@Reconstructo,
Fido;114102 wrote:We should return to the state of nature in the only sense possible, and that is through the recreation of natural forms...No law was ever so successful at mainting control as community was... No moral of the mind was ever as effective at maintaining peace as the morals of one community... The idea, is to build upon natural forms...Examine these in all of primitive society and you will find they were universally democratic...Only with the rise of civilizations could one man rise to possitions of power; and that was a weakness more than a strength for them.[1]..Look at the Incas and the Aztecs... They offered little resistence because their societies were already regimented, used to authority, so that a new boss could supplant the old boss with hardly a death to show for it.[2]..The problem is not a return to nature, but a consciousness of nature...Our societies live beyond the means of nature...What can we do about it if we know about it??? Because we are not democratic we cannot without a great expense of money and time even make it an issue...This means that rational action is out of the question.[3]..
Now, understand something...Primitive peoples having little of technology needed social organization...Their organization was their technology...But logic also springs from this period of mankind...Those people talked out the problems that confronted them and reasoned out all of their alternatives... They were more reasonable because they had to be.[4].. We do not think reason is required...We think instead, that the technology managed by a few will result is some salvation for harrassed humanity and nature... The problem with our government is that it does not protect the people, and it does not protect our environment and resources...Our government has sold off the commonwealth at every opportunity, and often provided the opportunity because they would not tax themselves...This land could support many more people than it does now because now it support some few in extravagance... There may well have been more natives in many Western States then there are all together today...And they were not destroying the environment in order to live... But life is not the goal of those who rule this society...Profit is the goal...[5] ...
1. Although it seems to be the case, that those who vie for a seat of power want it only for the power and not to the benefit of their people . . I see this as too general a statement. I believe that most just never had a good leader, who kept their land truly democratic.
2. If I recall correctly, it was more from trickery, deciet, and a language barrier between the Aztecs and the Spaniards The Spaniards were more at fault. They wanted to convert them and take their gold . . . I don't think the Spaniards ever wanted peace . . . . just compliance.
3. Definitely true. It's far too late to teach these old dogs (the general populus) any new tricks. People (esp. Americans, like me) are too comfortable in their lifestyle, too dependant on technology to function, too closed minded and ignorant to understand or care what a "return to nature" is. . . . to ever collectively agree on a "happpy medium"
4. I think that logic is something that developed later on. Primitive man was just that . . and acted from their gut and their heart, more than from intellectualism and logic. This is not to say that logic was not present, just not dominant. There were many killings and wars back then, just as their are now . . . . but armies have grown, and governments founded . . which changes how people go about things entirely.
5. True that!!!! Some people use and consume and destroy . . . just for the experience. They have no regard for Mother Gaia, or what she provides for them . . she is only a store that stocks the things we need!!!! We are so far removed from nature that we no longer see our connection to her. We don't do any of the work (building homes, hunting/gather/growing food) anymore . . so we don't seem to notice how much we depend on her for these things being successful. People in places like New York City barely even see anything natural, on a daily basis . . . so their concept of a nourishing Mother Earth is completely absent. They only know and care about their modern existence . . . . not the reprecussions (sp?)
People used to think for themselves!!!! And do what they needed to, for survival, and what they thought to be best for them and/or their fellow man.
=====================================================
kennethamy;114117 wrote:Of course not. Even children know that some people are stronger than others. Some are more intelligent than others. Some are nicer than others. Some are richer than others. Some know more than others. Who doesn't know that? What has that to do with me or my ego?
People may not be the same in the end (which is awesome, cuz' who wants to be just like everyone else) but I believe that attributes and skills have nothing to do with equality.
So a person may be weaker than another . . it doesn't make them "less" of a person. The weaker person will have their own strong attributes.
So one person may be more intelligent than another, it doesn't make them unequal from their fellow man. They will have other skills and strengths.
Every person should be considered as "equals". It's only because some see themselves as being better than others . . because their ego tells them that certain attributes (probably their own) are better or more vital than another persons'. . . . that this concept of superiority came to be.
We are all different squares on the same quilt, but the quilt becomes a lesser version of itself when you remove certain squares, just because you don't think they're as good as the others. They all have their own place . . . but most of us have forgotten this.
salima;114121 wrote:i think the issue is that even though people are differently endowed with various attributes, that has nothing to do with their inherent value as human beings or even molecules. actually not only are all human beings equal, they are equal to rocks and gnats and banana trees in the cosmic or material sense...maybe even in a spiritual sense. [1]
but it is interesting to look for the things that are worthwhile in every being ... there is always something. equality is just another word people use to fight about and freak out over. it is the judgment that one person is superior to another due to some quality or possession that causes the problems. it is the labels people attach to each other and themselves that they are fighting over. .[2] ... .
1. I smell what you're cooking chica!!! I personally see every living and non-living thing on this planet as equal . . just different, and having different purposes. I believe in animism . . . just like Pocahontas!!! This is why I disagree with vegetarianism, even though I am an animal lover. Every plant and animal's life is equal to the others'.
2. I agree, wholeheartedly.
=========================================================
Deckard;114159 wrote:. . . . It is interesting to note that communication between equals is often very different than communication between unequals.[1] Often ones feelings about equality/inequality are dependent upon the type of communication one prefers or is capable of.
Rousseau's noble savages didn't really communicate much with each other. One of the faults of Rousseau's version of the state of nature is that he seemed to envision the noble savages as walking around by them selves with little interaction. It was the coming of the collective, of society that ruined and corrupted the noble savage individual. Many of our modern conceptions of individualism can be traced back to Rousseau's solitary noble savage and the fall brought about by the coming of society.
Rousseau was of course pre-Darwin. Evolutionary scientists believe that humans evolved in small groups and that the social and collective aspects of the human experience have their roots far back in pre-human times. If this is the case, then Rousseau's solitary savage is pure myth. There is more credence to the idea that humans were meant to live with much smaller groups of people. The crowded mass experience of city life, the internet, and TV is a huge departure from this. I would advocate a return to living in smaller groups of interdependent individuals.
1. I admit to sometimes finding myself thinking I'm better than someone because of how they communicate . . . but then I realize it's a crappy thing to be thinking and is only my ego talking. . . and I remind myself of this.
I don't think that the development of society is necessarilly so much to blame as extereme overpopulation in societies . . . .
I, personally welcome a full return to nature, as you put it. I am well aware that this means returning myself to my rightful place on the food chain, and having none of the creature comforts that I have now, but it also means a much simpler (compared to modern life) existence, with no high-paced hectic schedules, or the daily responsibilties that we see these days, no need to check my watch every few minutes because I have ten different places different corners of the city to go to, or being surrounded by concrete jungles, car horns, and the presence and stench of there being way too many people in a small area . . . .just survival.
If the whole 2012 thing (as it's portrayed in movies/books, etc. . . I would actually look forward to it, because it would help clear the earth of all man's excessive crap, and would thin the population in a natural way, that doesn't involve genocide by a tyrant with his own agenda.
Even if this resulted in my death (if I turn out to be no good at this type of survival), I would die happy, knowing that I had lived like man was originally meant to.
c.1300, "essential qualities, innate disposition," also "creative power in the material world," from O.Fr. nature, from L. natura "course of things, natural character, the universe," lit. "birth," from natus "born," pp. of nasci "to be born," from PIE *gene- "to give birth, beget" (see genus). Original sense is in human nature. Meaning "inherent, dominating power or impulse" of a person or thing is from c.1386. Contrasted with art since 1704. Nature and nurture have been contrasted since 1874.
..... nothing wrong with a bit of well played violin of course 
