I like the point about ecocultural, I feel this is deeply where I believe we need to come from as well, and not enough people talking about it - or admitting how deeply out of alignment the current dominant civilisational culture is with living systems and the biosphere.
To be honest, I believe the green / ecological / environmental movement/s has been hijacked and co-opted ... mainly by what various leftists call simply "Capital". The dynamic which is capitalism has apparently absorbed all of our politics into its own milieu. No political ethos which challenges Capital is allowed by the dynamism of Capital to ascend into the popular imagination or discourse. So the green / eco- / enviro- movements have been deeply watered down, distracted, disoriented and co-opted.
Yes, I see it similarly, radical/deep ecology goes a long way towards an adequate pointing out of the problem with the dominant culture.
My thoughts on the matter come principally from a psycho-cultural pattern perspective - what I see is a kind of fractal predict-and-control orientation that shows up both in individual psychology (think manager-like parts in the IFS framework, or control-based maladaptive coping strategies in ACT/CBT) and in distributed cognition or culture (largely but not exclusively through following the logic of capital or the game-dynamics of Moloch).
On both levels, this predict-and-control orientation seems to cannibalise and/or distort contact with Self/Being/Reality and the flow of Logos/Tao that might otherwise be possible, including a rational, ethical, ultimately transformative response to the crises of our time. Our efforts to respond to these social and ecological crises of our time are thwarted at every turn by the game dynamics of Moloch/capital et al. This is why I think the ecocultural or similar frame that you identified is so important - without addressing this, we are likely to radically misframe and underestimate the depth and nature of the issues we are dealing with and what adequate solutions need to include if they're to be sustainably successful.
Hi Nick. I'm going to try and dig up your email address, then send you an email. I'd like to explore the possibility of collaboration with you on a project. I believe we could possibly collaborate well, as we're exploring much the same things... and in much the same way.
Internal Family Systems (IFS) Framework: This is a therapeutic approach developed by Richard C. Schwartz. It's a type of psychotherapy that focuses on understanding and harmonizing different aspects or "parts" of an individual's personality. Each "part" is seen as having its own perspective, emotions, and intentions, and the goal is to promote inner healing and integration.
Industrial and Financial Systems (IFS): IFS is a company that provides enterprise software for various industries, including manufacturing, supply chain management, and financial management. The "IFS framework" could refer to their software architecture or the underlying structure of their solutions.
Information Technology (IT) Infrastructure Frameworks: In the context of IT, there are several frameworks like ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) and COBIT (Control Objectives for Information and Related Technologies) that guide the design, implementation, and management of IT infrastructure. "IFS framework" might be a reference to a specific IT infrastructure framework.
Integrated Financial System (IFS): This could refer to a financial management system used within an organization to handle tasks such as budgeting, accounting, and financial reporting.
International Financial Standards: The phrase might also refer to a set of international financial reporting or accounting standards, like the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), that companies use to prepare and present their financial statements.
Ok, first comment is that you get along better with your AI than I do, but but working for a "world you'd want to live in" is absolutely on point, even it that world is for my great grandchildren it's worth a shot, and has a better chance of succe ss than tying to colonize mars.
I have a very troubled relationship to AI, actually. I'd much prefer to talk with actual, fleshy human animals. And I worry about the havoc AI is likely to cause, for sure!
That said, ChatGPT's response to my questions was helpful, and mostly pretty accurate.
As for working for the sort of world we'd like to live in, I don't think we're going to get there mainly through government policy, laws, votes, persuading the "political class" or "ruling class" that the world we want is the same world they want.
I think we need to RADICALLY re-imagine politics from the ground up, making it something ordinary people, dwelling in place, can do without first consulting with government.
I like what David Graeber said about direct action in the White Review interview.:
"Well the reason anarchists like direct action is because it means refusing to recognise the legitimacy of structures of power. Or even the necessity of them. Nothing annoys forces of authority more than trying to bow out of the disciplinary game entirely and saying that we could just do things on our own. Direct action is a matter of acting as if you were already free.
The classic example is the well. There’s a town where water is monopolised and the mayor is in bed with the company that monopolises the water. If you were to protest in front of the mayor’s house, that’s protest, and if you were to blockade the mayor’s house, it’s civil disobedience, but it’s still not direct action. Direct action is when you just go and dig your own well, because that’s what people would normally do if they didn’t have water."
Your key point as I see it is "dig it yourself " not " hire a well digger", with the necessary permits and such. The monopolies have already thought of that ...
As you may have come to understand, what I want to see happen is a *revolution*, not a bunch of isolated individuals digging wells and/or growing their own veggies -- though that's all well and good and part of the revolution. But a revolution is coordinated and, in some rather organic sense, at least, organized. It has social structure, in other words. Digging our own well becomes revolutionary when only when it somehow breaks with the usual constraints of politics, which keep perpetuating the same kinds of results.
The kind of revolution I have in mind requires us all to re-imagine revolution (and politics) from the ground up. We can only do this together, as a revolutionary culture or subculture. No individual can do this act of re-imagining in isolation.
The root question I'm interested in encouraging us all to explore together is What do we do when we come to see that our political system/s are/is so broken that we can't even begin to use it to heal our relationship with the biosphere, enabling life on Earth in all of its biodiverse glory to go on living?
As it seems to me, we cannot even BEGIN to "solve" the climate or biodiversity crises -- the ecological polycrisis -- within politics as usual. We must deeply break with politics as usual, and that can't happen without a serious paradigm shift in politics, which requires an imaginative feat we can only develop together.
The R-Word came into being to serve this purpose, mainly. Our purpose here is to re-imagine politics for the 21st century. ... to stop pounding scews.
"What this basically means is that the ethos of the business corporation is one and the same ethos as the state. "
Greetings James R. (not J.) Martin,
I came across your essay via Resilience.
I agree with your analysis in the main, though I am not a advocate of non-violence as an absolute virtue. I would like to explore the "ethos" you refer to. It seems for you it mainly consists of accumulation is all its aspects.
While that's inherent in both the state and with business, for me what is at bottom here, what propels both systems, is sacrifice. In everyday life this manifests as the work ethic. Historically, dissidents have juxtaposed play to work (Fourier,e.g.) and while that slogan looks great on a t-shirt it has little resonance for most. Work can be pleasurable, if it contributes to the continuity of human endeavors to achieve "wellbeing" - a term today that has currency - and especially if that work is done collectively with friends.
Oddly enough, that sort of pleasurable work in our society is mainly available in a voluntary setting.
The cultural revolution that we need, as you assert, is nothing more than choosing to do necessary activity in the most pleasurable way possible. We have a continuum - at one end drudgery and the other play. Imagine a society based on that principle - which I call radical hedonism (to distinguish it from addictive consumerism). I have been speculating on that topic for decades within the worker cooperative sector. For more thoughts on the subject - http://www.ztangi.org/
"I would like to explore the "ethos" you refer to. It seems for you it mainly consists of accumulation is [in?] all its aspects."
Not so much. I think perhaps the main feature I would raise awareness about is the way both the business corporation and the state are woven together in such a way that they facilitate and enable one another in maintaining a political economy in which negative cost externalization is not only ubiquitous but necessary toward competitiveness in The Market.
In one of Nate Hagens' most recent podcasts (this one, I believe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhOhfRrvYI0 ), he basically said that essentially no industry or corporation could be competitive in today's Market economy without massive amounts of negative cost externalization. What he's basically saying here is that our entire global economy results in more harm than value-production, meaning that the whole apparatus is, to put it mildly, counterproductive.
Harms to people and planet (ecosystems, the biosphere) are negative economic externalities, and both the state and the corporation are working together in harmony to ensure that this kind of cost externalization continues, despite the fact that the consequences are leading us deeper and deeper into global catastrophe.
I'm not an economist, and I don't like the theoretical or conceptual framing of most economic discourse, so let me explain externalities in a few other terms: rape, pillage, theft, destruction, violence, brutality, negligence, horrors.... I think you might get what I mean.
Ostensibly, "we the people" can "control" or "regulate" both the state and the world of the market. But the history of the last half century of rape and pillage reveals that, in fact, we cannot -- at least not within the politics of the state. It's committed to rape and pillage at any and all costs.
"Where is the cultural revolution in all of this?"
I prefer not to use the phrase "cultural revolution," since that phrase is so deeply associated by most people (with knowledge of history) with the "cultural revolution"
All revolutions, in any case, are cultural -- even political ones, since politics is part of culture.
At some point I hope to say more about what I mean by "revolution". It's a challenging topic! I don't mean many of the usual things by that term. But it seems to me obvious that all revolutions are revolutions in culture, in some sense.
I like the point about ecocultural, I feel this is deeply where I believe we need to come from as well, and not enough people talking about it - or admitting how deeply out of alignment the current dominant civilisational culture is with living systems and the biosphere.
@ Nick -
Agreed! I found this framing of "radical ecology" goes a long way toward naming and describing the dominant culture. https://www.ecodharma.com/articles-influences-audio/radical-ecology
What do you think/feel about this description?
To be honest, I believe the green / ecological / environmental movement/s has been hijacked and co-opted ... mainly by what various leftists call simply "Capital". The dynamic which is capitalism has apparently absorbed all of our politics into its own milieu. No political ethos which challenges Capital is allowed by the dynamism of Capital to ascend into the popular imagination or discourse. So the green / eco- / enviro- movements have been deeply watered down, distracted, disoriented and co-opted.
Yes, I see it similarly, radical/deep ecology goes a long way towards an adequate pointing out of the problem with the dominant culture.
My thoughts on the matter come principally from a psycho-cultural pattern perspective - what I see is a kind of fractal predict-and-control orientation that shows up both in individual psychology (think manager-like parts in the IFS framework, or control-based maladaptive coping strategies in ACT/CBT) and in distributed cognition or culture (largely but not exclusively through following the logic of capital or the game-dynamics of Moloch).
On both levels, this predict-and-control orientation seems to cannibalise and/or distort contact with Self/Being/Reality and the flow of Logos/Tao that might otherwise be possible, including a rational, ethical, ultimately transformative response to the crises of our time. Our efforts to respond to these social and ecological crises of our time are thwarted at every turn by the game dynamics of Moloch/capital et al. This is why I think the ecocultural or similar frame that you identified is so important - without addressing this, we are likely to radically misframe and underestimate the depth and nature of the issues we are dealing with and what adequate solutions need to include if they're to be sustainably successful.
Hi Nick. I'm going to try and dig up your email address, then send you an email. I'd like to explore the possibility of collaboration with you on a project. I believe we could possibly collaborate well, as we're exploring much the same things... and in much the same way.
Nick -
Please clarify your acronyms above. Thanks!
???
IFS framework?
Internal Family Systems (IFS) Framework: This is a therapeutic approach developed by Richard C. Schwartz. It's a type of psychotherapy that focuses on understanding and harmonizing different aspects or "parts" of an individual's personality. Each "part" is seen as having its own perspective, emotions, and intentions, and the goal is to promote inner healing and integration.
Industrial and Financial Systems (IFS): IFS is a company that provides enterprise software for various industries, including manufacturing, supply chain management, and financial management. The "IFS framework" could refer to their software architecture or the underlying structure of their solutions.
Information Technology (IT) Infrastructure Frameworks: In the context of IT, there are several frameworks like ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) and COBIT (Control Objectives for Information and Related Technologies) that guide the design, implementation, and management of IT infrastructure. "IFS framework" might be a reference to a specific IT infrastructure framework.
Integrated Financial System (IFS): This could refer to a financial management system used within an organization to handle tasks such as budgeting, accounting, and financial reporting.
International Financial Standards: The phrase might also refer to a set of international financial reporting or accounting standards, like the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), that companies use to prepare and present their financial statements.
>>>
ACT/CBT must be this:https://loving.health/en/how-is-act-different-from-cbt/#:~:text=Cognitive%20Behavioral%20Therapy%20%28CBT%29,-Traditional
Ok, first comment is that you get along better with your AI than I do, but but working for a "world you'd want to live in" is absolutely on point, even it that world is for my great grandchildren it's worth a shot, and has a better chance of succe ss than tying to colonize mars.
I have a very troubled relationship to AI, actually. I'd much prefer to talk with actual, fleshy human animals. And I worry about the havoc AI is likely to cause, for sure!
That said, ChatGPT's response to my questions was helpful, and mostly pretty accurate.
As for working for the sort of world we'd like to live in, I don't think we're going to get there mainly through government policy, laws, votes, persuading the "political class" or "ruling class" that the world we want is the same world they want.
I think we need to RADICALLY re-imagine politics from the ground up, making it something ordinary people, dwelling in place, can do without first consulting with government.
I like what David Graeber said about direct action in the White Review interview.:
"Well the reason anarchists like direct action is because it means refusing to recognise the legitimacy of structures of power. Or even the necessity of them. Nothing annoys forces of authority more than trying to bow out of the disciplinary game entirely and saying that we could just do things on our own. Direct action is a matter of acting as if you were already free.
The classic example is the well. There’s a town where water is monopolised and the mayor is in bed with the company that monopolises the water. If you were to protest in front of the mayor’s house, that’s protest, and if you were to blockade the mayor’s house, it’s civil disobedience, but it’s still not direct action. Direct action is when you just go and dig your own well, because that’s what people would normally do if they didn’t have water."
https://www.thewhitereview.org/feature/interview-with-david-graeber/
Your key point as I see it is "dig it yourself " not " hire a well digger", with the necessary permits and such. The monopolies have already thought of that ...
Well, yes and no. Mostly no, actually.
As you may have come to understand, what I want to see happen is a *revolution*, not a bunch of isolated individuals digging wells and/or growing their own veggies -- though that's all well and good and part of the revolution. But a revolution is coordinated and, in some rather organic sense, at least, organized. It has social structure, in other words. Digging our own well becomes revolutionary when only when it somehow breaks with the usual constraints of politics, which keep perpetuating the same kinds of results.
The kind of revolution I have in mind requires us all to re-imagine revolution (and politics) from the ground up. We can only do this together, as a revolutionary culture or subculture. No individual can do this act of re-imagining in isolation.
The root question I'm interested in encouraging us all to explore together is What do we do when we come to see that our political system/s are/is so broken that we can't even begin to use it to heal our relationship with the biosphere, enabling life on Earth in all of its biodiverse glory to go on living?
As it seems to me, we cannot even BEGIN to "solve" the climate or biodiversity crises -- the ecological polycrisis -- within politics as usual. We must deeply break with politics as usual, and that can't happen without a serious paradigm shift in politics, which requires an imaginative feat we can only develop together.
The R-Word came into being to serve this purpose, mainly. Our purpose here is to re-imagine politics for the 21st century. ... to stop pounding scews.
"What this basically means is that the ethos of the business corporation is one and the same ethos as the state. "
Greetings James R. (not J.) Martin,
I came across your essay via Resilience.
I agree with your analysis in the main, though I am not a advocate of non-violence as an absolute virtue. I would like to explore the "ethos" you refer to. It seems for you it mainly consists of accumulation is all its aspects.
While that's inherent in both the state and with business, for me what is at bottom here, what propels both systems, is sacrifice. In everyday life this manifests as the work ethic. Historically, dissidents have juxtaposed play to work (Fourier,e.g.) and while that slogan looks great on a t-shirt it has little resonance for most. Work can be pleasurable, if it contributes to the continuity of human endeavors to achieve "wellbeing" - a term today that has currency - and especially if that work is done collectively with friends.
Oddly enough, that sort of pleasurable work in our society is mainly available in a voluntary setting.
The cultural revolution that we need, as you assert, is nothing more than choosing to do necessary activity in the most pleasurable way possible. We have a continuum - at one end drudgery and the other play. Imagine a society based on that principle - which I call radical hedonism (to distinguish it from addictive consumerism). I have been speculating on that topic for decades within the worker cooperative sector. For more thoughts on the subject - http://www.ztangi.org/
- "AZ"
"I would like to explore the "ethos" you refer to. It seems for you it mainly consists of accumulation is [in?] all its aspects."
Not so much. I think perhaps the main feature I would raise awareness about is the way both the business corporation and the state are woven together in such a way that they facilitate and enable one another in maintaining a political economy in which negative cost externalization is not only ubiquitous but necessary toward competitiveness in The Market.
In one of Nate Hagens' most recent podcasts (this one, I believe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhOhfRrvYI0 ), he basically said that essentially no industry or corporation could be competitive in today's Market economy without massive amounts of negative cost externalization. What he's basically saying here is that our entire global economy results in more harm than value-production, meaning that the whole apparatus is, to put it mildly, counterproductive.
Harms to people and planet (ecosystems, the biosphere) are negative economic externalities, and both the state and the corporation are working together in harmony to ensure that this kind of cost externalization continues, despite the fact that the consequences are leading us deeper and deeper into global catastrophe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
I'm not an economist, and I don't like the theoretical or conceptual framing of most economic discourse, so let me explain externalities in a few other terms: rape, pillage, theft, destruction, violence, brutality, negligence, horrors.... I think you might get what I mean.
Ostensibly, "we the people" can "control" or "regulate" both the state and the world of the market. But the history of the last half century of rape and pillage reveals that, in fact, we cannot -- at least not within the politics of the state. It's committed to rape and pillage at any and all costs.
Where's the cultural revolution in all this?
"Where is the cultural revolution in all of this?"
I prefer not to use the phrase "cultural revolution," since that phrase is so deeply associated by most people (with knowledge of history) with the "cultural revolution"
launched by Mao Zedong in 1966, which events were brutal, ugly and deeply authoritarian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
All revolutions, in any case, are cultural -- even political ones, since politics is part of culture.
At some point I hope to say more about what I mean by "revolution". It's a challenging topic! I don't mean many of the usual things by that term. But it seems to me obvious that all revolutions are revolutions in culture, in some sense.
So, you have some content to develop, OK. Does that mean you don't want to engage my analysis?
"Does that mean you don't want to engage my analysis?"
Do you feel I've not been engaging?