Personal responsibility is not political action. Dumpster diving wouldn't have stopped Hitler. by SignyM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Funny thing is, it boomerangs right back at him:

"Of course, to get to this wonderful place, anyone who disagrees capitalism has to be censored, since they aren't telling "the truth". They have to be re-educated to fit with your world-view and believe the commercials on TV since you've got the simple solution to all the world's complex problems.

I'm sure you'd have no compunction about kicking the stubborn holdouts against capitalism to the curb, since it'd be a cheap price for making a better world for those who buy your line of bullshit.

You really scare me, because you would happily allow folk to lose whichever of their individual freedoms conflict with corporations if it meant things would turn out like you want. What's really funny is that if you got want you want, you'd be next in line for the curb."

Sadly, Geezer can't see it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 17, 2009 8:15 AM

Hey Rue.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Pardon my chiming in, but this is a topic that has been of interest to me for quite a while.

You're pardoned.

I'm a little confused though, you may have to go into a leetle bit more detail with your ideas, if you have the time. This part here, f'rinstance:

Quote:
For anyone to change minds en masse is a remarkable thing. Those visionaries negated lifetimes of cultural conditioning. But as remarkable as they were, what did they accomplish, in the end ? How many people carry those lessons with them today ?

What did they accomplish??? Gandhi, MLK? Really? You don't think they changed history--permanently? And as far as who carries their ideas--people in general? We gotta black President? As I said: confused.

Quote:
OTOH, if you change the environment you de facto change people's minds. You change what they assume, how they rationalize, what they expect. If you remove that big pile of easily dominated fruit you change the chimps' social interactions. If you remove that whole layer of baboon bullies who cornered the local dump you make for a peaceable society.

But to whom are you gonna grant the power to change the environment so drastically? In the case of the chimps, you've got all-powerful human scientists, toying with them--is that the level of social engineering you want to see? And beyond that, are you, personally, so dominated by your environment that you can't imagine other ways of thinking or being? And if you can, do you think you're special in that ability? Again, I'm mostly confused, 'cause I don't see your underlying logic, I just see various disconnected conclusions.

Quote:
I tend to agree with SignyM - society unconsciously responds to meta-conditions. I think of those as things that are generally beyond individual grasp (and perhaps those remarkable people found a way to resolve global conundrums).

Again, are they beyond YOUR grasp? Is the problem simply that human beings in general lack the mental acuity to grasp these things?

Quote:
There were several large-scale thriving societies that made it well beyond agriculture without war, without apparent hierarchy, without concentrated wealth, and mostly without religion. I think we could do much better for ourselves if we could figure out how their societies were arranged, and what they did to escape the cascading effects of agriculture and hierarchies.

Could you name names, please?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 17, 2009 11:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I know Mohenjo-Daro was one, which failed after several hundred years due to river shift (did NOT fall in war). Possibly the Minoan culture on Thera (currently Santorini) destroyed by a volcano.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 17, 2009 11:03 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Could you name names, please?

There was also one in S America - a large, robust and thriving culture which fell to a 500 year drought - but the name escapes me at the moment.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 17, 2009 1:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The name of the city is Caral - from Wiki:

"No trace of warfare has been found at Caral; no battlements, no weapons, no mutilated bodies. Shady's findings suggest it was a gentle society, built on commerce and pleasure. In one of the pyramids, they uncovered 32 flutes made of condor and pelican bones and 37 cornets of deer and llama bones. They also found evidence of drug use and possibly aphrodisiacs. One find revealed the remains of a baby, wrapped and buried with a necklace made of stone beads.

The town had a population of approximately 3000 people. But there are 19 other sites in the area (posted at Caral), allowing for a possible total population of 20,000 people for the Supe valley. All of these sites in the Supe valley share similarities with Caral. They had small platforms or stone circles. Shady (2001) believes that Caral was the focus of this civilization ..."

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 17, 2009 7:16 PM

HK,

I think you bring up a good point. Don't judge. It's a good motto.

But at the same time, I don't think it is mean or judgmental to note that changes in the monkeysphere do not result in large-scale systemic change. I'm not saying they are not valuable, but they are not the same thing. Making one's monkeysphere a nicer place is great, but it should not be thought of as the equivalent of making the world a better place.

Perhaps it boils down to different definitions of "better" and "change." I don't know. I just don't see how someone being kind or living a simpler life or doing any number of individually wonderful things is making a dent in the oppression of the Palestinian people in Israel, or the genocide of the Karen people in Myanmar, or the mass rape and genital mutilation of women in the Congo.

In my view, "change," the large scale systemic change that ripples across the globe, happens in about 3 venues: new technology, economic revolution, and political revolution. Most people do not engage in any of these venues, and do not care to.

That is fine. I just have some difficulty with the delusion that one is contributing their share in making a global difference because one bought carbon credits from a factory in China. Or gave a donation to the Red Cross. Or recycles their soda bottles.

It's a real big personal struggle I have. I feel like I am in a fancy restaurant, looking out at hungry people, some of whom have their noses pressed against the glass, and some of whom are having the shit kicked out of them by bad people.

I look around and I see people donating money to various charities claiming to be helping those hungry folks. They pat themselves on the back for having done "something" or "what they could," and continue to eat their fancy steak dinner.

I am not judging them. I am not saying their money is bad. I am just thinking they shouldn't give money and think that is making a difference or effecting change.

I don't see anyone fighting for the folks out there. Really fighting.

I sit down at my table, and eat my own fancy steak dinner. But I am ill at ease. I know giving money is not sufficient. But I don't know what to do. When do I get up, leave the restaurant, and go do something that would REALLY make a difference for the folks out there?

I hope that makes sense. I am nowhere near as eloquent as you. But those are my thoughts as clearly as I can explain them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 17, 2009 8:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HKC

Well, now I have some time - sorry to take so long to get back to you -

"What did they accomplish??? Gandhi, MLK? Really? You don't think they changed history--permanently? And as far as who carries their ideas--people in general? We gotta black President? As I said: confused."

Many people were personally transformed. But over time the lessons died with those people. As an example: the Indian subcontinent. It is no longer a British colony - but one could argue that that would have happened anyway, as it did with the other British colonies.
As for Gandhi's vision of Hindu and Muslim and Buddhist and Christian and Jew living side by side in peace - not so much. All you have to do is think of the bombing of the Indian Parliament, the sore that is Kashmir, Sri Lanka and the Tamils, the very existence of Pakistan and Bangladesh ... indeed you find Hindu against Buddhist, Muslim against Hindu, Christian against Jew, the upper class against the lower, the owner against the worker ...

The same could be said for MLK and the other visionaries.

The problem with personal transformation is that no matter how sincere, it dies with that person.

That's an issue when it comes to achieving lasting social change.

"But to whom are you gonna grant the power to change the environment so drastically? In the case of the chimps, you've got all-powerful human scientists, toying with them--is that the level of social engineering you want to see? And beyond that, are you, personally, so dominated by your environment that you can't imagine other ways of thinking or being? And if you can, do you think you're special in that ability? Again, I'm mostly confused, 'cause I don't see your underlying logic, I just see various disconnected conclusions."

First of all, the chimp 'experiment' was an inadvertent one made by Jane Goodall trying to study chimps in the jungle. In order to bring them to the clearing where she could see them, she put food out, but happened to put it out in a pile. After a while, she realized that their interactions were pathological, and that when she spread the food out (as would be found in the jungle) the pathological behaviors disappeared. I don't believe it was a matter of an all-powerful scientist running the show - simply a series of accidental observations.

I'm not (a this point) talking about radical experiments on societies, enforced with a heavy hand by the few who claim to know better. For one thing, we don't know enough about what societies respond to.

But I do think it is a fruitful area for study - and a fruitful idea for consideration.

After all, we already have people bound and determined to remake society, and who are actively manipulating us for for THEIR benefit. They are the business-people: men of commerce and industry, cheesemakers and manufacturers of dairy products, men of authority. THEY have no compunction about telling us what we should and should not do, about making some products cheaply but harmfully, about running the place to ruin and telling us if we're not rich it's our fault. THEY have no compunction about wielding the whip hand of starvation and the goad of greed. For every Rue in this world saying that people should be free to choose their destiny, you have at least one Geezer saying people should be free to do things his way. And you always find Geezers in societies like ours. THEY do want their hierarchies and petty divisions.

And once we DO know what society responds to - once we all know - what then do we do with that understanding ? Do YOU see room for us all to decide that a society which serves us ALL better is entirely do-able ? Do YOU think a good portion of humanity can take a voluntary and hopeful step forward ?

(I do.)

"Again, are they beyond YOUR grasp? Is the problem simply that human beings in general lack the mental acuity to grasp these things?"

Yes, they are beyond MY grasp. I can see the potential - smarter people than I will have to elucidate the whole panorama.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 18, 2009 7:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
smarter people than I will have to elucidate the whole panorama

Perhaps many minds together will.

I've given this some thought, and still come back to the idea that personal responsibility (or personal change, if you will) does not equal social change.

Just to give ONE example of the meta-conditions to which people are subject: Modern "human behavior"- particularly with regards to invention- did not begin until populations reached a threshold population density. A similar (older) study showed that certain cultures died out for lack of critical population density and loss of trade. There seems to be a critical mass which allows specialization and exchange of ideas. At the same time, population masses put more focal stress on the environment, which introduces new pressures. In addition, larger population masses allow (not mandate- allow) taller heirarchies, which would simply not be possible in a monkeysphere-sized society.

One of the interesting things about Minoan culture is that the altho the society transitioned from tribalism, it retained its matriarchal/ matrilineal roots. Its possible that Mohenjo-Daro and it sister-cities, as well as the Caral culture traced the same path. That may be one of the critical differences.

In any case, to summarize my point: larger populations allow many more TYPES of interactions than monkeysphere-size populations. Therefore, the feedback mechanisms on these interactions fall outside of the monkeysphere domain.

I regard personal change and personal responsibility as a dead-end for social change in a modern populated setting, UNLESS that change includes the widespread recognition that power relations must be deliberately shifted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 18, 2009 2:57 PM

Hi, CTS, thanks for your reply.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I don't think it is mean or judgmental to note that changes in the monkeysphere do not result in large-scale systemic change. I'm not saying they are not valuable, but they are not the same thing. Making one's monkeysphere a nicer place is great, but it should not be thought of as the equivalent of making the world a better place.

Y'know, this whole monkeysphere idea that there are only a hundred or so people one can really identify with strikes me as pathetically anemic. If I observe someone, apprehend their story, I'm going to identify with them--period--whether it's Tutsis in Rwanda or George W. Bush. I think that's the natural, adult response. I don't have some "oh, those people are on the other side of the globe, or that man is a corrupt bastard, I can't care about them" self-defense running in my head.

On the other hand, I recognize a profound level of personal responsibility in these matters. We, each of us, are not only subject to our suffering but participate in it. That's why removing a person from the original context of their suffering doesn't always end the suffering--people tend to reconstruct their suffering unless they properly examine their personal stake in it. That's why I say healing is an inside job.

Haven't you noticed that political change amounts to little more than a shell game most of the time? I don't think it's just because we have bad options from which to choose, I think it's the nature of the beast.

Quote:
I just don't see how someone being kind or living a simpler life or doing any number of individually wonderful things is making a dent in the oppression of the Palestinian people in Israel, or the genocide of the Karen people in Myanmar, or the mass rape and genital mutilation of women in the Congo.

Certainly not. The premise of the article seems pretty trite, along the lines of "bad things are bad" or "shallow people are shallow." The examples it cites, and those that you offer here are clearly token gestures, and those are always made in bad faith.

But you seem to judge yourself and others by a standard of superheroism. You see a problem and suddenly you think it's incumbent upon you to fix it--sounds a little like our American foreign policy, don'tcha think? Self respect requires that we accept our limitations, otherwise we destroy ourselves, sacrifice ourselves on the altar of perfectionism.

I'm not just talking about people in the far flung Congo, but your best friend who's husband cheated on her here at home--if you know there's something you can do, then you must do it--get busy! But if you don't know, then you're just throwing guilt at the problem and prolly making things worse for the folks who do know what they're doing.

Quote:
In my view, "change," the large scale systemic change that ripples across the globe, happens in about 3 venues: new technology, economic revolution, and political revolution. Most people do not engage in any of these venues, and do not care to.

Yikes! I really gotta challenge this idea that political revolution creates positive change. Look at the most famous revolution in history, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Did that really change things for the people on the ground? Or did the despotic faction ruling those people simply get replaced by another despotic faction? And now that the Berlin Wall is down, are the people in Russia better off because of that? Or are the people in Russia better off because of the slow but inexorable progress the human race is making toward understanding social and psychological reality?

I agree with you that revolutions in technology, revolutions in communication effect real change globally, but I think it's in the nature of perception and the growth of knowledge for this to happen--no one need be a technological activist to make this kind of change happen. The internet and such are making it harder and harder for tyranny to have free reign over its subjects and that's happening world-wide and no one can stop it.

But part and parcel of this information revolution, is the individual connections all of us are making now with people all over the globe: bonds of friendship and kinship. Maybe the idea of a monkeysphere is becoming outdated--maybe it's becoming a monkeynet--points of connection that circle the globe. In my view, the fact that bloggers here in the states are in constant contact with bloggers in Tehran has everything to do with the change people are making over there.

Quote:
It's a real big personal struggle I have. I feel like I am in a fancy restaurant, looking out at hungry people, some of whom have their noses pressed against the glass, and some of whom are having the shit kicked out of them by bad people.

I look around and I see people donating money to various charities claiming to be helping those hungry folks. They pat themselves on the back for having done "something" or "what they could," and continue to eat their fancy steak dinner.

I am not judging them. I am not saying their money is bad. I am just thinking they shouldn't give money and think that is making a difference or effecting change.

It interests me enormously that the issue of self-esteem comes up again and again in this sort of discussion. What is so important to you about what other people do to make themselves feel good? Why shouldn't someone feel good if they're contributing money to a cause that they believe in? I give money every month to the ACLU and I feel really good about that.

Quote:
I don't see anyone fighting for the folks out there. Really fighting.

Maybe it's not your fight? Maybe if you were to join in, you'd just make a mess of it 'cause you don't know what it's really about? I mean, you have a child--surely, you've had to stand back and watch your child struggle, knowing that if you intervened they wouldn't learn fundamental lessons life offers them. I call that respecting your child's process, their individuality. I think that when we look at people in our world we have to be mindful of their process and of our own. All too often, I see the folks who are most obsessed with "all the starving children in Africa" seriously neglecting their own very pressing problems.

Quote:
I sit down at my table, and eat my own fancy steak dinner. But I am ill at ease. I know giving money is not sufficient. But I don't know what to do. When do I get up, leave the restaurant, and go do something that would REALLY make a difference for the folks out there?

When? When you have an idea of what to do, I hope. What more important question is there to answer right now? Well, you'd better answer it, right? No one is gonna answer it for you. And I hope, when you have your answer, that you respect yourself enough to accept that answer.

When 9/11 happened I had half a dozen artistic projects in the works (plays, stories, comix) and I made the decision to lay all of it aside and work on a novel. Here I am 8 years on and I'm nowhere near finished. On the other hand, I have yet to see a work of art that comes close to addressing that day the way I'm trying to. So the work is still worth while to me, still needed, as far as I can see.

Yeah, my big contribution to healing the planet right now is to write a novel. I don't know where that falls in your recycling cans/ending hunger everywhere continuum, but I believe it's the job I'm best suited to doing.

Hey everyone, I cannot recommend more highly Scott Anderson's book, The Man Who Tried to Save the World: The Dangerous Life and Mysterious Disappearance of an American Hero on the life and death of Fred Cuny. http://www.amazon.com/Man-Tried-Save-World-Disappearance/dp/0385486669
I can't imagine anyone who finds these issues remotely interesting not being deeply affected by this man's life.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 18, 2009 6:14 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"If I observe someone, apprehend their story, I'm going to identify with them--period--whether it's Tutsis in Rwanda or George W. Bush."

And what is their response to you ?

That is the essence of the monkeysphere missing from your scenario - their effect on you is present - your feedback on them is not. That is why people can run amok in large societies with multiple levels remote from each other: engaging in aberrant behavior that would not be tolerated if it were only simply visible on the street to random passers-by. It is the lack of direct social feedback by the normative social members.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 18, 2009 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"If I observe someone, apprehend their story, I'm going to identify with them--period--whether it's Tutsis in Rwanda or George W. Bush."

And what is their response to you ?

That is the essence of the monkeysphere missing from your scenario - their effect on you is present - your feedback on them is not. That is why people can run amok in large societies with multiple levels remote from each other: engaging in aberrant behavior that would not be tolerated if it were only simply visible on the street to random passers-by. It is the lack of direct social feedback by the normative social members.

I'm sorry Rue, you've lost me. I don't know what my "feedback on them" would be. Back when the whole monkeysphere thing was brought up I thought it supposedly defined the limits of empathy, the largest body of people that could be considered an "us." Beyond this imagined threshold, everyone is a "them." I don't know if any individual Tutsis would consider me part of their "us." But I don't know that they wouldn't.

So, are you saying that a monkeysphere is bounded by how many people have MUTUAL and DEMONSTRATED empathy? 'Cause that's a pretty tiny number o' people--much tinier than the number of people affected by my adopting a "green lifestyle." So, I'm confused again.

Are you saying that as soon as I don't know what someone is doing, as soon as they have some privacy I cannot penetrate, they could be plotting some evil against me? Honestly, I'm really sick of this whole monkeysphere thing--seems it's too ill defined and I never thought much of it to begin with. If I brought it up, I'm sorry. I'm really not understanding what you mean with this post. "Multiple levels" of what? "Normative social members" who?

I'm goin' on a road trip for the next 4 days so I may not be able to respond right away. I still intend to reply to you previous post as well.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 18, 2009 11:29 PM

Two points.

Quote:
"Haven't you noticed that political change amounts to little more than a shell game most of the time? I don't think it's just because we have bad options from which to choose, I think it's the nature of the beast."

Quote:
"Yikes! I really gotta challenge this idea that political revolution creates positive change."

Again, it falls back to playing in the card sharpers house, at his table, at his game, by his rules, with his marked deck.

At least have the decency to cheat, yes ?

We MUST stop playing by the "rules" which the powers that be inflict upon us for the specific reason of making us unable to assail their established social order, or there's just no point to any of it, it was this realisation in the first place which eventually drove me to Anarchism.

If mankind has one redeeming quality on a social level, it is the ability and willingness to commit Heresy.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 18, 2009 11:39 PM

AFTERTHOUGHT.

Oh yes, I do believe I can indeed provide an example of the kind of change we're discussing.

Point of fact: It's not "OK" to beat your wife any more.

And by that change women finally got elevated from "property" to "people".
Now if only folks would realise the same bullshit excuses for mistreating your wife are no more valid when applied to your kids, we'd be getting somewhere.

Civilisation was just a beginning, it's the floor, not the ceiling.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 19, 2009 1:30 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Yikes! I really gotta challenge this idea that political revolution creates positive change. Look at the most famous revolution in history, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Did that really change things for the people on the ground?

Look at that *other* famous revolution in history, the American Revolution. Did it change things for the people on the ground? Did it change them for the better?

On the other hand, I didn't see CTS claim that those three engines of change were always about POSITIVE change, but rather large-scale, systemic change.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 19, 2009 5:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think there are several underlying forces of "human nature" and "human society" at work:

People are cooperative.
People tend to identify with those in power. (Stockholm syndrome at extreme... but there are other studies backing this up.)
Cooperative behavior is more productive overall, BUT...
There is a minimum threshold of cooperative behavior required to sustain it.

As things are today, roughly 600 people own approximately 50% of the world's assets. That is a vanishingly small percentage and seemingly SHOULD be overwhelmed by the vast majority of which the system currently robs. But as Frem rightly points out, they could not do this by themselves, but require a phalanx of enablers and rules: "property rights", money, weapons. So I wonder: what is the MINIMUM percentage of cooperative behavior (or non-cooperative with current 'authority) required for a velvet revolution and a self sustaining system? 10%? 50%? Recent history indicates roughly 50%, perhaps more. But recent history (eastern Europe) also indicates its not enough to say "no". You have to put a system in place which will take the place of the current system and all its functions, otherwise you will prolly wind up with a lawless system in which the corrupt (mafia) quickly take hold of society again.

So my guess is that you would need roughly 85%-90% of all people willing to play by the new rules because (unfortunately) in the transition (power vacuum) SOME will take power. Also, people have to be willing to act in a UNITED fashion, they have to be consciously thinking about power and how to take it, whether that is by rolling boycott or mass non-cooperation.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 19, 2009 7:30 AM

Well, a point of that is HOW willing.

I would take 20,000 folks willing to dump a little sand in the gears on an occasional basis, over 20 who would fanatically do so constantly.

I would take the half-hearted and lukewarm support of 20,000 people over the rabid loyalty of 20.

Think for a while about how prohibition was broken - it wasn't by fanaticism, it was by simple apathy towards the "rules" which everyone thought asinine, which is why the powers that be have done a psychological end-run by wasting public monies to demonise and then commit prohibition via taxation.

All it really takes is enough loss of SUPPORT, and the established system will collapse of it's own weight, although likely in a vicious fashion like a snake feeding on it's own tail, alas.

And all THAT takes is ordinary folks not supportin it - you can leave the rabid hoo-rah kill-the-peon jackboot lovers to us - all that WE ask is for you to gently and politely look the other way.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 19, 2009 6:23 PM

Edit to add: Oh my God. I'm sorry this is so long. Looked like I got mouth diarrhea. I was just thinking out loud.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
]Y'know, this whole monkeysphere idea that there are only a hundred or so people one can really identify with strikes me as pathetically anemic.

Maybe there is another way to look at it.

In the movie, 10000 BC, they told a story: “A good man draws a circle around him, and in it he cares for his family, his wife and children. A great man draws a larger circle including his brothers, his friends, and protects them as he would his family. But then there is the rare man who has a special destiny. His circle extends beyond boundaries to include the world of innocents who lack the will to defend themselves.”

I don't think the "monkeysphere" is ever an absolute number. It is different for different people, and different for the same person at different points in his/her life. Some people have a monkeysphere of one. Some people draw larger circles. I think 100 or 150 is just speculation anyway, a probability at best.

Quote:
That's why removing a person from the original context of their suffering doesn't always end the suffering--people tend to reconstruct their suffering unless they properly examine their personal stake in it. That's why I say healing is an inside job.

Perhaps ultimate healing is an inside job. But you get get 99% healing sometimes simply from changing the situation. A woman who is dying in a line of thousands outside a genital reconstruction clinic could get a great deal of significant healing from the right surgery. The rest has to come from inside yes--the healing to defend herself, the healing to forgive herself, etc. But not being able to heal someone else 100% doesn't mean one should try to help others heal as much as possible.

Quote:

Haven't you noticed that political change amounts to little more than a shell game most of the time? I don't think it's just because we have bad options from which to choose, I think it's the nature of the beast.

If you're talking about changes in presidents, I have no argument there. That is like saying I've changed Masters, from Masser Smith to Masser Johnson. Doesn't matter if I am still a slave.

But there are other more systemic political changes that really make a difference--not always for the better. Iran changed a great deal when they went from the Shah to the Ayatollah. Americans changed a great deal when they went from King George to President George. The Chinese experienced great changes when they went from Emperors to Communists. Political revolutions, I mean the violent ones, effect huge changes.

Quote:

But you seem to judge yourself and others by a standard of superheroism. You see a problem and suddenly you think it's incumbent upon you to fix it--sounds a little like our American foreign policy, don'tcha think? Self respect requires that we accept our limitations, otherwise we destroy ourselves, sacrifice ourselves on the altar of perfectionism.

I understand what you are saying. I have spoken against the "rescuer complex" or the "savior complex" many times myself. We cannot rescue everyone. In fact, we mustn't rescue everyone. Most times, people are much much better off rescuing themselves. Rescue causes dependency, whereas self-rescue causes empowerment. I support a non-interfering foreign policy for precisely that reason, though of course, it often gets accused of being isolationist. It is not just for the sake of our own self-respect, but for the sake of the would-be rescuee.

Quote:
But if you don't know, then you're just throwing guilt at the problem and prolly making things worse for the folks who do know what they're doing.

Agreed. Nothing worse than ignorant meddling!

Quote:
I really gotta challenge this idea that political revolution creates positive change.

Most of the time you are right. Political revolutions are just coups.

But sometimes political revolutions are not. I think the American Revolution is a good example. The Indian Revolution is another. The American Emancipation and the Civil Rights revolution are still others. Sometimes, revolutions actually change the way people think, change what they accept as right and rights, change the amount of power people have over themselves.

Quote:
I agree with you that revolutions in technology, revolutions in communication effect real change globally, but I think it's in the nature of perception and the growth of knowledge for this to happen--no one need be a technological activist to make this kind of change happen.

But you do! Gone are the days when you can just invent something and change the world, like Tesla did. Now you have to have a lot of political savvy and huge amounts of capital to fight the conglomerates, on TOP of technological intelligence.

Quote:
It interests me enormously that the issue of self-esteem comes up again and again in this sort of discussion. What is so important to you about what other people do to make themselves feel good? Why shouldn't someone feel good if they're contributing money to a cause that they believe in? I give money every month to the ACLU and I feel really good about that.

No, no, no--I don't mind if they feel good. They should. I just gave a loan to some lady on Kiva.org and I feel really good too. I don't begrudge anyone the sense of self-esteem.

What I have a problem with, is when people perceive what little they did as making a difference "in the world," as if it were enough. I gave one lady a loan. There are 10 million others who don't have a loan, who are struggling to eat. I feel it is important to put our actions in context, that it doesn't make any difference in the larger world, and it isn't nearly enough. We are just throwing spoonfuls in the river, when what we really need is a dam.

I apologize that I am not explaining myself well. Feeling good about contributing our spoonful is great; but deluding ourselves into believing those spoonfuls is changing the river is not.

Quote:
Maybe it's not your fight?

Maybe whether it is my fight or not depends on how large a circle I draw?

Quote:
Maybe if you were to join in, you'd just make a mess of it 'cause you don't know what it's really about?

Then wouldn't it be my responsibility, as step 1 of joining the fight intelligently, to diligently learn what it's really about?

But most people won't even take step 1.

Quote:
I mean, you have a child--surely, you've had to stand back and watch your child struggle, knowing that if you intervened they wouldn't learn fundamental lessons life offers them.

That goes back to the self-rescue we talked about earlier, the empowerment process. I get it. Some situations do call for that. I think Iraq was a prime example. If the Iraqis really wanted to get rid of Saddam, they needed to do it on their own. Sort of what the Iranians are doing now.

But there are circumstances that call for a real rescue. If my kid is being repeatedly teased by a playground bully, yes, my kid has to learn to fight the bully off themselves. But if my kid is being repeatedly raped by the playground bully, that's a different story. Then it is time for intervention.

There is such a thing as overwhelming oppression that one cannot take on without help, or such severe oppression that one cannot wait for the slow process of self-empowerment to kick in. Some situations really do call for external involvement.

Quote:
When you have an idea of what to do, I hope.

I previously said this would be the first step: researching what to do before jumping in. But your answer just put it into absolute clarity. The first step is not getting an idea of what to do, but to decide to do something to begin with. That is the first step: choosing to stay out or to get in. Once you choose to get in, then you start studying when and where to jump in.

Maybe my frustration, if it even is frustration, is that most of the people with the means to help fight the wars are choosing not to jump in at all. They are just living their lives, as if the wars don't exist, and Disneyworld is real.

Quote:

Yeah, my big contribution to healing the planet right now is to write a novel. I don't know where that falls in your recycling cans/ending hunger everywhere continuum, but I believe it's the job I'm best suited to doing.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I am not going to judge where your novel falls in that continuum. I am not trying to measure who is giving enough and who isn't.

Your point clarifies what I am concerned about. Choosing to commit one's life, one's efforts to healing the world in the first place. Step number one: choosing to jump in. Wars are complex, multi-faceted dynamics. There is a place for all talents and all roles. I don't really care about what people actually do, as much as I care that they are joining the fight.

So it brings to clarity to my own dilemma. I know what is bugging me now. Not when to jump in. I've already decided to jump in the "fight" to heal the world. I already know what to do. My dilemma is really how much I'm committing to the effort. Am I only fighting as a hobby, or part time, or full time? Is your novel taking all of your reasonable resources, while keeping it at a sustainable pace, or is it just an amusement on the side?

So, to come back to the original point, I think many people are not committed to the "war" if you will, to heal the world, but dabble in little heal-the-world hobbies for self-amusement--while deluding themselves that they are part of the "war." I don't really care what exactly they are doing, as long as they are giving it as much as they can.

Really, it is not my place to judge either way.

I'll look up this book your recommended, thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2009 5:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HKC

"So, are you saying that a monkeysphere is bounded by how many people have MUTUAL and DEMONSTRATED empathy?"

Almost (minus the empathy):

Monkeysphere - aka Dunbar's number:

WIKI
"Primatologists have noted that, due to their highly social nature, non-human primates have to maintain personal contact with the other members of their social group, usually through grooming. Such social groups function as protective cliques within the physical groups in which the primates live. The number of social group members a primate can track appears to be limited by the volume of the neocortex region of their brain. This suggests that there is a species-specific index of the social group size, computable from the species' mean neocortex volume.

In a 1992 article, Dunbar used the correlation observed for non-human primates to predict a social group size for humans. Using a regression equation on data for 38 primate genera, Dunbar predicted a human "mean group size" of 148 (casually rounded to 150), a result he considered exploratory due to the large error measure (a 95% confidence interval of 100 to 230)."

While it has been popularized as the number of people one feels a personal connection with (and therefore, empathy for) it is in fact about MUTUAL recognition within a GROUP.

George HW Bush has no mutual relationship with you. Therefore, you are not in the same monkeysphere.

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

HAVE A GOOD ROAD TRIP !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2009 5:58 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I used to have a sig line that went: "the hardest thing to change is a mind". It's a topic that I haven't gotten to the end of, and I'll probably be revising my ideas for as long as I live.

Recently I've been wondering about people who were abused in childhood. (I know a few.) I think the point of healing is to be able to move on - to have new ideas, new reactions, new feelings, new possibilites.

Some people, I suspect, do manage this through a review and understanding of their past. By this review they then can incorporate their trauma, learn from it, and grow beyond it. The people that I know personally, though, seem to be stuck in their pasts. Review, reflection, and thought about those pasts seem to be more of a reinforcement of them. They keep trudging the same old roads and rehearsing the same old reactions. And, inevitably it keeps them focused on the past.

And so I now question the assumption that this kind of process is ALWAYS good for everyone. Sometimes it seems counterproductive.

Recently I've been thinking that maybe there is a different way to deal with the past, and to get positive change. Maybe one answer is to put it aside for a while: to say yes, it was bad, I didn't deserve it, but it's over. Maybe by setting aside the past and living in the present you can create a new set of reactions and expectations. Maybe you can gain a NEW perspective that will, over time, allow you to eventually put your past in a larger context, and so, overcome it.

I think society is the same way.

Sometimes you have people of such clarity they can change many, many minds with their reflections about the past and their resolution of it.

And sometimes, you need to change the circumstances of people's lives through structural social change.

Finally, I wonder - if we DID understand the large-scale drivers of society, would that not be a hopeful thing ? After all, most people (not all) do what they do because they are making the best decisions thay can with the information available. That infomation today is terribly incomplete and severely corrupted with the ideas put in place by those in power. What if we knew - really knew - what it took to have a society like the one in Caral ?

Would not most people choose it ?

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2009 6:46 AM

Rue, M'lady - I sincerely recommend you read the articles in this place.
http://www.alice-miller.com/articles_en.php

Given the mental "place" you're at with this, doing so will save you a great deal of needless duplication of effort and perhaps even offer insight into potential solutions for those people you know struggling with such issues.

Quote:
Some people, I suspect, do manage this through a review and understanding of their past. By this review they then can incorporate their trauma, learn from it, and grow beyond it. The people that I know personally, though, seem to be stuck in their pasts. Review, reflection, and thought about those pasts seem to be more of a reinforcement of them. They keep trudging the same old roads and rehearsing the same old reactions. And, inevitably it keeps them focused on the past.

Especially cognizant, that.

However, rather than trying to heal that problem on an individual level, what I am focusing on bit by bit, is doing so on a social level, and to my credit I have indeed accomplished a great part of that in removing one of the strongest sources of that infection.
(i.e. kicking the ass of the hellcamps till they ain't got one no more.)

Every life I've touched and helped has the potential to help others in the same fashion, it's part and parcel of all that we are, you see ?

And by that means one droplet becomes a dribble, becomes a stream, a river, and on one day a glorious waterfall with rainbows shining behind it - but only if we try.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:52 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Frem,

That you have dreams after what you've gone through is a tribute and a testament to the best that can be found in the human spirit.

That your dreams are so AWESOMELY MAGNIFICENT is a miracle.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

To pick up on some ideas that have been scattered across a few threads:

As some people on these threads have demonstrated - while it may be one potential ideal to get rid of all rules, as a society we are not there yet. Our society is full of people who would take advantage.

But I have a more essential issue with that as an ideal. A little story first, though:

The Mayans were extremely warlike and quite warlike on their own people, what with the wars and sacrifices and all that, when it came to the hierarchy and the 'gods'. It just goes to show you how MUCH people will put up with when it comes to a predatory social hierarchy.

My understanding is that the sacrifices were at first merely ritualistic: the chief\ priest would pierce his penis (ouch) (or tongue or earlobe), drip some of the blood on paper, and burn it in sacrifice to the gods. As time went on, I'm guessing that it didn't always work so well, and so, the answer was to 'up' the sacrifice with enemies captured in war, or even MORE enemies captured in war ... and so on.

No on really knows what happened to the Maya.

But because their cities don't seem to bear the scars of war or revolt, it's assumed they underwent some decline - a few have suggested the people simply got tired of rituals and rules that failed to deliver the goods (good crops and prosperity) and quietly melted back into the jungle.

That's probably the best result you can get when you no longer have rules - or, at least, people who follow them.

But who wants to live as a short-lived and parasite-ridden individual scratching in the jungle when you can live in Caral ? There are benefits after all to living in complex societies that have a set of rules. And so I think that SOME rules are good things - common standards of behavior, common goals, common beliefs, and common benefits.

In order to get there from here, we HAVE to assume that societies can, and must, set up rules, formal or not. I would be really curious to find out what the rules were in Caral, in Minoa, and in Mohenjo-Daro. Wouldn't you ?

Oh yeah - for people who follow these things, when it comes to the Maya, remember December 21, 2012.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:21 AM

Really I think the basic keystone of those societys was naught more than simple respect of each others personhood, which they managed to successfully pass onto each succeeding generation of their children.

I'd be most interested to find out what their childrearing practices were, more than any other facet of their society, cause I think the key would lie within that.

As for dreams, they didn't start out like that, I got into this as a young and bitter cynic bordering on outright nihilism who wanted only one thing - to destroy this societies ability to create another "me".

And into that dark bitter soil went a seed of pure fury, watered by hate, nurtured with violence, and yet, somehow a flower grew, as through my war against it, my understanding of how folks like me came to be gave me far more powerful and effective weapons than violence, and through them, the ability to cast aside hate and fury save for when nothing less awful would serve, rather than clinging to them in desperate frenzy.

And against all odds, here I stand, as the hellcamps collapse into decay and disorder, and when I look behind me I see as triumph not the carnage, but all those who were rescued from it, all those who will be spared from it, and all the mercy and compassion they learned from someone most assume to have nearly none.

Any spark, however dim, can light the torch of another, to burn brighter in their wake - once you know that, there's no reason to dream lesser dreams.

-Frem

PS. Interesting take on a similar sentiment, in the Anime Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz, Milliardo outright states this exact concept as his purpose for entering a hopeless fight made all the worse by his intent to fight it without killing anyone.

"If we let Mariemaia do this, the world will give rise to a second Milliardo Peacecraft!"

If you're going to take "revenge" that's the way to do it - end the chain of suffering.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Really I think the basic keystone of those societys was naught more than simple respect of each others personhood, which they managed to successfully pass onto each succeeding generation of their children."

It's something to try to learn, for sure.

It's also occurred to me that maybe they went through something like what the peaceable baboons went through - a major event wiped out the violent ones. And what was left behind was an ethic - we just don't do that kind of thing here.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:08 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"
As for dreams, they didn't start out like that, I got into this as a young and bitter cynic bordering on outright nihilism who wanted only one thing - to destroy this societies ability to create another "me".

And into that dark bitter soil went a seed of pure fury, watered by hate, nurtured with violence, and yet, somehow a flower grew, as through my war against it, my understanding of how folks like me came to be gave me far more powerful and effective weapons than violence, and through them, the ability to cast aside hate and fury save for when nothing less awful would serve, rather than clinging to them in desperate frenzy.

And against all odds, here I stand, as the hellcamps collapse into decay and disorder, and when I look behind me I see as triumph not the carnage, but all those who were rescued from it, all those who will be spared from it, and all the mercy and compassion they learned from someone most assume to have nearly none.

Any spark, however dim, can light the torch of another, to burn brighter in their wake - once you know that, there's no reason to dream lesser dreams."

This is why I respect you, Frem.

I completely understand. However, Im still waiting for my "flower" to grow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:18 AM

Frem, a quick question.

Are you against corporal punishment of any kind at any age?

I am reading Alice Miller per your suggestion and see that she is adamantly against even a slap on the wrist. Just curious if you agree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:18 AM

Wulf

Quote:
I completely understand. However, Im still waiting for my "flower" to grow.

Then lemme water it for you - not only must you ruthlessly question your own perceptions at the boundaries and foundations...

But also you should understand that many of your "opponents" are actually badly damaged allies, trapped by ignorance, abuse, blinded by desperation and rage, wound up in the very same trap that their presence helps reinforce.

Destroying them gains you nothing but one less, easily replaceable foot soldier of the other side - but cutting them free, while more effort intensive, brings with it the chance of multiplying your own forces by that much, as they turn and start helping do the same.

You ever played Go ?
Learn.

CTS

Quote:
Are you against corporal punishment of any kind at any age?

Hell yes.

That doesn't mean that I will fanatically blow a gasket at someone who fails to live up to a standard that for them is near impossible cause of instincts wired from birth to accept it - but it does mean I consider the whole idea of striking someone to modify their behavior completely idiotic, especially in light of the same justifications for striking your children were once applied to striking your wife.

You shouldn't hit people, children are people.

That's also not to say I wouldn't pick up and hold steady a three year old who was violently acting out or step between a pair of fighting ten year olds to seperate them, or even bodycheck a suicidal fourteen year old girl who steps in front of an oncoming bus - what it means is that I am wholly against striking someone with intent to cause pain as behavior modification, because when you frame it in an accurate perspective like that, it brings up the ugly word of what it really is.

Torture.

One note I should make on this however, is that I do have something of an unfair advantage over most folk, in that the moment I make touch contact with a distraught person there's an immediate calming effect, HOW that works we've no idea, just a couple of theories, but it does work, you're welcome to speculate if you like.

The other edge is actually winning a childs respect - the girl I built the dollhouse for, even before that, one disapproving look from me was more effective and immediate in impact than any number of her mothers threats, and then there's being rung up on the phone to ask my niece to do stuff cause she WILL do so if I ask it, and my own sister can't seem to get it through her thick head why.

Once you've earned a childs respect, you ain't never gonna NEED to enforce your will in a physical fashion, and not only does that benefit you, it benefits THEM, cause they will internalise and learn self-discipline enough to keep themselves out of trouble, all down the rest of their lives.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:35 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Frem,

At least you had a target.

I have to change the hearts and minds of these slow, sheeple.

And...truth be told, hitting someone to break their trance is the fastest, most efficient way to crack the spell.

Whether its with words or with fists, sometimes you have to smack someone upside the head to clear their mind.

One of the reasons Im so rough with folks here. (That includes Rue and Sig)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:08 PM

Thanks, Frem. Well argued. I'm very ambivalent about it myself. I used to be very much against all corporal punishment. But I used "time outs" with my first kid, and it was literally torture. I don't see how time outs are any more moral than a slap on the wrist.

So now I am in the position of weighing using no punishment at all vs the various forms of punishment (some call it discipline, but it really is just punishment) that are either widely accepted or not.

That is why I am open to ideas. I like the idea of no punishments at all. Just not quite sure how to implement it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:11 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I swear to God, this was what it was like waking up in my old bed, back in Jersey when I was a kid...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:17 PM

Posted by Wulf:

Quote:
Whether its with words or with fists, sometimes you have to smack someone upside the head to clear their mind.

You just convinced me of the evils of smacking people upside the head for their own good.

--------------------------
Correlation does not equal causation

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:20 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Really?

Well, then Ive won one for the gipper.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Frem, At least you had a target. I have to change the hearts and minds of these slow, sheeple. And...truth be told, hitting someone to break their trance is the fastest, most efficient way to crack the spell. Whether its with words or with fists, sometimes you have to smack someone upside the head to clear their mind. One of the reasons Im so rough with folks here. (That includes Rue and Sig)

Wulf, how do you know we're not looking back at you, smiling and shaking our heads?

Also, the vid won't play. Can you give us some kind of indication what it means?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:23 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Sig,

Youtube.

Band: Boxcar Racer

Song: I Feel So.

and... just click the link, after it says "disabled".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:27 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Lyrics to "I Feel So"

Sometimes
I wish I was brave
I wish I was stronger
I wish I could feel no pain
I wish I was young
I wish I was shy
I wish I was honest
I wish I was you not I

'Cause I feel so mad
I feel so angry
I feel so callused
So lost, confused, again
I feel so cheap
So used, unfaithful
Let's start over
Let's start over

Sometimes
I wish I was smart
I wish I made cures for
How people are
I wish I had power
I wish I could lead
I wish I could change the world
For you and me

'Cause I feel so mad
I feel so angry
I feel so callused
So lost, confused, again
I feel so cheap
So used, unfaithful
Let's start over
Let's start over

'Cause I feel so mad
I feel so angry
I feel so callused
So lost, confused, again
I feel so cheap
So used, unfaithful
Let's start over
Let's start over

I feel so mad
I feel so angry
I feel so callused
So lost, confused, again
I feel so cheap
So used, unfaithful
Let's start over
Let's start over
Let's start over

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:38 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"An error occurred. Please try later." (again!)

But thnx for the lyrics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"At least you had a target."

But you DO have a target - only you're too stupid to see it. It's not the other victims - it's the people who run the show. The ones who put us in the arena with not quite enough for everyone so we have to fight each other for what's there.

Get a grip. Or a brain.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:31 PM

CTS

I've found that the whole concept of "making it right" works far better than some arbitrary punishment that does no one any realistic good.

You make a mess, you clean it - you broke it, you fix it or replace it, you wrong someone, you go to them and find a way to redeem yourself with them.

The tricky part of that for most folk is when more than one kid is involved, or there is a fight between them - but it's not as complex as most folk seem to think to sort out WHY a fight started, if you override the social stupidities of "all children are lying manipulators" and "their opinion means nothing" and actually discuss it like people - children are actually no good at lying, they lack the practice to keep a story consistent, and they learn that crap from us anyways, reinforced by the way we force them to parrot back our socially-acceptable lies when they can clearly see the truth.

One of the worst wrongs you can visit upon a child is to punish them for an act of self-defense, which is often enough what happens when some damned lazy school administrator cannot be bothered to actually do their job, get to know their students and simply chooses a policy of suspending both parties to a fight - I blew the hell out of that one in middle school by letting some other kid pound me in front of the whole class, the teacher, and the assistant principal - and it was worth it to me in order to expose the unfairness and stupidity of that policy.

Of course, once the adults precious egos got involved in it, I wound up takin worse and worse flak for even the most minor pretenses, and since I was gonna catch hell for stuff ANYWAYS....

The quickest way there is to shatter discipline and mutual respect between an adult and a child is to punish them for something they didn't do, or because they wounded your pride or ego, this reaffirms the truth of the world they are exposed to in public school, that it's all a sham and an excuse for the powerful to abuse the powerless - and sets them wanting that power for themselves, and leads down some very dark roads indeed.

As for self-defense, and my rabidity about it, one reason many adults are so quick to act against it even when you'd think they should know better, is that somewhere in the back of their mind that control issue pops up "I let this go and someday they'll defend themselves against ME!" - and so they feel the need to beat it down, lest they one day wind up on it's receiving end.

Damn sure my father did, if he hadn't left he was gonna have to sleep damn lightly for the rest of his days, and short enough those woulda been - and every time I see someone hell bent on removing my right or ability to defend myself I see that look in my fathers eyes when he realized what I had done - yeah, sure, he wanted me to put the knife down, and I knew WHY he wanted me to do that.

And while at that age I wouldn't have understood it even if you tried to explain it to me, "Molon Labe!" was indeed prettymuch the concept goin on in my little head at the time.

He packed his stuff and went.

Once I learned the dirty little secret behind the adult world, and later the powers that be, not liking the concept of self defense because it was a threat to them, I became a rather rabid advocate of the concept.

Every time you punish a child for what they perceive to be an act of self defense, you're setting up a reckoning, between your world and theirs, and some day that bill is gonna get paid in full - isn't it better to educate them in other ways of conflict resolution and de-escalation, rather than teaching them to roll over to superior force ?

Our force-control-more force methodology doesn't accomplish anything but emotionally stunting them, socially cripples them, and strips them of the very human empathy they need to become better people, warping them into twisted, darker copies of ourselves.

I understood this on a conceptual level by the time I was ten, and where it would eventually lead us by the time I was twelve, and it was the source of much frustration and anger that of course no one would listen to me about it cause children are after all, subhuman and lesser beings who's thoughts and opinions are worth nothing.

What I do, is I LISTEN, when a kid speaks to me, I give them the same consideration as any other person, rather than the begrudging patronising which is all they get from most adults - and because of that, I get more than the well trained socially acceptable challenge-response parroting we've taught them - but if they don't think you're going to actually listen and give credence to what they're telling you, they *will* lie to you, and tell you what they think you wanna hear.

There's a huge, huge difference in those two things.

More to it, but I am outta time here, gotta suit up and walk perimeter for site three.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:02 AM

Frem,

Thank you. Thank you very much. What you say makes so much complete sense I don't know why I never thought of it myself. Too much brainwashing about "time outs."

I totally get what you say about self-defense.

Here is a stupid question for you, if you don't mind. I have 3 kids, and they are always fighting. Once I tried just letting them sort it out, but I found that my oldest would hit her younger brother just for brushing up against her by accident. So I removed the privilege/right of hitting him back. She was hitting him back too much for no good reason.

I could restore her right to hit him back when he hits her first. But how do I keep her from hitting him "back" when he doesn't? Talk to her? Teach her to use better judgment?

You know, you really ought to write a book. Seems a pity that only RWED'ers get the benefit of your experience and insight.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:15 AM

CTS

Quote:
Here is a stupid question for you, if you don't mind. I have 3 kids, and they are always fighting. Once I tried just letting them sort it out, but I found that my oldest would hit her younger brother just for brushing up against her by accident. So I removed the privilege/right of hitting him back. She was hitting him back too much for no good reason.

I could restore her right to hit him back when he hits her first. But how do I keep her from hitting him "back" when he doesn't? Talk to her? Teach her to use better judgment?

Actually, although it comes from what you'd think at first a strange source for that kind of information, I believe the understanding you are looking for can be found here.

Personal and Shared Space
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/personalshared.html

Pyramid of Personal Safety
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/pyramid.html

That, with careful observation and a clear understanding amongst all parties of where the limits are should work wonders on the situation.

I also highly, HIGHLY reccommend Marcs work as a whole, cause it's well worth the time investment.

Quote:
You know, you really ought to write a book. Seems a pity that only RWED'ers get the benefit of your experience and insight.

Not just RWED, not by far - I work under many names, both online and off - I just happen to hang out here, in a shoot the breeze, water cooler fashion, with folk who's company I've grown to appreciate even if I don't always agree.

I can be less serious and less diplomatic around here too, which is always refreshing.

As for books, I've been really beaten to it by others, but I'll offer suggestions.

For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374522693/ncp-20

Another Chance to Get It Right
http://www.amazon.com/Another-Chance-Get-Right-3rd/dp/156971830X

Help at Any Cost
http://www.amazon.com/Help-Any-Cost-Maia-Szalavitz/dp/1594489106/

Also worth a note, come to find out that the Swarm-Theory Meritocracy by which the establishment* I founded is run - has actually been adopted in other places to the point where it's actually drawn some level of notice, you might look into something called the "Sudbury Model" of education/operation for your own interest, also.

-Frem

*That establishment is collectively known as CoTL, or "Church of The Lost", since at this point there's no real need for secrecy anymore, it's not just a rumor, it really does exist.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:50 PM

Thanks for the links. Most are in my wishlist now. I've been fascinated by swarm theory.

You'll have to elaborate on Swarm Theory Meritocracy. Doesn't take much of a leap to follow the two concepts combined, but I would love to hear how you are implementing it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:52 PM

Basically, it eliminates the whole "who's in charge" wrangling, is what it does.

Some problem comes up, everyone reacts by lookin at the person who they think is most likely to have the skills and ability to solve it - whoever the most folk happen to be lookin at gets stuck with the job, unless they have other obligations that prevent them, or for whatever reason don't happen to have any more idea than the rest of em.

Many cases that was me, save for situations where I might get a chance to successfully indulge my vengeful nature out of the public eye, which resulted in someone always being sent with as a minder cause I won't do that kinda thing in front of one of my own and they knew it, curses...

And it made the words "I have no idea" kind of a recurring meme.

Irony about it is, that kind of thing happens in many workplaces too.
"Oh crap, the copier is broke again!"
And sure enough, every one immediately looks right at the poor technically inclined slob who somehow managed to fix it last time, don't they ?

The refined version works in circles - you got the guy who knows how to do the thing, and then the guys who have enough of a clue about it to function as assistants, and then you got the spear carriers, none of whom bear a whit of resentment about it cause the important thing is getting the thing done quickly and efficiently.

The more complex the task, the more circles to it there are, and as always the human element of folks with family needs, people who have to handle other operations, watch the office, etc.

But there's no lasting heirarchy, you see - the instant the job is done we all fall back into just folk, and one of the grunts today might be the chief tomorrow, or an hour later, when something within his baliwick pops up.

The Sudbury Model seems to be someone applying this concept to education, far as I understand it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 30, 2009 4:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

To get back to the parenting issue:

While there are extremely abusive people who should never be parents - it would be hard to argue than anyone is perfect, or ever could be. If perfection is the standard for parenting - I have never so much as raised my voice - no one would ever be parents, not even the fairly decent folk.
Reading just the introduction to the Miller book, and some of the reviews, I could apply every cultural criticism to China - way back when, or now. Or India. Or Pakistan. Or Kenya. Or Chile ... I would be hard pressed to find ANY country, ANY culture, in ANY era, that gets it perfectly.

There is such as thing as good enough.

I say this also recognizing that some people have serious issues to resolve relating to extreme family violence.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:03 PM

Quote:
There is such as thing as good enough.

Ayep, the important thing is that they TRY.

Hence my not-blowin-gaskets comment earlier.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:05 PM

The Sudbury model sounds a lot like what we in homeschooling circles call "unschooling."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:52 PM