There are (indigenous/ancient) cultures that create the conditions for collaborative and selfless behaviour. It doesn’t mean that people don’t have thoughts and desires in the opposite direction but the culture and the commons keeps them in check. Our western culture of modernity makes life too easy, there are no checks and balances. We are going to choose the easier way if it’s available to us, it takes incredible strength of will to go against society, ie to not turn the heating on, drive places, buy stuff that’s right in front of you. But I do believe it’s possible, the question is how to instill the conditions more widely. I love Vanessa Andreotti’s questions but how does one introduce the hospicing of modernity into mainstream thought? Can it only ever be a slow burn? Or is it possible to speed things up. I really don’t know.
Your words in Liflad Thoughts go some distance toward revealing what has gone sideways culturally.:
"Our current livelihoods are not fit for purpose in many ways, built around a landscape of consumption that fills a void left by our current empty culture, bereft of purpose and meaning, focused on social media, shopping and individual pleasure."
But I don't really think all of the "comforts," conveniences and consumption is actually filling that void. There is ample evidence that in the richest countries there is a deep and worsening "loneliness crisis" and a "meaning crisis" -- a great gaping void of rather desperate unhappiness, joylessness and misery.
I'm taking ever more seriously the perspective in which the mainstream "modern" culture's ontology is actually at the very root of the problem. There is the prevalent belief that the "I" (self) is a purely internal matter. So the basic structure of our thinking (and thus our experience) is that I am in here and the whole of the word is out there. So the "I" feels desperately alone and lonely, and tries to fill the void with socially approved approaches like accumulating "wealth", power, fame, status, etc. But the void can't be filled in this way, and the only way, really, to begin to alleviate the malaise is to enter fully into relational living, where the "I" is no longer stuffed up inside of oneself, but can be experienced as continuous with the world, rather than merely internal to self.
Sharing, giving, cooperating, nurturing...., these begin to soften and dissolve the sense of ourselves as separate from one another and the whole of the living world. But we require the experience of "community" with others who share this perspective for it to emerge and grow within our experience. Now is the time to nurture such community into being as a kind of art form, a practice of revolutionary love. We are not really alone,and we cannot practice this alone. But it's difficult in modern cultures which are rather narcissistic and verge upon sociopathy. That is, we're empathy deficient people in modernity. Empathy is the basis of compassion, and compassion is the basis of love. So all begins with empathy.
I know what you mean, Zoe. Soon after publishing this article my partner and I had a conversation about our mutual friend who is a real estate agent. He told me that our friend has said that he believes some of his colleagues will stoop as low as to bring termites to a house in order to provide the impression that the house is infested with termites, when in fact it is not. This to drive down the asking price and sell the house more quickly, and at a lower price. Or they will claim to have seen one or more termites. Etc.
If this reminds you of the concept of Machiavellianism (and the "dark triad"), yeah, me too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism_(psychology) Who hasn't experienced and/or witnessed plenty of examples of people using deception, fraud and various other kinds of abuse and neglect used to further "one's interests" at the expense of others.
To transform the dominant culture's Machiavellian tendencies in the other direction would require a fairly dramatic shift in the "drivers" of culture. Many of these drivers are not simply biologically rooted, as often assumed. Culture is in large part the result of our thoughts, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes... even the stories we tell ourselves and one another. Machiavelli apparently believed the world to be a dog-eat dog competition, and if you don't "cheat" (use deception, etc.) then your competitors will out compete you, rendering you powerless and maybe even extinct.
But does this really justify morally / ethically reprehensible behavior? I say it does not. What it does is make the world into places like Palestine and Ukraine, the USA, Israel and Russia. The "winners" are losers as much as the "losers" are. Time for another way.
I wholeheartedly agree that’s all we can do and must do. I read recently we need to be ‘in tune with’ rather than ‘to empathise’ with. I like the idea we can be in tune with all living beings. Difficult in practice though. We need to practice that practice!
At the moment I'm writing part 2 of this article, in which I'm speaking of philosophy as a practice of aptness defined as "suited to the purpose or occasion; appropriate". Not just aptness in word selection, ideas, etc., but aptness in behavior, in action, in how we live.... Aptness in all things -- including our relations with one another. That's my metaphilosophy in a nut shell. I think that the proper role for philosophy is to serve our development of aptness in life -- not just individually, but collectively. Of course, this notion is deeply influenced by contemporary Buddhism. But I'm no longer a Buddhist. I'm just James.
There are (indigenous/ancient) cultures that create the conditions for collaborative and selfless behaviour. It doesn’t mean that people don’t have thoughts and desires in the opposite direction but the culture and the commons keeps them in check. Our western culture of modernity makes life too easy, there are no checks and balances. We are going to choose the easier way if it’s available to us, it takes incredible strength of will to go against society, ie to not turn the heating on, drive places, buy stuff that’s right in front of you. But I do believe it’s possible, the question is how to instill the conditions more widely. I love Vanessa Andreotti’s questions but how does one introduce the hospicing of modernity into mainstream thought? Can it only ever be a slow burn? Or is it possible to speed things up. I really don’t know.
Your words in Liflad Thoughts go some distance toward revealing what has gone sideways culturally.:
"Our current livelihoods are not fit for purpose in many ways, built around a landscape of consumption that fills a void left by our current empty culture, bereft of purpose and meaning, focused on social media, shopping and individual pleasure."
But I don't really think all of the "comforts," conveniences and consumption is actually filling that void. There is ample evidence that in the richest countries there is a deep and worsening "loneliness crisis" and a "meaning crisis" -- a great gaping void of rather desperate unhappiness, joylessness and misery.
I'm taking ever more seriously the perspective in which the mainstream "modern" culture's ontology is actually at the very root of the problem. There is the prevalent belief that the "I" (self) is a purely internal matter. So the basic structure of our thinking (and thus our experience) is that I am in here and the whole of the word is out there. So the "I" feels desperately alone and lonely, and tries to fill the void with socially approved approaches like accumulating "wealth", power, fame, status, etc. But the void can't be filled in this way, and the only way, really, to begin to alleviate the malaise is to enter fully into relational living, where the "I" is no longer stuffed up inside of oneself, but can be experienced as continuous with the world, rather than merely internal to self.
Sharing, giving, cooperating, nurturing...., these begin to soften and dissolve the sense of ourselves as separate from one another and the whole of the living world. But we require the experience of "community" with others who share this perspective for it to emerge and grow within our experience. Now is the time to nurture such community into being as a kind of art form, a practice of revolutionary love. We are not really alone,and we cannot practice this alone. But it's difficult in modern cultures which are rather narcissistic and verge upon sociopathy. That is, we're empathy deficient people in modernity. Empathy is the basis of compassion, and compassion is the basis of love. So all begins with empathy.
I hope we can learn to be radically relational again. That it does not take too much time, even though I fear that it will.
I know what you mean, Zoe. Soon after publishing this article my partner and I had a conversation about our mutual friend who is a real estate agent. He told me that our friend has said that he believes some of his colleagues will stoop as low as to bring termites to a house in order to provide the impression that the house is infested with termites, when in fact it is not. This to drive down the asking price and sell the house more quickly, and at a lower price. Or they will claim to have seen one or more termites. Etc.
If this reminds you of the concept of Machiavellianism (and the "dark triad"), yeah, me too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism_(psychology) Who hasn't experienced and/or witnessed plenty of examples of people using deception, fraud and various other kinds of abuse and neglect used to further "one's interests" at the expense of others.
To transform the dominant culture's Machiavellian tendencies in the other direction would require a fairly dramatic shift in the "drivers" of culture. Many of these drivers are not simply biologically rooted, as often assumed. Culture is in large part the result of our thoughts, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes... even the stories we tell ourselves and one another. Machiavelli apparently believed the world to be a dog-eat dog competition, and if you don't "cheat" (use deception, etc.) then your competitors will out compete you, rendering you powerless and maybe even extinct.
But does this really justify morally / ethically reprehensible behavior? I say it does not. What it does is make the world into places like Palestine and Ukraine, the USA, Israel and Russia. The "winners" are losers as much as the "losers" are. Time for another way.
I wholeheartedly agree that’s all we can do and must do. I read recently we need to be ‘in tune with’ rather than ‘to empathise’ with. I like the idea we can be in tune with all living beings. Difficult in practice though. We need to practice that practice!
At the moment I'm writing part 2 of this article, in which I'm speaking of philosophy as a practice of aptness defined as "suited to the purpose or occasion; appropriate". Not just aptness in word selection, ideas, etc., but aptness in behavior, in action, in how we live.... Aptness in all things -- including our relations with one another. That's my metaphilosophy in a nut shell. I think that the proper role for philosophy is to serve our development of aptness in life -- not just individually, but collectively. Of course, this notion is deeply influenced by contemporary Buddhism. But I'm no longer a Buddhist. I'm just James.