling Bud how to improve himself.

  • “one of the most often quote biblical verses”

    Actually, New Testament verses.

    “faith, hope and love”

    The Vedic tradition says that those of faith gain understanding that obviates the need for faith. Otherwise faith is another name for superstition.

    One of the many descriptors for a realised person is Hopeless (“Nirasha”) referring to the absence of all expectations (as motivated by attraction or aversion). It does not imply any despair.

    Love stripped of attraction leaves compassion, another characeristic of the realised.

    There are five defilements in the Vedic tradition, ignorance, self-identity, attraction, aversion, fear of dissolution of individuality. Even the faintest trace of any one of these is an obstacle to realisation.

    Buddhism inccrporates the second of these into the Second Characteristic of Existence (“No entity has an abstractable essence”, i. e. there is no soul). The first, third and fourth constitute the three poisons. By implication the fifth is a manifestation of the first (ignorance) in reference to the the Second Characteristic of Existence.

    It is to be remembered that attraction and aversion are natural to, and necessary for the survival of, the body-mind complex. So is the apparition of self-identity. Mistaking the apparition for oneself, the attractions and aversions as belonging to oneself, and fearing the dissolution of this apparent self are all manifestations of the ignorance.

  • @ed

    I’m finding your comments quite considered and intelligent.

    From my perspective I would say there is definitely a lot that can be done in the realm of mind reform- the work of Marshall Rosenberg and Byron Katie are very helpful in this regard.

    On the other hand it is far simpler and quicker to go for the head of the snake- the existential fear that is behind all the insanity. This can be snuffed out with a simple act- a movement of personal consciousness into direct contact with its actual nature.

    I tell you from my heart and this is my experience- if you (anyone) would be free of misery, suffering, fear, anxiety, aggression, hatred, violence, the need to be right, the feeling of lack, of worthlessness, all of the insanity of these lives-constantly driven in search of something..

    Simply-try with all your heart to get the direct unmediated taste of the reality of what it feels like to be ‘you’- that essential youness that is always present- and over time before you know it the disease will be cured.

  • @ Tom, thanks! Encouragement like yours keeps me going.

    Volume II is coming out right after volume I goes mainstream haha.

    @ Daniel: Thank you very much!
    ==

    At 32:55 in this week’s prn broadcast, Pauline Panagiotou Schneider and Wendy Bandurski-Miller look forward to seeing Katie Goodman with Guy in New York:

    ==

    We Didn’t Fuck It Up

    Beasts of whatever IQ
    Get born and die, eat, shit and screw;
    So don’t blame me or you
    For extinction’s snafu:
    We just did what animals do.

  • Diarmuid Galvin that is the real key to life. very few figure out who they really are.For me I had to think back to before I had a job or cared about money to even start to figure out about what I really cared about.This system corrupts pure thought more than most realize.The hardest part for most is to realize if you try to hard to figure out the real you it will never happen. it has to be a natural process but when done right it will free you of all kinds of mental chains you did not realize you had.

  • “it is far simpler and quicker to go for the head of the snake”

    the allusive use of verbal violence directed towards snakes will not be tolerated on this blog.

    sheesh, ever since the whole garden of eden thing, you all have been down on the snakes.

    really, those two dingbats were so naive they would eaten the dang apple eventually anyways, just out of sheer stupid carelessness.

    I mean, so what if some snake thought it would be funny to to see just what hilarity would ensue if those two happy-go-lucky whack jobs actually had to try and fend for themselves in the world!?

    can you really blame us? er… them? so you went and got yourselves all Knowing and smart… what’s the harm, man? I mean, the poor snake didn’t go telling you to forget all about everything else you had learned, living in paradise and all? did he now?

    that was *your* doing. since when does it say that a little Knowledge of Good and Evil is actually so *much* a BIG DEAL, that the knowledge of everything else just has to go flying right out of your little brains?

    snakes, shmakes. get a grip, get back in your groove, and stop all this namby pamby whining. fer gosh sakes.

    oh yeah, the Love thing… that… well, just remember, you don’t know what you’ve got, until some snake tricks you into getting yourself kicked in the head.

  • Guy McPherson,
    I am deeply shocked to see you refer to ed as an ‘asshole.’Don’t you realize that ed has spent his whole life insulated from the real world,and will be suffering deep trauma from this event?From my position as self-appointed blog policeman,I am now going to order you to immediately apologize to ed ,and could you plese explain to me and the others here what led you to this atrocious display of impoliteness.I have had suspicions about you for some time,and they are now confirmed.You are clearly being paid by a government agency to disrupt things here.Admittedly,this accusation is unfounded, but I will level it anyway,because I like smearing people. You clearly deserve to be singled out as an example to others,and I will be launching several vitriolic attacks over the next few days to reveal to everyone what a despicable character you are.In fact ,so incensed am I about your vile language,I will be contacting the blog owner to do my best to get you banned.

  • @Benjamin the Donkey

    Inspired by your limericks, I decided to try and write one myself, and I included you in it.
    You can see it at wherespaulnow.blogspot.com
    Enjoy.

  • Most of the comments on this thread remind me of why i spend very little time here any more, aside from checking up on Climate Summary and Update, the best thing of its kind on the web.

  • a very safe bet that this ^ comment is a great example of the “sallow, sickly pale” variety of “insane behavior” that ed so perfectly pointed out above.

    screw love, man, many just desperately need Remedial Manners 101.

    what, exactly, is this kind of pointless, hostile nonsense supposed to achieve? are we all supposed to thank you for putting us in our place? wonder what we slackers can do better to hold Your Majesty’s attention?

    would it have just killed you, Jeff S, to leave out the first part, and just say the warm and appreciative second part? I really wonder what the hell motivates this kind of behavior. massively undigested shadow indeed.

  • The Wreckers’ Grand Canyon Intentions

    http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/29221-the-wreckers-grand-canyon-intentions

    “And then there are the people with dollar signs in their eyes, who do not perceive beauty, but only opportunity. These are the people running the joint right now, and they will burn down anything – no matter how gorgeous or unique – if they can turn a buck. Fracking, Keystone, exploding ocean oil wells, ruined rivers, or a plan to poison the glory of the Grand Canyon: it is all of a piece. They will shatter the world itself if it fattens their wallet.”

    “They are all the explanation you need for why we are down in this ditch, and sinking fast.”

  • Mr Nye,
    You wrote this:

    “I wrote “Correct Red. Happily, the discourse has remained quite civil here for the past few weeks and the nature of the discourse of a correspondingly higher quality, in my opinion.” It seemed crystal clear to me when I wrote this that you had it correct that the discourse over the past few weeks has remained quite civil and respectful, and so I wrote “Correct Red.”

    I dont believe i have said such a thing with regard to “civil discourse etc”. Civil is a word I would not use as it is quite abhorrent to me. Perhaps you could tell me where I said this?

    You also wrote this:
    “I don’t have any idea at all what you mean by “I’m not sure what of? Do you mean that you recant the false accusation levelled at me by you with regard to ‘personal attacks’ on a number of people? If so, I look forward to a proper withdrawal from you of said accusation.” It seems to me another example of an unwarranted defensive response, but I don’t know.”

    Would you really consider it to be a “defensive response” when somebody accuses you of saying/doing something that you didnt? Have you forgotten what you wrote? If so, and it appears that you have, I’ll refresh your memory. You said this in a recent post:

    “When you start reading these books you find so much compelling evidence, and so much good reasoning based on it, that you have no idea where to start arguing against it, SO YOU TURN TO ATTACKING THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT in order to defend you preferred beliefs, your conceptual map of the territory. But that remains only my guess, and I certainly may have that wrong.” NB my empahasis re capitals.

    Remember now? That was what I was referring to when I asked that you recant the accusation about personal attacks.

    Lidia,

    You said:

    “I’m not seeing the difference in Bud telling other people how to improve themselves, and other people telling Bud how to improve himself.”

    From my own perspective it goes like this. Mr Nye puts forward a view that is labelled as “fact”. It isnt fact at all, it is opinion,belief and theory and as far as pre history goes it is unprovable. I accept that it is unprovable as it is interpretation. Mo Flow pointed this out to Mr Nye to no avail, highlighting that it isnt “black and white”.
    It’s like this, it appears his view of pre historic people, all humans it seems, at all times is, to use Quinn’s terminology, TINA (there is no alternative). Mine, is TIAA (there is an alternative). As far as I can recall I have never insisted that my views are fact. Mr Nye cites other peoples views and interpretation of material evidence as evidence in itself. This is either wrong headed or deliberate obfuscation.

    It is a clever tactic of some people to CLOTHE opinion and belief as fact. It is a deceitful slight of hand when it is repeated constantly. Well, as far as i’m concerned the “emperor” has no CLOTHES.

  • Thanks David Higham,

    You’re a true wit and I’m pleased you were tempted to write your last comment.
    I read it with the best Australian accent I could muster which made it even better. Not out loud, of course. I’m not that mad yet.

    Come on people, apart from love we need wit and humour (and maybe a little mocking… please?)

  • RE: The power of suggestion on weak or unquestioning minds:

    Convinced that a prank caller was from their corporate office, two Circle K employees trashed their store in an effort to turn off a fire alarm they were assured was going off.

    According to KSAZ, the two employees at the Circle K store in Globe, Arizona, received a call from a person stating they were with Circle K corporate security and that a fire alarm was detected going off at their location.

    While one employee stayed on the phone relaying instructions, the other employee began discharging fire extinguishers in the store as instructed.

    (Prank caller convinces convenience store employees to set off fire extinguishers, trash store).

  • Sabine,
    I hope your reference to mocking and humour wasnt a prod to highlight the violence inherent in the system was it? Repression by authority? Authority claimed because some moistened bint handed one a sword (or even a water resistant book)? Help, help, I’m being repressed!!

  • Red Fox, thanks

    Monty Python is always welcome, and this was very apt and appreciated.

  • Oh, my, that Monty Python is hilarious, and it IS what these conversations are like! How funny! I don’t do it, but I frequently want to shout, “Shut up! Just shut up!” I loved that! Ha, ha, ha! Good laugh first thing in the morning.

    Swami Beyondananda is also awesome. Thanks!

    Diarmuid, you are correct regarding the simplicity of going to one’s center, but most people have to find that center first. I agree with you that it is simple, but simple is not necessarily the same thing as “easy.” Many people go their entire lives without ever having a single glimpse of the stillness and peace that is possible. As you likely know, Katie and Tolle both were in very dark places when they first experienced it, extreme psychological distress that truly led to a psychological death.

    I read Eckhart Tolle’s first book and it was completely flat for me. All that “presence” stuff he talked about might as well have been in Chinese. I liked Tolle much better after listening to him. I got more benefit from listening to him speak than I ever did reading his books. For understanding my own thoughts, however, Rosenberg’s work is what put it together for me, and gave me a framework for understanding language that I needed. Katie’s work did not set my mind and heart free the way Rosenberg’s did, but she gave me something else that I cannot define. Rosenberg and Katie both work to make clear the distinction between that which is objective, and that which is a value judgment. Both of them work on that single distinction repeatedly.

    It is interesting that this distinction is at the core of this conversation, the difference between “evidence” and “conclusions” that are drawn from the evidence.

    In addition, another commonality they have is that they both say that value judgments are the problem not only in our communications and relationships, they are the cause of our own happiness, because it is how we create “reality” in our minds and no one ever got happy by finding the world around them inadequate. The happiness was free once I made a little room for it inside. I just had to send a few cherished habits to the cosmic recycle bin, as you write, being right and all those other things (great summary). It made space for the greater peace and happiness to grow on its own.

    We can never understand these things believing in a culture where issuing one’s educated, erudite, footnoted, and slick judgment/opinion is seen to be the most intelligent thing a person can do. We are taught to rush to judgment, and those who are less eager to nail the world down to a few sentences are seen as less bright somehow. And really, it’s a personal and collective Hell for a lot of people.

    Rosenberg, Katie and Peace Pilgrim also all speak of the harm we do to ourselves by attacking others. I think Rosenberg calls it “suicide,” and Peace said she just stopped hurting herself and that anyone can stop hurting themselves psychologically anytime they want.

    There is a matter of the human will and human choice in connection with this issue of psychological and verbal ill will. It’s not just a process.

  • Correction: Value judgments are the cause of our own UNhappiness.

  • From one asshole to another.

    Could someone please restock the fish barrel, because this is going to be too much fun.

    @ Ed

    You pettily state:

    “I’d say you are missing something, Sabine – namely that insulting behavior has been normative behavior here – both in group interactions among a number of the regs besides Ug – and even moreso in the group mind dynamic concerning outsiders of all sorts.”

    “…outsiders of all sorts”?

    What kind of personality comes to the only blog that is “attempting” to openly discuss NTE, a subject which is so radically removed from virtually every aspect of society that probably less than .01% of population is either willing or able to even seriously consider it, no less comment on it, and sees themselves as being an ‘outsider’ because they espouse far more mainstream views and opinions?

    Let me guess Ed, your other job in life is being a Christian, who likes to see himself as somehow still being within a persecuted minority in America. (insert tongue-in-cheek emoticon)

    “There is a sallow, sickly pale to so much of the conversation over the years – with Guy setting the tone himself, both by what he says and what he permits – and from who he permits it (old Ug was a favorite of his, and could get away with verbal murder 10 dimes daily) and who he does not (skeptical Tony was called a TROLL by Guy simply for his questioning of the data, and banned).”

    Personally, I would be thrilled if Guy instigated some kind of requisite ‘acceptance of the near term timing of NTE’ before being allowed to post comments here, so at least we would be able to remove the litany of predictable and conventional contrarian opinion. But, this is something Guy is clearly uncomfortable doing. However, that doesn’t stop you from going out of your way in posting one of the most obnoxious and pointless posts in this space claiming he does. Shame on you Ed.

    Maybe NBL can establish “the Ed rule”, which would go something like: Don’t make up stupid shit to ‘elliptically’ mask your vested interests.

    “This is clearly shadow material, on Guy’s part as much as Bud’s or Ug’s or anyone else’s. And just like shit attracts flies, shadow material attracts others with the same shadow material. In chaos systems (and what is human consciousness if not a chaos system) that’s called the strange attractor effect.”

    Dude, look in the freaking mirror. “strange attractor effect”? You ought to seriously question if there are other hobbies you might want to pursue in this life other than professional blogging, because your confounding hypocrisy is just making you come across as an ass without a hole, regarding whatever you’re strangely attracted to.

    “This is why I don’t think Guy is at all ready for the role he is taking on these days of Shamanic counselor, however he names it. He clearly hasn’t really done his own business in that realm to the point where he’s closed the gap between his own ego ideals (which are lovely, as are everyone’s) and the way he actual thinks, feels and behaves. As with Bud, as with so many here (and everywhere, really) the toxic waste of undigested shadow leaks out of his words like methane from the Siberian floor.”

    Ok Mr. Armchair psychologist who presumes to know how Guy “…actually thinks, feels and behaves”.

    You ‘actually’ wrote that?

    So I guess this is your own version of ‘Shamanic counseling’ regarding your take on ego gaps, role playing, other people’s business, realm identification, toxic waste and undigested shadow leakage?

    Please Ed, enlighten us more on your take of “undigested shadow leaks”, because clearly, you’ve got whatever in the fuck that is, ALL figured out. And your posting here absolutely hasn’t anything to do with ‘ego’, and your shamanic discipline is truly what ‘we’ should be listening to on Guy’s blog.

    “It is possible to have the discourse we want to have without the toxic sludge coloring everything.”

    Hmmm…….”the discourse we want to have..” you say.

    Well, since you see yourself as an ‘outsider’, I suspect ‘you’ aren’t interested in any discourse concerning ‘acceptance of the near term timing of NTE’ are you? No, you’re interested in stating your wholly predictable contrarian perspective, but then somehow making the magical leap of projecting you’re outside perspective as somehow now being a part of “we”. You mean the ‘we’ who doesn’t accept NTE? So you see yourself as a ‘we’ of outsiders?

    I think you could do yourself a world of good and just accept that you and whoever you think ‘we’ to be, is far more representative of mainstream thinking than the rest of ‘us flies’ who are interested in discussing NTE on the only blog where that is even remotely possible.

    “But for that to happen, we really have to decide that what the Buddha calls “the three poisons” really ARE poison. Being in denial about their existence and expression in our own hearts and minds is not at all different than being in denial about AGW and its consequences, or the nature of empire, etc.”

    Ahh yes, just what NBL needed, another western man’s take on what another man had to say about the human condition twenty five hundred years ago, as it pertains to the empirical evidence of NTE today. Yes, more displays of egoless egos, pointing out the ego-ness of others egos. Rich buddha wisdom indeed.

    “As I’ve pointed out before, albeit elliptically rather than directly, what goes on here is a manifestation of empire thinking just as much as watching the unfolding of the American Empire scenario.”

    “..empire thinking…”?

    You mean you didn’t just type those words on your personal computer—which I suspect isn’t your first—and then through your paid internet connection, send us your lovely thoughts, as you sit in the heated comfort of your own place of residence within the backseat of empire? You mean to tell us, that somehow your behavior is egoless anti-empire thinking just using the tools of empire to express your egoless self? Maybe you and Wester should invest in a few blankets so as to send smoke signals to each other. Does anyone know what the sign is for hypocrite?

    “People in leadership express the most exalted sorts of values (democracy, freedom, only love remains, etc) while being driven to words and then acts that come from the heart of darkness.”

    The only leadership on display here Ed, is your being the Pied Piper of straw men.

    “Is it possible to hit the kill switch on this insane behavior? A fascinating question to be sure, and the very one we are exploring right now, with or without the curdled milk that finds its way into what could be a friendly debate between friends and fellow travellers.”

    You can’t seem to make up your mind Ed, you want to somehow have it both ways where you get to be an ‘outsider’ and a ‘fellow traveler’? And you dare speak of ‘insane behavior’.

    For the rest of your sadly liable comment, you seem to lose your focus. But thanks for proving Guy correct in not censoring petty little men with oh so predictable opposing agendas. And thanks for adding your ‘two cents’ in continuing to make this a space you yourself find toxic. Me thinks you need a more fulfilling pastime to stimulate your egoless imperial-less outsider-ness concepts of we-ness Ed.

    @ All

    As long as ‘acceptance of the near term timing of NTE’, isn’t a requisite for commenting on the only blog that is dedicated to the subject, this space will continue to be lost in painfully predictable contention, given the overwhelming preponderance of contrary agendas on display here.

  • Bob S,

    Thanks for that Grand Canyon (GC) link. It made me think of what Guy said in his talk with P. Erlich. Something to do with his assembling a multidisciplinary group (that broadened out from science to include culture, religion, and so forth) to interact with this year’s climate conference in Paris.

    If the despoliation of one of the 7? wonders of the earth can’t jog attendees out of their BAU rut, perhaps nothing can.

    I return to Dredd’s point about different types of trances that we have no choice but to choose among. If we don’t like the trance we’re stuck in, we must change to another.

    But I wonder if most of us aren’t participating in more than one trance at a time? E.g., 1) The trance that makes millions of people, with some reverence, visit scenic wonders like GC and others around the world. 2) The trance that puts convenience and comfort above reverence for nature’s sublime places.

    How would developers get away with such outrageous ventures (as developing GC) if the many that love the place weren’t tugged in a contrary direction by accepting the capitalist prerogative to make profit above all, as well as accepting the notion that they are entitled to never be uncomfortable and without civilization’s bounties at all times?

    I think of the words of writer Tom Wolfe (sp): “You have to suffer for style.” He was making a point about aesthetics. But he could be making one about worship too, for the two things are inextricably connected.

    I commented on this subject over on the forum in “Land Use,” using more choice expressions, emphasizing the need for conservationists to go global (just the way that large corporations do). See all the latest trade deals.

    So while we might wish Guy success in getting attention to a wider range of perspectives in Paris this year, it strikes me as absolutely necessary that the same range of issues (including the need for a conservationist “trance”) will be present at all global meetings, such as Davos, etc., etc., etc., not only at the climate summit.

  • artleads –

    I’ve been totally enjoying your longer comments here lately, and especially this ^ one. it can so definitely be about several contradictory trances running at once! understanding this complexity – it is a perfectly normal part of our psychology – is so incredibly important.

    this gets directly to the heart of what understanding and working with shadow is all about, as well.

    did you look for any info on shadow online, btw? the wikipedia link looks pretty good for getting a start into this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)

    Jung pretty much has the lock on this concept, in my thinking, but I haven’t looked very deeply into more recent psychological ideas on all of that.

  • Hi Mo Flow,

    Thanks for helping me out with the shadow concept. (I know I’ve come across it before, but like everything I can’t use at the time, it goes away or is not studied. Psychotherapy has helped me somewhat with the concept, while not making the academic point about it.)

    “Nevertheless some Jungians maintain that ‘The shadow contains, besides the personal shadow, the shadow of society … fed by the neglected”

    This is what we’re getting at, isn’t it? But I’m not aware of “the resistance” (whatever that is) giving it much attention. That would entail, gentle, patient, subtle work?

    So much psychological work needed at all levels of society.

  • “That would entail, gentle, patient, subtle work?”

    like a thief in the night.

  • Thanks, Sabine.

  • @mo, maybe I’m in the minority, but I found that music the exact opposite of subtle, gentle or patient. The harsh, smashing, crashing. whiplashing beat sounds put me in a very bad mental place. Even the quieter sections grate with unnatural tones and squeals. It feels generated by a fax machine on a good day.

    I can’t listen to most of my music collection, frankly (which never had ‘electronic’ music like the kind mo posts, but a lot of rock, alternative rock, some punk). It’s too aggressive. The only stuff I find appealing is baroque and medieval-style music these days. I need the natural-quality tones to get aligned with it.

  • Lidia –

    I doubt you are in the minority. and no, I didn’t intend the music itself to have anything to do with subtle, gentle or patient – obviously!

    sorry to hear about the bad mental place. polarity is key.

    (think bipolar. “dream large!”)

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2CfVoklAgk
    .
    .
    .
    pssst… Lidia – TYVEN means thief in Danish.

    just like life: press play at your own risk.